THE WOMAN IN BLACK (1989)(TV) recommended!
Dir: Herbert Wise
As far as ghost-stories go, it doesn't get any better than this. I hadn't heard of this film until horror director Nicholas McCarthy (THE PACT, HOME) was posting about it online. I found a great copy and was thoroughly impressed. Stylish and classy period-piece that is truly scary!
Based on the novel by Susan Hill, THE WOMAN IN BLACK is the story of a young lawyer who must settle a family estate in a remote seaside town. Much is on the line as this is the young man's first big mission from his boss and a job that no one else wants. Making the long journey to the town, Arthur (Adrian Rawlins) quickly learns that no one ventures near the old house, but he cannot get a straight answer why. Soon he begins to see a sad old woman in a black dress walking around the town and also out at the homestead. "You see her!?" say the towns people with looks of shock and horror. Turns out, the woman long ago died and whoever sees her ghost ends up having great tragedies befall them.
This plot scenario sounds like many, many ghost stories, particularly the "tired angry, vengeful ghost" scenarios of the contemporary video-game era horror flicks I bash a lot (THE RING, THE GRUDGE, SILENT HILL, etc.) What makes this movie stand apart is, unlike these other films, THE WOMAN IN BLACK isn't necessarily directed like a "horror-movie" per se, just a solid drama with horror themes. This is not a film based on visual scares or the latest CGI and does not go for shock value thrills.
| |
There is a lengthy first-act set up introducing the character of Arthur and his family and how desperately he needs his job and can't risk letting down his Scrooge-like boss. The towns people at the inn where Arthur stays are very colorful and there are some great humorous moments along with a slow, consistent build up of suspense as story elements are revealed one by one. By the time Arthur is alone at the house, the creepy atmosphere is so thick that every element has a heightened tension to it. This is the kind of dynamic that makes a horror film come alive, triggering our imaginations more with what we don't know and don't see, than what we do.
After befriending a local neighbor who explains some of the past history of the house and the cursed woman, our young hero returns to the haunted estate with the help of a new character on loan, a small but fearless dog owned by the neighbor. Together, man and dog investigate the strange noises and sightings within the house until the tension is nearly unbearable. Finally uncovering the real secrets of the estate, Arthur faces the cursed reality of the woman's ghostly nature and the chilling fact that worldly evil doesn't always die when its owner does, but can be transferred over generations. The ending is purely diabolical and leaves us with much to ponder on the idea of 'ghosts" and the nature of evil.
THE WOMAN IN BLACK is a very scary film because it invests us in its characters and what they have to lose. Well done production design, performances, costumes, dialogue, props and locations add up to an articulately crafted period piece. Made for TV and without much in the way of tricks or special effects, the film is far spookier and lasting than most other ghost stories of the past several decades. There was another version made in 2012 starring Daniel Radcliffe, but I have little interest in seeing it because this one was so well done. Highly recommended!
|
DARK SKIES (2013) recommended!
Dir: Scott Stewart (PRIEST, LEGION)
Terrific! Similar in themes to the filmmakers' previous effort INSIDIOUS(2012), ideas of secret worlds within our own and malevolent forces coming to take our children in the night make for high-stakes terror. I felt as if this was almost a second take of INSIDIOUS, only with a much more grounded plot premise. In this case, alien abduction is the device and stand in for all things authoritative and disempowering. The very opening of the film shows a bank foreclosure sign on a suburban property. Clearly we are dealing with the fear of forces that can come at any moment and pull the rug out from under us- and all the family-values in the world can't save you!
I especially liked that the film was very aware of all the alien films that had come before it. (CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, SIGNS, THE BETTY & BARNEY HILL STORY, THE X-FILES, COMMUNION) Actress Keri Russell (TV's FELICITY) was especially good as a frantic wife who slowly realizes her family is under siege and struggles to get her husband on board. There is a show-stealing dialogue scene where the troubled couple agree to go visit a "UFO expert." This tormented man (J.K. Simmons) lets them in on the horrible reality of what's happening to them, but can it be believed? Regardless of any issues concerning faith and belief, circumstances force the family into action as they fight for their lives against an unknown and intangible enemy.
