Scars of Dracula.

Review #2106: Scars of Dracula.

Cast: 

Dennis Waterman (Simon Carlson), Christopher Lee (Count Dracula), Jenny Hanley (Sarah Framsen), Christopher Matthews (Paul Carlson), Patrick Troughton (Klove), Anouska Hempel (Tania), Michael Ripper (Landlord), and Michael Gwynn (The Priest) Directed by Roy Ward Baker (#1742 - The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires)

Review: 

The Hammer rendition of Dracula had a strange experiment of sorts in 1970. Consider the fact that it saw two films released involving Christopher Lee in the title role: Taste the Blood of Dracula was released in May while this film was released in November, complete with being released on the same day as The Horror of Frankenstein (1970). The film starts with, well, a sort-of resurrection sequence for Dracula, which involves a bat (on a string) throwing up blood onto him while he is around in a stone chamber totally closed off to all except, well, bats. The attempt by the villagers to strike upon the castle and take down Dracula only results in a burnt castle and the death of several people by vampire bats when the villagers arrive back to the churches to their loved ones. It takes about a third of the film (one that lasts 95 minutes) before one gets to hear Lee speak, which works out perhaps a bit better this time around when it comes to plot construction, or at least the idea of it. Lee was quite busy in the role of Dracula that year, since he also starred in Count Dracula (1970), the Jesus Franco production that somehow wasn't any better than the Hammer Dracula films, and Baker was busy with vampire films too with the release of The Vampire Lovers (1970). The script was written by Anthony Hinds, who actually was the son of William Hinds, the founder of Hammer Film Productions (it was Anthony who had suggested Hammer go after the screen rights to The Quartermass Experiment from the BBC). He had written for the previous four Dracula films (The Brides of Dracula, Dracula: Prince of Darkness, Dracula Has Risen from the Grave and Taste, respectively)

The series was already quite over-the-top if you think about it, considering that one of them saw the vampire get taken down by running water (or having three films in a row where the lead male presence besides Lee plays a character named Paul), so the idea of him going around using a knife on someone and then sucking their blood is about on point. The film does dwell a bit on the gore when it comes to the opening (vampire bat ravaging, anyone?), which probably is there to make up for a story that is paler than the previous renditions. It is evident where Hammer would get the idea to try and revitalize the series with "A.D. 1972", that is for sure, and it starts with thinking to do anything other than try another weak lead to counter the title character. Lee had grown tired of the role even before the release of his final film as Dracula (he often stated that the scripts seemed as if Dracula was added in later), but at least one can detect where he tried his best to capture what he felt was defined by Bram Stoker in the original novel when it comes to (in his words) "aloof majesty, ferocity of dignity, and of somber mystery". In short, there are no bad performances when it comes to Lee as Dracula. The bar for the films with him may have had their highs and lows, but at least Lee looks the part. Waterman was apparently more known for tough-guy roles, which probably explains why the role doesn't really have any bite present when it comes to playing off the mysteries of what one has seen before from folks encountering a spooky place where the villagers play pretend. The only notable supporting member might be Troughton, if only because, well, a sniveling helper to Dracula played by someone familiar to viewers of a certain British TV show is worth a chuckle. The climax is more amusing in the execution rather than as a way to end things on a useful note, since it sees Dracula grab a metal beam that had been thrust on him only to see the beam get struck by lightning that results in him being on fire to writhe around before falling out of the castle. As a whole, it definitely isn't one of the better efforts by Hammer, seemingly satisfying just the bare minimum for what you would hope to have from them that makes for a mediocre time. 

Now, as for the Frankenstein film that came with it...

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Killer Klowns from Outer Space.

Review #2105: Killer Klowns from Outer Space.

Cast: 

Grant Cramer (Mike Tobacco), Suzanne Snyder (Debbie Stone), John Allen Nelson (Dave Hansen), John Vernon (Curtis Mooney), Michael S. Siegel (Rich Terenzi), Peter Licassi (Paul Terenzi), Royal Dano (Farmer Gene Green), Charles Chiodo (Jojo the Klownzilla), and Christopher Titus (Bob McReed) Directed by Stephen Chiodo.

Review: 

“We wanted to do to the toilet what Alfred Hitchcock did to the shower.”

I'm sure you have a grasp on a film with a title that distinct for a film so often labeled among the cult favorites, particularly ones that celebrate their 35th anniversary this year. Made as a homage to films such as The Blob (1958), this was the brainchild of the Chiodo brothers (Stephen, Charles & Edward), who had worked on various effects in films of the 1980s that dealt with either clay models, creature input, or stop motion, which could range from short sequences such as working on the "6000 SUX sequence" in RoboCop (1987) to critter design for Critters (1986). As such, the film was written by Charles and Stephen while the two produced it with their brother Edward, and it was they who came up with the idea of adding "from Outer Space" to the title so that people would not think it was a straight slasher movie. They did provide a few effects for the film, such as the miniature set for the sequence at the end involving "Klownzilla", which was played by one of the brothers in a suit when a lack of time meant it couldn't be done with stop motion. The film was distributed by Trans World Entertainment, which is probably more known for the credit scandal that bankrupted them in the 1990s rather than their feature films, which apparently didn't help the fate of this film on initial release. However, time has been extremely kind to this film to the point that plans for a follow-up or even a video game based on the film have been in talks for years; the Chiodo brothers have kept busy from time to time on certain jobs, whether that involved the opening sequence for Elf (2003) or Alien Xmas (2020). 

It is the kind of film you watch for the goofy charm that emanates in seemingly every scene, one that manages the tightrope act of strait-laced folks engaging with a high body count that arises from the alien threat that have such a wonderful look to them. Apparently, the look was so good that some of the costuming would be re-used for Ernest Scared Stupid (1991). I think the feature manages such a breezy and enjoyable atmosphere because it doesn't stumble in being exactly what you would think comes from a movie that sees folks driving in an ice cream truck in the belief that they could attract girls or clowns doing shadow puppets to a crowd that later eats them. The funny thing is that when compared to something like the B-movie tribute Night of the Creeps (1986), Killer Klowns strikes for an even more obvious tone but somehow proves more successful in general enjoyment. It has a feeling of an offbeat cartoon at times within its look that comes with scenes shot involving the lair of the Klowns (which involve plenty of cocoons). I had a feeling there was going to be a gag or two involving klowns and gags, and sure enough, I enjoyed chuckling at a live balloon dog. Honestly, I can at least see why someone would be afraid of a clown even it sounds a bit silly (as a kid, I had other fears, like the 20th Century Fox opening or, uh, sunflowers). The main trio (Cramer-Snyder-Nelson) is charmingly one-note, managing to not distract the proceedings while inspiring a few light moments of banter. They may be vaguely young adults, but they are tolerable young adults. If there ever was an actor who rolled right along with being the hardass to play for laughs, Vernon would be the one to cite in the best of ways, all things considered. Siegel and Licassi make for a few relief moments of chuckles (well, the whole film is full of them, but still). The climax is goofy and about on par when you have a man in a suit and a big top to go with pies. In general, the 88-minute runtime is efficient for a charming feature of gnarly klowns creating havoc is one that proves that sometimes you really can catch lightning in a bottle when it comes to slasher amusement with the enduring element of energetic imagination above all else.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Hammer strikes double with Dracula and Frankenstein...1970 style.

Night of the Creeps.

Review #2104: Night of the Creeps.

Cast: 

Jason Lively (Chris Romero), Steve Marshall (James Carpenter "J.C." Hooper), Tom Atkins (Det. Ray Cameron), Jill Whitlow (Cynthia Cronenberg), Allan Kayser (Brad), Wally Taylor (Det. Landis), Bruce Solomon (Sgt. Raimi), David Paymer (Hollister), David Oliver (Steve), Dick Miller (Walt), Ken Heron (Johnny), and Alice Cadogan (Pam) Written and Directed by Fred Dekker (#006 - RoboCop 3)

Review: 

 “It’s an odd movie. Nobody ever sets out to make a cult movie, but there are movies a wide audience will immediately take to, and there’s NIGHT OF THE CREEPS which is a strange mish-mash of detective story, horror movie, romance, science fiction and comedy. But that’s what special about it. At the end of the day, I’m pleased with it. I pulled it off.“

Admittedly, B-movie tributes or pastiches are perhaps a dime a dozen. Apparently, Dekker came up with the script for the film in less than four weeks. He stated an aim for a "1950s sorority movie", complete with a handful of B-movie cliches, whether that involves nerds, corny characters or monsters. Dekker's first credit was House (1986), which was directed by Steve Miner. Dekker had written scripts for films that hadn't come to fruition (such as one for an America version of Godzilla), but one he did helped get him an agent. When it came to Creeps, the agent gave the script to a number of producers, and Charles Gordon happened to show interest, which eventually led to a production at TriStar for six million dollars (this was the first production for Gordon, who would go on to produce for films such as Die Hard). Aside from a few reshoots (such as a sequence involving a toolshed) and a different ending, the film went off mostly without a hitch, but a limited release of less than a thousand theaters meant that the film was not a hit on release, but it has endured as a cult favorite in some circles. Dekker went on to see two of his scripts turned into films the year after the release of this one with The Monster Squad (which he directed) and House II: The Second Story. If you were wondering about the ending, what is different is that the studio mandated what Dekker called a "cheap scare", as opposed to his idea of an ending that involves a burnt character collapsing to the ground while the zombie slugs move away to the cemetery, where a spaceship is above it (of course the film starts with a spaceship experiment, so I think you can see how that makes sense).

For those familiar with films of its ilk with weird creatures and one-note characters to go with one distinct performances, you will be just fine here. I figured it would be a neat little average film when I first heard of it years ago ("hearing" and "getting off my butt to see it" are different things), and that assessment seems about right here. It is a microwaved dinner prepared with the right instructions and most of the patience required to make it, which involves a few decent effects and a second half that picks up the slack left by the sorority stuff (and a black-and-white opening set in the 1950s) for what you would expect. In theory, the character played by Atkins could've just been a flippant cliché that would've been just fine as the authority figure against the zombie slugs (for whatever reason, there's an axe murderer around at times, dead and alive). Oddly enough though, the performance by Atkins is the best of the whole film (go figure, Dekker recognized it from the audition), because, well, there is a tragic energy to it that is endearing and entertaining from the very get-go. Atkins apparently rates this as one of his key favorites, and it damn well makes sense ; the sequence where he explains being there on the night of finding the axe murderer is probably his highlight scene. Honestly, if you cut down on the teenagers faster and dwell right in on this oddball of fire, the movie would probably be even better, even though Marshall and Lively aren't exactly just chopped liver. Once you get someone going from talking about girls to getting things going with a flamethrower, that's almost all you need. The pursuit of figuring out what's going on is more fun when you have familiarity with the material rather than snide jokes, and for the most part, the film is engaging in grimy gore that is made by someone with spirit of passion rather than huckster spirit. In the end, those who know the machinations of the B-movie will like what they see here. It is the kind of thing you put on late at night and move along with (maybe a light chuckle at the name references because it isn't so ridiculous), one that makes quality entertainment fit for a first timer.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next: Killer Klowns from Outer Space.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931).

Review #2103: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931).

Cast: 

Fredric March (Dr. Henry Jekyll / Mr. Edward Hyde), Miriam Hopkins (Ivy Pierson), Rose Hobart (Muriel Carew), Holmes Herbert (Dr. John Lanyon), Halliwell Hobbes (Brigadier-General Danvers Carew), Edgar Norton (Poole), and Tempe Pigott (Mrs. Hawkins) Directed by Rouben Mamoulian (#773 - Applause and #1869 - The Mark of Zorro [1940])

Review: 

Well, I'm sure you are familiar with at least one adaptation of the 1886 novella The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, as written by Robert Louis Stevenson. The novella was popular enough to inspire a stage play in 1887 by Thomas Russell Sullivan, who was asked to write it by actor Richard Mansfield because he was intrigued at the idea of playing two roles. In the 20th century, a handful of the Jekyll and Hyde films took their inspiration from the play, and the screenplay by Samuel Hoffenstein and Percy Heath here is not too different. Undeniably, this had been on my to-do list for quite a while, because how could I resist the urge to do a 1930s horror film made by a major studio that wasn't from Universal? The only other Jekyll film I watched was the 1920 edition with John Barrymore, but that was five years ago (incidentally, 1920 also saw the release of Der Januskopf, a F.W. Murnau production that had Conrad Veidt as the star that is unfortunately lost). Besides, the pre-Code era is never a bad one to look through when it comes to the days of getting in tune with "talkie" films and literary adaptations that engage in a degree of entertaining acting along with the fact that one could even see the film at all. Cuts had been made later in the decade for a re-issue due to the Code, but thankfully those scenes are still around. When MGM made their own version of the Hyde story in 1941, they had Victor Fleming as director and Spencer Tracy as the star while making sure to purchase the rights to the previous 1931 film and they basically hid it to avoid competition, which meant one couldn't really study it or rescreen it on a regular basis for the next two decades (ironic too, because the 1941 film is generally considered fairly inferior to the 1931 movie). Apparently, it was Mamoulian who suggested the use of March for the lead role rather than Paramount's idea of using Irving Pichel (or Barrymore, but he was busy at MGM) because he would be fine but "not handsome enough" for the role of Jekyll. The makeup was done by Wally Westmore, but the key element to the effects for transformation came with cinematographer Karl Struss, who noted the use of panchromatic film with differing color in makeup for certain filters to go with certain camera shots. He actually felt that the effect for Hyde looked too much like a monkey while wishing it was more of a psychological change with subtle effect for the change in the mental state. 

Eventually, one sees the deterioration that comes with the arrival of Hyde to the scene, which does make for a useful 98-minute venture of costume drama in atmospheric scares. It is the kind of thing one would retain in their memory to go along with other present 1931 novel "adaptations" with Frankenstein and Dracula (either version). Evidently, one sees March as Jekyll just a notch above when they see him as Hyde in terms of scenes/time, which manages to come off as two distinct people in the boisterous way that March plays his hand. The film isn't a stagy stodgy adaptation in part because the camera action is focused on establishing the tension that comes from a man waiting to burst out of his traditional chains, whether that involves POV shots (which actually start the film) or the eventual crash of man and pre-evolved man. It probably isn't surprising that he won an Academy Award for this film (sharing it with Wallace Beery), because he is tremendous here, showing the tragedy that comes with curiosity that goes too far, which involves desperation and lunacy that impulsively strikes fear for those around him. Those transformation sequences (by potion or later by impulse) are astounding, and that first sequence of Hyde in the open as one of uninhibited design and desire works to what the film wants in distinct characterization with useful effect. What we have is a victim of his own desires. Hopkins and Hobart make up both sides of the impulse here, whether that involves charm or stuffy patience for the scenario presented in upbringing (one lives in a boarding room and the other is not allowed to marry until it reaches a certain day), which makes for a quality payoff when seeing the result of overblown desire (or passionate frustration). The rest of the cast play their parts in the roundabout way to be expected, contrasting the impulsive March handily. In total, this is a splendid horror film in its camera construction and its headliner performance from March that makes for a neat encompassing film still fit for the times required.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Night of the Creeps.

Saw II.

Review #2102: Saw II.

Cast: 

Tobin Bell (Jigsaw/John Kramer), Shawnee Smith (Amanda Young), Donnie Wahlberg (Eric Matthews), Erik Knudsen (Daniel Matthews), Franky G (Xavier), Glenn Plummer (Jonas), Emmanuelle Vaugier (Addison), Beverley Mitchell (Laura), Timothy Burd (Obi), and Dina Meyer (Kerry) Directed by Darren Lynn Bousman.

Review: 

"When I watched the first Saw, it grabbed me because it showed real people put in real situations where they're forced to become monsters. This time, we really focus on Jigsaw, and the fans of the first film are going to get to see the man behind the madness."

As I'm sure you already know, the demand for a sequel to a successful film can lead to some interesting places. Saw (2004) was such a surprise hit that Lionsgate announced plans for a sequel for late October...2005. James Wan and Leigh Whannell were busy developing a film for Universal (the result was Dead Silence, which came out in 2007), but there was a way around that. Concurrently, Darren Lynn Bousman was pitching his script "The Desperate" to studios, but they did not bite on it due to the nature of violence present in the script to go with perceived similarities to Saw. David A. Armstrong, the cinematographer of the first film (who was being asked by Bousman to collaborate with him on said script), suggested that Bousman show the script to Gregg Hoffman, who had produced it with Mark Burg and Oren Koules. They felt that with a few modifications, this would serve as a good one to use for, well, you know. Of course, there was time to recruit Whannell into polishing the script (with input provided by Wan). The resulting success of Saw II was obvious, since Bousman would direct the next two sequels (2006, 2007) alongside Spiral (2021). 

I would say that the sequel is more of a newer model of the same slick machine that came with the first film, which was already a grab-bag of B-movie stuff that happened to have an interesting premise to go with a make-or-break climatic gut punch. It isn't exactly as good as the original, but as a pastiche of a different kind that isn't so reliant of say, Seven (1995), it is a gruesomely effective film in lending perspective with more time spent with Bell that makes for a useful curiosity upon the nature of those who really believe what they say when it comes to making others learn what it means to value life. Granted, the film jumps between him, Wahlberg, and the pursuit of a group of folks trying to make their way out of the house of traps and their own unsavory selves, but the 93-minute runtime seems just about right for the material needed. Actually, I kind of like seeing Wahlberg here, if only because he makes for an obvious mark to play contrast to Bell when it comes to pursuer and the pursued, for which he handles it with that raw sense of pathetic tough-guy quality that actually seems quite amusing. Bell may be confined to sitting around for his scenes (well Jigsaw does have a reason for that), but he still makes the most of it in proving the chilling quality required of someone who believes the only thing he has to lose is not trying at all to live, because having that killer survival instinct is all that matters in the end. The actual dwellers in the house, well, they are basically cut-and-dry, but that seems about on point in a B-movie sense, because the only familiar one obviously ends up being Smith (the key presence returning from the previous film-okay, there is Meyer too, but who do you remember more, a cop figure, or someone who survived a reverse bear trap?), although Franky G does make a quality brute adversary to the proceedings. The traps do prove interesting in the squeamish sense, probably best represented by a pit of syringes. At any rate, it is a leisurely good time for those who were totally fine with where the first film went with traps and the people that inhabited it because of their perceived failings in instinct or above, complete with a climax that straddles the line of clever and "okay, maybe a bit too clever" that would set the stage for what I'm sure would be another sequel of more elaborate ways of offbeat ways to show people at the weirdest when it comes to traps or twists. Well, as long as you don't pull the rug away, you have my interest.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 1931.

The Exorcist III.

Review #2101: The Exorcist III.

Cast: 

George C. Scott (Lieutenant William F. Kinderman), Ed Flanders (Father Joseph Dyer), Jason Miller (Patient X / Damien Karras), Scott Wilson (Dr. Temple), Brad Dourif (James Venamun / The "Gemini Killer"), Grand L. Bush (Sergeant Mel Atkins), Nicol Williamson (Father Paul Morning), Nancy Fish (Nurse Emily Allerton), Tracy Thorne (Nurse Amy Keating), Barbara Baxley (Shirley), and Harry Carey Jr (Father Tom Kanavan) Written and Directed by William Peter Blatty.

Review: 

"It was always meant to be a psychological thriller, not a special-effects horror film...I can say that it would make me very happy indeed if some day people were able to see my original version of Legion, which was rather different from the one now in release as The Exorcist III."

In 1983, William Peter Blatty wrote a follow-up book to his famous novel The Exorcist (1971). He found inspiration for his "Gemini Killer" with the real-life Zodiac Killer, who apparently called it "the best satirical comedy" he ever saw in one of his letters that he wrote to the San Francisco Chronicle. While it is a horror book, it is an investigative case kind of book, since it involves the character Lieutenant Kinderman (as seen at times in the original book) on the trail of a string of murders (involving mutilation) that have the resemblance to ones done by a murderer that had been thought to be dead years ago (one thing that apparently differs from film to book is the lack of the Gemini Killer's father, a preacher). Apparently, Blatty wrote it with the intent to do a film with William Friedkin as they had done with the aforementioned Exorcist in 1973, but when Friedkin passed on it, Blatty went forward in writing it as a novel. The resulting success led to shopping around for a director to do a film, and while people like John Carpenter (oh hey, wondered if he thought an exorcism would be needed for the film?) were considered, it ultimately went to Blatty, who had previously directed The Ninth Configuration (1980), an adaptation of his 1978 novel. Ironically, a book that came about at the hands of a serial killer loving the film adaptation enough to call it satire would have its film adaptation cited as inspiration for a serial killer upon its release.

I'm sure that the changes instituted from the original intent must have hurt Blatty badly, but a Director's Cut of the film, utilizing as much recovered footage as possible (which include video tape footage), does exist for people to look over. I imagine more than anything that the fact the film was called "III" rather than the book title is probably what hindered the film from being more than the mild hit that it was, and Blatty stated as much in the years that followed. Morgan Creek Entertainment (who Blatty went with because Carolco suggested a story where Regan from the first film gives birth to possessed twins) felt that the film needed an exorcism rather than the lower-key ending that Blatty envisioned (I'm not kidding, he just walks in and shoots the possessed Karras, which apparently is higher key than the novel, in which the Killer, having decided to explain to the detective the whole thing and seeing his dad die, wills himself to death), and the director's cut features more of Dourif as the Gemini Killer, as opposed to the jumping around between Miller and Dourif, because as you will know from the film, the character of Karras did not in fact die die in 1975 (well, the film was released in 1973 but here we are talking about 1975), he just happened to wind up in the loony bin and was left unrecognized by the staff while the spirits festered; Williamson is the one who shows up as a result of these changes, specifically for the climax. Honestly, the thing that probably sticks with me is the gradual pacing. It reminds me of a procedural, slowly getting to the point with a mostly game Scott that talks a big game more than anything before the part with Dourif (i.e., one consisting of long speeches) makes the film have some life in it. This is the kind of movie that likes to tell rather than show that seems to believe it is honing the spirit of the original...while in fact it only reminds you of the exact opposite. Sure, it is an entertaining film at times, but the 110-minute runtime asks quite a bit from the viewer. Scott gets to chew the scenery a bit, where one minute he is giving someone a stuffed penguin and then all of a sudden, he is going "We're FINE!" to a nurse; his "slime and stink" line at the end when it comes to belief probably is the best part of his whole time. One wishes for more time spent with Scott and Flanders, because they sure have the whole bit down for gruff amusement, but I suppose the shock is what is meant to matter (or something). Honestly, the reason to see the film is for Dourif, because, well, he really is the kind of actor to pull off derangement well, particularly since he doesn't get interrupted (just don't think about the fact that the audience is seeing him as opposed to the body that the spirited killer is in, which is Miller to a sprinkle of lines). The fact that Williamson doesn't have much to say is amusing when considering his importance for the climax (well, aside from those little moments where he is seen), and he most writhes around when it actually does happen. The climax, well, it does help the film more than it hurts it. A little bit of fire and dismemberment does lend the film some juice beyond the attempts at calm dwelling horror, because screw it, there's nothing one can do to compare to the original Exorcist anyway, giving the folks a show is at least a worthwhile proposition, considering the fact that crawling on the ceiling seems more of a "oh" kind of moment. The shadow of the one and true Exorcist film never really leaves one's sight when it comes to watching this movie, which is a mildly involving film through and through. If one has the patience for it, you might find something really curious, and that is more than enough in the midnight hour of good and evil.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next: Saw II.

Saw X.

Review #2100: Saw X.

Cast: 

Tobin Bell (Jigsaw/John Kramer), Shawnee Smith (Amanda Young,, Synnøve Macody Lund (Cecilia Pederson), Steven Brand (Parker Sears), Renata Vaca (Gabriela), Joshua Okamoto (Diego), Octavio Hinojosa (Mateo), Paulette Hernández (Valentina), and Jorge Briseño (Carlos) Directed by Kevin Gretuert.

Review: 

Admittedly, I was wondering if it sounded weird to do the tenth installment of a franchise before watching even half of the series. But Saw (2004) was a decent film, so I assumed it would go just fine to roll right into Saw X without thinking about the fact that the premise for the film was the one rejected in favor of Lionsgate going forward with Spiral (2021), the one with Chris Rock as star and no Tobin Bell. Incidentally, Kevin Greutert, who had edited a number of the previous films and directed Saw VI (2009) and Saw 3D (2010), serves as director for this film, which is set between the original film and Saw II (2005). The script was written by Peter Goldfinger and Josh Stolberg, who had written for both Jigsaw (2017) and Spiral. It was apparently done with as many practical effects as possible, which is something to highlight when one is actually taking the time to film in a location that they are actually setting the film in (this case being Mexico). The two returning actors from previous installments may be a bit older, but it does not take long to get used to them being back here with a film set between films released nearly 20 years ago. The original film, as you probably know, involved the investigation of a series of people that had to deal with certain traps that had the shape of a puzzle piece cut into the ones that failed said test. 

This time around, one is following Bell for the entirety of the film that basically sees him as a protagonist of the most basic sort: ones who don't care for others taking advantage of the most desperate. Don't get me wrong, the film is quite gnarly in horror for those who like to keep their fingers close by to wrap in fear, but it is a capable film because it has the most interest in setting a purpose beyond gory traps. It maintains a steady pace of 118 minutes that makes an engaging buildup of the con game that makes the inevitable discovery all the more involving for a decent effort. The pain inflicted by the character upon these flawed individuals makes for frightening horror if only because one doesn't really want to think about they would do in that scenario or in the other scary scenario of being bilked by a false hero of hope. For some, hope is all a person has, so imagine seeing that taken away. It lends Bell his best chance to give the character a sense of purpose and integrity that basically swings on down to what might be the most intriguing sequel of the series in years. He obviously is relishing the chance provided here to extoll what it means to be a man with nothing to lose and all the time to set rules for others to play (granted the puppet is a bit much). It may be a personal revenge story, but it is an involving revenge story. Smith is the only other returning actor from the series (okay, maybe not only...) to appear here, and she does well in well-intentioned interest to follow in the footsteps of Bell in dictating in the art of rules and order. Lund makes a quality adversarial presence against Bell, the kind of person with conniving spirit that would use intestines as a rope when the opportunity presents itself. The stakes may be a bit different because of where it sets itself, but the viewer still cares about the process of people trying to figure out what it means to be wrapped in a situation of sacrifice. The buildup to the ending (complete with flashing back to scenes we just saw a couple of minutes ago to hammer a point home) is about as ridiculously elaborate as one probably expects from the series. It is squeamish, but it is the kind of thing that followers of the series will be right at home with while proving just fine for those less familiar, and I think that makes for a suitable choice in the horror season.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next: Exorcist III.

The Exorcist: Believer.

Review #2099: The Exorcist: Believer.

Cast: 

Leslie Odom Jr (Victor Fielding), Ann Dowd (Ann), Jennifer Nettles (Miranda), Norbert Leo Butz (Tony), Lidya Jewett (Angela Fielding), Olivia Marcum (Katherine), Ellen Burstyn (Chris MacNeil), Okwui Okpokwasili (Dr. Beehibe), Raphael Sbarge (Don Revans), and Danny McCarthy (Stuart) Directed by David Gordon Green (#1151 - Halloween (2018), #1752 - Halloween Kills, and #1906 - Halloween Ends)

Review: 

In the beginning was The Exorcist (1973), and the directorial word was with William Friedkin and the written word was William Peter Blatty. As you probably already know, the novel came about because of a story that Blatty heard about a teenager that had suffered possession from the Devil before undergoing an exorcism. To put it mildly, it was one hell of a good time in atmospheric quality that was made by a craftsman with striking belief in what they were doing when it came to suspense and the "mystery of faith, the mystery of goodness, that mystery which is inexplicable, but it's there." For better or worse, no other film with the Exorcist label has come even close to following it as a sequel or even a prequel. The 1977 sequel was made by someone who vehemently rejected doing the original, while Blatty's 1990 feature was meddled by executives for the ending. Exorcist: The Beginning (2004) and Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist (2005) is a tale for another time to pick apart. Anyway. One wonders if you thought this was going to be a good film even with hearing that it would apparently be the first of three new Exorcist films. I believed that there was a flicker of hope, because Green did manage to make one successful Halloween film that seemed like the best of the shovel-load of the previous sequels. Of course, he made two inferior films immediately after (Ends was so frustrating that I wrote two thousand words about it), but I had my hope for even the most basic average quality. In theory, a new Exorcist film could have opened the door for trying to blow the doors off all of those other films about exorcisms and possessions that have followed in the wake of the original. Maybe there was something useful to say as the 50th anniversary of the original film was this year, even with the passing of William Friedkin. The screenplay was done by Peter Sattler and David Gordon Green, while the story was done by Scott Teems, Danny McBride, and David Gordon Green.

Congratulations, we have the worst Exorcist sequel since Exorcist II: The Heretic. I would say that Gordon Green should be ashamed of himself for making such a mediocre movie, but I am not sure if he actually would have shame at the idea of making yet another hack sequel to a horror franchise. One detects the belief of trying to play both tribute and one-upper when it comes to Believer, which goes from mildly bland in its first half to a climax that is somehow less scary than a homeless man talking to you about Christ while smelling of alcohol. Friedkin never saw the sequels, but I think his statement about them proves doubly correct here, what Believer does in its "attempt to do is to defrock the story and to send the thing up.” When it comes to acting, it reminds of a bland family drama. It mildly involves the viewer, because the initial setup (after a snoozer prologue) is two children that wind up going missing before turning up with burns on the feet and a strange affliction. There is no sense of tension with these actors, even with Odom trying his best to deliver a performance of someone of challenged faith. You might wonder where Burstyn comes in to play as the one returning actor from the original (well, not the only one...), and oh look, a main character of a previous film being found to have written a book on their previous experience, haven't seen that before. I imagine the paycheck was great for such a shallow role that lasts all of a couple of minutes, because it surely proves that even Academy Award winning actresses can flail in films that don't give them a useful role just like everyone else (such as say, Linda Blair from the second one). It is amusing that the film does fine with its effects but finds nothing when it comes to sacrifice or suspense. Why should we care about what happens in this film with these people when it doesn't have the fortitude to do anything to challenge the perception that this is just a worthless retread? One would have better ethical dilemmas when debating whether to donate $1 or $5 to their receipt than what they see here. Unlike the do-gooders that bloated words about the 1973 film having an R rating rather than an X rating, there won't be a soul here that even care that this is R-rated, because the teens and adults have seen better.

You might wonder why I feel a 5 is necessary for this film. Well, I wanted to be fair and take a nap before debating the merits of calling it either "not quite good enough in mediocrity" or "not even mediocre enough to maybe recommend". Every compliment I could give the film seems like a back-handed one when thinking back to other better films one could watch in 2023 or in their archives. So what if the film looks decent to view? So what if the actors don't detract the quality in acting? So what, so what, so what, this film is crap. At least crap like Blood of Dracula (1957) have the excuse of rushing through production to entertain audiences as their reason to be fast and cheap, but this is a multi-million-dollar budgeted film that serves as yet another violation of not understanding why the original film was as powerful and entertaining as it was. The original was made by a believer that knew how serious it was to treat its story with dignity to go with useful effects that managed to even make a medical procedure seem frightening to view. This film is made by people who should know better but only seem to make a case for people like me to call them hacks, pure and simple. I cannot imagine seeing another one of these in the theater, but heaven (or hell) knows horror films are always ripe for surprise. 

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Oh look, a 2023 horror film that doesn't suck: Saw X.

I Was a Teenage Frankenstein.

Review #2098: I Was a Teenage Frankenstein.

Cast: 

Whit Bissell (Professor Frankenstein), Phyllis Coates (Margaret), Robert Burton (Dr. Karlton), Gary Conway (the teenage Frankenstein monster/Bob), George Lynn (Sergeant Burns), John Cliff (Sergeant McAfee), and Marshall Bradford (Dr. Randolph) Directed by Herbert L. Strock.

Review: 

...Well, you already know that Aben Kandel and Herman Cohen wrote the film, because what better way to do a double feature of teenage monsters for the circuit than to have the same writers and director for both films? To be fair to Strock, he had a handful of experience in being efficient with the job required, whether that involved serving in the U.S. Army Ordnance Motion Picture Division or directing television in the 1950s (imagine going from directing Fox Newsreel footage to directing for AIP). How to Make a Monster would be directed by Strock with scripting by Kandel and Cohen that featured the return of the werewolf and Frankenstein makeup that dealt with youth actors (such as Conway) being hypnotized into being tools to kill. Unlike before, we have a film that lessens the teen angst present in the previous two films, because it ventures more into the familiar grounds of eccentric scientists, complete with lines that talk about one having a civil tongue to speak if only because they sewed it themselves and alligator pits. Yes, I am serious. There is a sequence of roughly over a minute in the final moments to show the monster in color after, well, the climax has already happened in a flash. Cohen sure loved his formula of a weary world where teenagers are beaten down in life by adults with cynical motivations of manipulation.

In some ways this serves as the better film of the three teenage monster films, if only because it is too lurid for words in the bold idea of just re-using Bissell in another wonky scientist role that he already did for the aforementioned Werewolf film. Technically speaking, it probably intends just as much interesting sympathy for its begotten teenage monster, mostly because it doesn't have much of a face for all but a fraction of its 74-minute runtime. And yet, the result is the same in another mediocre movie that is not nearly as interesting as it thinks it is when it comes to the horror of monsters in youth because it never passes the line beyond camp to actually generate useful interest for "good" moments. Both Blood of Dracula and this film are rushed, and it shows, but there were other AIP films of past and future that ended up being better than "mediocre" despite being a patch job, so why does this one not pass mustard? Well, I think it is because the film lacks general tension to do anything other than be stuck in one room, and the fact that The Curse of Frankenstein was released by Hammer (in full color!) in the same year this film was released doesn't particularly help its case. At least Bissell is interesting for such a run-over role of trying to sell you on the idea that progress is all that matters when it comes to the human process. Coates is almost amusing in just how much she is devoted to such a flake like Bissell, right up until she meets a dubious end before the climax even gets to happen. Burton wanders in and out and does exactly nothing as an accomplice, go figure. Conway is barely worth mentioning as the monster, mostly because he seems more of a pouting dolt more than anything. I wonder what would have been happened if one had tried to make a film about, say, raising a young Frankenstein with a normal face and weird psychological problems rather than the whole "hiding in the basement" thing. The death scenes in setup are probably the most interesting parts of the film. As a whole, if you've seen Werewolf, you haven't really missed much here besides having more of a goofy scientist rather than the monster. But hey, if you like the AIP circuit, you might find something to go with for a bit.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Blood of Dracula.

Review #2097: Blood of Dracula.

Cast: 

Sandra Harrison (Nancy Perkins), Louise Lewis (Miss Branding), Gail Ganley (Myra), Jerry Blaine (Tab), Heather Ames (Nola), Mary Adams (Mrs. Thorndyke), Edna Holland (Miss Rivers), Thomas B. Henry (Mr. Paul Perkins), Jeanne Dean (Mrs. Doris Perkins), Don Devlin (Eddie), Malcolm Atterbury (Lt. Dunlap), and Richard Devon (Det. Sgt. Stewart) Directed by Herbert L. Strock.

Review: 

It did not take long for American International Pictures to come up with another teenager film involving monsters. I Was a Teenage Werewolf (1957) was released in June before two further films involving teenage-infused monsters came as a double-feature in November: this film and I Was a Teenage Frankenstein. The films were spearheaded by Herman Cohen when it came to production. The Detroit native had worked his way up from a janitor at a movie theater when he was 12 to running it by the time he was 18 in Detroit. He became an indie producer in the 1950s with a share of mainstream stuff coming with Crime of Passion (1957). The failure of the film, combined with the invitation of James H. Nicholson from AIP, saw him work there as producer. This went hand in hand with Cohen's new-found theory that over 70% of the audience was around the ages of 12-26, which obviously meant that a cast of teenage characters or monsters would maximize the potential for box office dollars. Not surprisingly, Cohen co-wrote the film with Aben Kandel, as was the case with Werewolf and I Was a Teenage Frankenstein. I'm not particularly sure how the title of the film seemed that much better than calling it "Teenage Vampire", because, well, the film isn't about Dracula or talking about blood, but in the United Kingdom it was called "Blood is My Heritage". Scientist-headed films involving the lightest of relations to the usual vampire myth were familiar to those who saw The Vampire earlier in 1957.

I'm sure you can see the similarities to the Werewolf film: a teenager with angst is used by an eccentric scientist that wants to change the world with their experiment (in this case, her idea of finding the evil in us) that ends up being used as a tool to become a monster, for which the ending sees the monster rebel against the scientist to see them both perish. Oh, and both films feature someone talking about the "Carpathians" (here it is a cop who knew an exchange student there) and feature an ending line about "messing with God". At least one thing can be sure of a film that has women for the lead character and villain, one can make a crappy film of any gender, particularly one that thinks a sequence dedicated to the song "Puppy Love" is anything short than ill-advised. It snoozes through the opportunities that could have come with making a film about someone who must confront themselves a growing youth when it comes to uncertainty about who they really are. Instead, it is just a mild and all-together bland experience that only gets good once it actually gets to the nitty gritty of silly effects with a monster. This is the only film appearance for Harrison, who appeared in a handful of one-episode appearances on TV until the 1960s. Probably the only noteworthy thing to say about her performance is that I cannot imagine that the time spent being under the makeup of fangs (and what have you) was any more fun than the paycheck. At least Lewis and her funky motivation to bring about the end of the atomic experimentation (no, seriously, she thinks writing a thesis of the beast in man being shown will do it) seems about on edge for loony confidence, even if her only "power" is being really good at hypnotism (or maybe she is so alluring in manipulation that it worked on the teacher's pet who told her about the new kid in the first place). At least the dialogue is a bit amusing at first with the new kid being grouchy at the people around her, until she becomes inhabited by the joys of monsterhood where she isn't really there, yadda yadda you get the idea. Somehow, I doubt killing teenagers in the school you work in is going to be looked upon favorably for a thesis, but whatever. In conclusion, the fact that the cops don't even realize just who is going around picking students off at the school is probably the most amusing quality of the film, unless characters getting killed by a random piece of furniture isn't up your alley. That alone says all that is needed to say about a film best sat through for those who need the horror fix that looks old enough to run for the season with vague name value that ultimately will prove incredibly average to those who sift through this, or I Was a Teenage Frankenstein...

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Mummy (1959).

Review #2096: The Mummy (1959).

Cast: 

Peter Cushing (John Banning), Christopher Lee (Kharis / The Mummy), Yvonne Furneaux (Isobel Banning / Princess Ananka), Eddie Byrne (Inspector Mulrooney), Felix Aylmer (Stephen Banning), Raymond Huntley (Joseph Whemple), George Pastell (Mehemet Bey), Michael Ripper (Poacher), George Woodbridge (P. C. Blake), and Harold Goodwin (Pat) Directed by Terence Fisher (#257 - The Curse of Frankenstein, #258 - Dracula (1958), #272 - The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959), #469 - The Revenge of Frankenstein, #833 - Spaceways, #857 - Frankenstein Created Woman, #858 - Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed, and #859 - Dracula: Prince of Darkness, #1280 - The Brides of Dracula)

Review: 

"I have always strenuously tried to avoid being blatant in my pictures. Instead, whenever possible, I have used the camera to show things - especially nasty things - happening by implication."

If you recall, Hammer was on a roll with horror films fit for the international tastes. The successes of The Curse of Frankenstein (1957) proved that Terence Fisher was the right and reliable pick for Hammer's big venture in horror, and his subsequent direction of Dracula (1958) started yet another franchise for Hammer. Who better to do a film involving another monster with familiar cast and crew involved? While the film one might think of it as a remake of The Mummy since it has the same time, it actually seems more in line with the three sequels since the last name of Banning and the name of Kharis came from those, while The Mummy's Ghost also involved a swamp for its climax (at any rate, instead of tana leaves, one sees a Scroll of Life). In general, Universal (releaser of those classic horror films) distributed the film under the "International" label for, well, international releases. The film was written by Jimmy Sangster, who had written several scripts for previous Hammer films. Evidently, the writer of the 1932 adaptation in Nina Wilcox Putnam thought it was "disgusting" and was displeased that it was done without her knowledge or consent (ironic, since the resulting film is considerably superior to the older film in most respects). Three further films were done by Hammer with mummies with The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb (1964), The Mummy's Shroud (1967), and Blood from the Mummy's Tomb (1971); of these, only Pastell returned to appear in any of the films from the original cast, and he only appeared in Tomb; perhaps not surprisingly, none of the films were as successful as the original.

It probably would surprise nobody that the film was a reliable success with how efficient it is with being a viscerally gripping feature that exceeds the original Mummy films with plenty to spare. It is a vibrant feature beyond just being in color, to put it mildly. It is familiar routine (lost loves and impending doom) but it is entertaining routine that does not waver from its goals with distracting relief or imbalances. One would like to not play favorites with film-watching when it comes to acting, but I always find myself smiling at the prospect of seeing Christopher Lee in a lead role, even if it involves him under plenty of makeup, which is exquisite. With a role that invites only dialogue for the flashback sequence (for obvious reasons), he makes for a quality threat that has a looming wandering quality of tragedy that makes a distinct monster than if one simply had a stuntman do it all because of the eyes that come out to play; incidentally, he suffered a handful of injuries on the film, such as separating his shoulder for a break-in sequence. This also applies to Cushing, who has the great dignity required to make his leading qualities all the more enterprising for someone to follow along, because heaven knows there is no man that can deliver exposition like he can. Furneaux is the lookalike that is really more of an alluring presence in the latter part of the film, which goes about as well as you would think in passive energy. The supporting cast is fine, although it is mostly headlined by Pastell and his fervent energy. There are a handful of scenes one could highlight, such as the first sight of the mummy rising, or perhaps the story of how the mummy came to be (exposition is great when delivered by Cushing and Lee being present), but the sequence where Cushing essentially taunts Pastell with regard to his beliefs just to stoke the flame a bit probably should be mentioned. At any rate, it is a gripping feature made in the perfect time for Hammer to stoke the flames of spooking its audience in consistent entertaining fashion with a game cast and director to accomplish everything required to make one of the most interesting films involving mummies of its time. For the Hammer fan at heart, this is one of the more entertaining efforts by the company.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Tomorrow: AIP double feature.

Body Snatchers (1993).

Review #2095: Body Snatchers.

Cast: 

Gabrielle Anwar (Marti Malone), Terry Kinney (Steve Malone), Billy Wirth (Tim Young), Meg Tilly (Carol Malone), Reilly Murphy (Andy Malone), Christine Elise (Jenn Platt), R. Lee Ermey (General Platt), Forest Whitaker (Major Matthew Collins), and Kathleen Doyle (Diana Platt) Directed by Abel Ferrara (#1963 - The Driller Killer)

Review: 

"Body Snatchers was kind of laid on me. It wouldn't have been my choice. If I was going to make that movie from scratch, I would stick to the original from 1956 where the event happened in a town where he grew up in so he kind of knew everyone and realized who was changed and who wasn't. With the military, it's training."

Admittedly, this film has a hard ground to get over in being the third film adaptation of the novel The Body Snatchers (1956) by Jack Finney. You might already know the first version as directed by Don Siegel in 1956, or perhaps the 1978 version as directed by Philip Kaufman (as was the case with the 1978 film, Robert H. Solo served as producer for this film). But here we are with a third film that was directed by Abel Ferrera, fresh off the results of Bad Lieutenant (1992), an NC-17 rated film that is now thought of as a cult classic; this was the first sci-fi film Ferrera did, as I'm sure you can tell from a director considered a cult favorite for those who read into that. But this was a production that was distributed by Warner Bros and made for a budget of $13 million, what could go wrong? Well, Ferrera groused at the fact that he had to film with a setting that is distinct from the previous films, because it takes place on a military base. The screenplay was written by Stuart Gordon, Dennis Paoli, and Nicholas St. John while the story had been done by Raymond Cistheri and Larry Cohen. Anyway, Warner Bros. had planned to release the film in 1992...and then they decided that Innocent Blood would match well in that time when compared to the handful of horror films packed around that time such as Candyman and Bram Stoker's Dracula. So, instead, the film made a run on the festival circuit (such as Cannes, I am serious) and then was dumped. To put it lightly, Warner Bros. should have felt deep shame that they let this film get released to less than a thousand theaters, but, well, here we are. Incidentally, this film was released 15 years after the 1978 version, and the next rendition of the Finney work would come 14 years later with The Invasion (2007).

In a different era, conformity striking its tendrils upon the individual happens all the same just as much as it did in the 1950s or the 1970s. It can't really hold a candle to the previous adaptation when it comes to paranoia or all the gobbledygook that folks say made it better than the original (debatable at the very least), but I enjoyed this one as an embrace of sticking out in violent oddness more than anything. How many films have the stones to have a scene that depicts a kid getting bopped out of a helicopter? The threat present is one that lives among a structure that undoubtedly would have little trouble living undetected: the military structure of rules and order. And, this time around, it also looks upon the family structure (one bit of dialogue relates a feeling of "replaced" when it comes to describing a stepmother) and gives it a nice kick in the stomach with a film that might as well dwell in chaotic order, complete with looking upon the feeling that has to come when seeing a bunch of tendrils upon you and a slowly growing lookalike version lurks nearby. Admittedly, the cast with its lead has hard ground to cover, since one has moved from town doctors and health inspectors to a youth (okay, 20-year-olds playing minors, but still). But Anwar makes a worthy focus because of the vulnerability that comes through in reacting to the conformity that occurs around these strange military man and among the family around her that makes for compelling entertainment in the build of alienation. Kinney and Tilly are two ends of the "ordinary parent pod", which proves interesting for the inevitable confrontation of conformity crashing into chaos, as signified best by the sequence revealing the end of the normal version of the latter complete with decay that looks neat. I'm not too big on Wirth, but then I realize that anybody with a seeming pulse that looks like they care more than the usual guy lackey would seem interesting to Anwar, so that's fine. The most interesting person to probably react to the pod stuff in support is either Elise (edgy looking folks, cool) or Whitaker, although the latter is best spent in their last scene about the reaction to seeing offers of conformity. Ermey is probably underused, but he's a neat presence to see for a bit anyway. In general, I get a kick out of the movie because its 87-minute runtime makes for a generally involving good time of intense interest that rewards viewers that appreciate a good effects show but also a good show about the desolation of authority and family when it comes to pods that want for the thoughts to sound alike. Granted, the ambiguity of the ending is probably not as enduring as the aforementioned last one, but at the end of the day, well, "Where you gonna go?" is still a pretty good one to look upon, as one can't stay up forever nor seemingly trust anyone. It seems strange that Ferrera groused a bit at being wrapped with a military base setting rather than one that honed closer to the 1956 film, because in the end he made an interesting film that is entertaining in its own merit of being more than just a remake. For the folks interested in a degree of horror from a director with a distinct manner for weaving a film in his own way, this is a pretty good one to sift through.

 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next up: The Mummy (1959).

The Curse of the Cat People.

Review #2094: The Curse of the Cat People.

Cast: 

Simone Simon (the ghost of Irena Dubrovna Reed), Kent Smith (Oliver Reed), Jane Randolph (Alice Reed), Ann Carter (Amy Reed), Eve March (Miss Callahan), Julia Dean (Julia Farren), Elizabeth Russell (Barbara Farren), Erford Gage (Police Captain), and Sir Lancelot (Edward) Directed by Robert Wise (#515 - Star Trek: The Motion Picture, #725 - The Day the Earth Stood Still, #921 - The Haunting, #1407 - West Side Story) and Gunther von Fritsch.

Review: 

I'm sure you remember Cat People (1942). That was the film directed by Jacques Tourneur with a script provided by DeWitt Bodeen, with Val Lewton having brought them both in to serve in their roles on the film as producer for RKO. The title may have been a bit more grabbing than the actual surroundings of the plot when it comes to "cat people", but it was worth a watch for those who favor patience in their horror films. Now here we are with a film that is strangely termed as "psychological supernatural thriller film" but let us just erase the doubt and say hey, it's a light horror film. Lewton imported certain aspects of his childhood into suggestion for the story of the film, as evidenced by his upbringing that saw him raised in Port Chester, New York after his family had moved from Russia. Gunther von Fritsch, an Austrian-born director (who had served in the US Army Signal Corps and did training films), was tasked to direct this one, his first (and perhaps only notable) feature film. However, he did not go to a satisfactory pace (i.e. only getting halfway through the script in filming) for what was meant to be a shoot of under three weeks. As such, Robert Wise, previously known as a sound and music editor at the studio after starting work there in the 1930s (which included Citizen Kane (1941), most famously), was brought in to direct the rest of the venture, which also serves as his feature film debut. Wise would direct for RKO until 1949, with two of his productions being under Lewton with Mademoiselle Fifi (1944) and The Body Snatcher (1945). Lewton wanted to call the film "Amy and Her Friend", but RKO (after screening the film) insisted on the cat title to cash in for suck-I mean, customers (a sequence of teenagers chasing a black cat up a tree was edited into the film on their request). 

Even more so than the previous film is one that is a film that is not great in any one field, but this is one that lacks any real particular great moment to really hold their hat for. It is a bait-and-switch in most senses of the world, because it doesn't have much to do with cats or curses, seemingly more interested in the world of seeing the horrors of a kid that may or may not be on the verge of going under the sanity train because of her lack of connection to others around her. Smith, Randolph, and Simon return from the previous film but don't exactly have as much to connect with, as the film really is Carter's to focus on, which goes fine. She handles the material presented to her with curiosity and dignity that you can see from someone meant to endear as a fellow explorer of strangers. Dean and Russell in theory would make for an interesting pair in family drama (a senile woman who may or may not be right about her daughter being who she says), but you only get glimpses. It barely even feels worth it to have Simon there, because she has very little to really do besides saying they are from "great darkness and deep peace". Bottom line, family drama, child with ghost, pick one to spend time further on. You might say the film has its own degree of ambiguity like the earlier film, but you are not seriously going to tell me that I actually am supposed to care to guess if the "ghost" is really present to our lead or not. The original tried the whole "maybe it's in her head, maybe it isn't", but I played along with it being real because the idea of watching a build of things you "see" or "hear" only to have a fake out sounds like the lamest idea imaginable when you are here for the idea of horror. With this film, I'm not playing the game of guessing and I'm not playing the game of trying to see if the film will do something more involving that the middle-ground stuff. It is merely fine, nothing more, one that will either seem moody or average, or...well, pallid. This is the kind of film where you have folks telling a brief rendition of "The Headless Horseman" to go with a climax that involves a kid being confronted with a grumpy woman...and a ghost appears right onto the woman, so the kid gives 'em a hug. I think the ending of the previous film, involving the revelation of one never lying to them, just works better in closing the whole thing rather than the mild warmth here. It is a film all about the fantasies that come with children with wandering imagination more present than what you fear, where a child that you are raising needs positive interaction and lessons from those around them rather than playing into fantasy. 70 minutes is mildly acceptable for those who have the curiosity for a mildly enjoyable film that may or may not stoke even further look into the world of Val Lewton and company.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Body Snatchers, hell yeah.

Targets.

Review #2093: Targets.

Cast: 

Tim O'Kelly (Bobby Thompson), Boris Karloff (Byron Orlok), Peter Bogdanovich (Sammy Michaels), Nancy Hsueh (Jenny), Arthur Peterson (Ed Loughlin), Monte Landis (Marshall Smith), Sandy Baron (Kip Larkin), James Brown (Robert Thompson, Sr), Mary Jackson (Charlotte Thompson), Tanya Morgan (Ilene Thompson), Gary Kent (Gas Tank Worker), and Mike Farrell (Man in Phone Booth) Directed and Produced by Peter Bogdanovich (#1000 - The Last Picture Show and #1475 - Mask)

Review: 

I would think that the best tribute one can do for horror is to showcase a film from a first-time director that got his start within the school of Roger Corman. Peter Bogdanovich was a prolific filmgoer and even had worked as a film programmer at the Museum of Modern Art after studying acting. This included a spell as a film critic before setting forth for California with his wife Polly Platt to break into the industry of film, following by example critics from France who made their mark in directing films of their own. Of all places, he happened to meet Roger Corman during a film screening (because he was asking publicists for invitations), and they made a quality connection, to the point where he got offered to be his assistant. This would change, however, when Corman needed his help with The Wild Angels (1966) to deliver uncredited rewrites to the script while directing second unit work, for which he stated that he "haven't learned as much since" when it came to those months of working on the film (he worked once more with Corman with an edit of Planeta Bur that was called Voyage to the Planet of Prehistoric Women for mostly TV crowds). The following year would see him get his chance to direct a film, provided with one stipulation by Corman: he needed to use Boris Karloff for the film, because apparently, he owed Corman a couple of days of work for American International Pictures. Bogdanovich and Platt came up with the story for the film (he is solely credited with the screenplay, however), with the latter serving as production designer. Samuel Fuller lent advice to the script but refused to receive credit on the film, which was shot in just over three weeks. You might say this is the fitting swan song of Karloff that he deserved. It was the penultimate film he appeared in during his lifetime, with Curse of the Crimson Altar (1968) coming out in the winter prior to his death on February 2, 1969 at the age of 81. True to what one would smile with in an AIP film, footage from The Terror (1963) is utilized for the opening sequence of the film along with being shown as part of a "drive in feature" for the climax at the end of the film, while footage from The Criminal Code (1931) is also used. Undeniably, the first thing that could come to mind with the film is the shooting that occurred at the University of Texas at Austin within the observation deck of the Main Building tower. At total of eighteen people ended up dead at the hands of a man with a collection of rifles and shotguns (along with two stabbings) that shot from above before the efforts of officers such as Houston McCoy and Ramiro Martinez stopped the killer (incidentally, that day saw several Austin citizens take up weapons to try and shoot the killer from afar, but Allen Crum, a bookstore manager who had heard the shots and rerouted street traffic, was the only civilian to storm the deck). The film was shot in '67 but not released until the summer of the following year, which had tragically seen the assassinations of American political leaders just months earlier. Paramount Pictures had distributed the film, which received muted audience attention but had garnered Bogdanovich attention from studios, and his next feature came with The Last Picture Show (1971). 

The film runs at 90 minutes long, which means the buildup is considerable (roughly a third of the film is spent with scenes that mix the once begotten horror star and the modern form of horror in everyday life) in establishing the horror that comes in the modern sense of what happens with a man wrapped with using a gun on people. You know, it is that fateful moment when the killing starts may very well be the best sequence to highlight above all else. He shoots members of his family but proceeds to drag the bodies to the bed before he cleans up and leaves, with a camera shot showing the note he wrote that closes with a sentence perhaps more chilling now than ever: "I know they will get me, but there will be more killing before I die." Don't forget about the sequence that is shown minutes later after his first round of killing where he goes to buy ammunition...300 rounds of it that seems him have conversation with the store owner about shooting pigs. While being on top of a tall structure, the sniper even has time to eat and drink as if he was on a picnic. Karloff is presented as the representation of the last vestiges of the old horror before it is swept away by the modern horror, a tired old man that would rather fade away than be called a man of "camp", one who knows the days of the painted monster scaring people are washed away by the headlines or TV they see everyday (the tower killings was one thing, but seeing footage of the war abroad in Vietnam would certainly be one way to shape a person's outlook). Karloff the man and Karloff the star seem to merge here with the tone presented here as someone who knows the craft and has seen it all. It pains one to see his awkwardness at hearing the questions asked to him by kids for promotion before he is spurred to tell a scary story (complete with advising a camera decision). The story, which sees the camera move closer and closer before the reveal (an appointment with Death), is one that only Karloff can tell. The appearance of O'Kelly is one of two things he is most known for, with the other being the fact that he was passed over for the regular run of Hawaii Five-0 after he had shot the pilot episode in 1968 (in general, he stopped acting in the 1970s). The smiling act of a man who looks like the ideal family man close to his parents and wife is all the more perfect to the looming dread that comes when one sees that same man with a rifle perched upon a tall structure. His family is as normal sounding in bland generalities as he is, which makes the end result all the more frightening. One doesn't really know people beyond what they see out in the open (such as, say, a restaurant). 

A half-century since the release of the film has seen plenty of media attention shown to guns because we live in a world where one either gets pegged as being tough on guns or seeming a tool of the lobby that yearns to make it as quick or efficient to get one ASAP. To get back on topic, remember that this man we are viewing (from his pointing to his drive-by escape attempt) is never seen in the perspective of having a clear motive beyond shooting. Consider that when the Austin shooter was examined upon his death, all they found was a pecan-sized tumor to go alongside his suicide notes, which had one part involving him saying that he couldn't really understand himself these days, where "these thoughts are too much for me" (incidentally, he stated an urge to use his life insurance policy not only to pay off debts but to use the rest to donate to a mental health foundation). Undeniably, the film may fall along the line of thriller rather than horror, but it is impossible to resist a film that sees the ugliness that comes in a time that seems more gruesome than the time before it within a confrontation of past and present. Mass killings were not something that arose from the deep (I am reminded of an array of explosives set up by a man that killed over 40 people in 1927), but the coverage of such killing and the way we think about it certainly has had an impact on us as a whole. The fear of being killed lurks for those who wonder what it would mean for their loved ones, especially for one stuck by an unprovoked killer. The mad doctor or the old dark house seems like child's play, particularly since 1968 happened to also be the year that saw films such as Night of the Living Dead come out to strike upon audiences. The film is an examination of a time where the "monster beyond us" type of horror is now washing away for a horror of the "monster within us". As a swansong and a reminder of just where we are when it comes to violence, Targets is undeniably an efficient film to start any month off, October or not. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Curse of the Cat People.