The two young boys in the family talk secretly at night through their walkie-talkies with their own made up code words. After one of the boys is abducted away, the other brother hears his faint, coded voice coming in over one of the walkies! This ending underscores the idea that, not only is the missing boy still alive and beyond all reach, but that the hellish "other place" where he must have gone is in fact part of our world. As with INSIDIOUS, the idea of a "purgatory" or place between worlds where individuals can be lost is a central theme.
| |
DON'T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK (1973)(TV) recommended!
Dir: John Newland (CRAWLSPACE, THE LEGEND OF HILLBILLY JOHN)
Another slam dunk original from ABC Films back in the day. Very reminiscent of the "AMELIA" episode from TRILOGY OF TERROR (where a possessed Zuni tribal doll comes to life and chases Karen Black!) crossed with THE STEPPFORD WIVES, this feature uses a ridiculous material premise to strike an allegorical satire on gender issues.
An upwardly mobile young husband and wife move into an old house and discover ancient evils living in a sealed off old fireplace. This portal-to-hell serves as a literal manifestation of the downward spiral of a womans role in her marriage (and place in society.) A few glib references to "Women's Lib" set up a political subtext as the helpless wife Sally, powerless without her husband, is undone by malevolent demons she unwittingly released into her home. What's great is that we get to actually see the demons visually. These malevolent gremlin-type man-creatures exist timelessly in the dark, waiting for fresh souls to join them. We see these little guys by way of some pretty successful special effects and over-sized props. Of course, only Sally sees them and everyone perceives she is crazy and subconsciosly trying to undermine her husbands budding career success. At a tense dinner scene, the gremlins keep pulling Sally's napkin off her lap as she tries to fulfill the role of gracious hostess. Although everyone can see the napkin dropping, they don't know the real reason why. The tension mounts as poor Sally tries to keep her composure, knowing no one would believe her if she cried out. This is a huge portrayal of the 70's ethos of the "tormented female psyche" within a patriacharchal male social structure. It is only Sally's friend, the progressive and action-taking Joan, who becomes convinced of Sally's struggle- but is too late to save her. Something in the way Sally is eventually drugged, bound and literally "dragged off to hell" paints a painfully vivid picturization of sexual paralysis, martyrdom and victimhood all at once. Husband Alex realizes the truth only after it is too late and peers into the dark void where Sally has been swallowed. The end leaves us with the evil voices of the gremlins, yearning for another fresh soul, Sally's voice now among them!
| |
CITY OF THE DEAD (aka: HORROR HOTEL)(1960) recommended!
Dir: John Llewellyn Moxey (THE HOUSE THAT WOULD NOT DIE, WHERE HAVE ALL THE PEOPLE GONE?, NIGHTMARE IN BADHAM COUNTY, THE STRANGE AND DEADLY OCCURRENCE, GENESIS II)
A charming British/American entry about an old New England town haunted by witches. Part of the charm is that there is nothing really surprising in the plot, all unfolds as you expect it to. Without a lot of twists and kinks, we are allowed to meditate strictly on the horror of the situation and absorb into the characters. Great camera work, set design, pacing and acting performances throughout. Patricia Jessel is absolutely fantastic as the nineteenth century witch burned at the stake who, via a pact with the devil, lives on to haunt the town in perpetuity. A young Christopher Lee does his creepy best as a diabolical college professor who is a secret Warlock high priest. The protagonists succeed only at great personal costs and the end leaves the potential for new found relationships. All in all, a solid and entertaining feature in gorgeous black & white.
| |
THE DEVILS (1971) recommended!
Dir: Ken Russell (ALTERED STATES, LAIR OF THE WHITE WORM, GOTHIC, TOMMY)
This film blew me away! After reading the hooplah on Yahoo news for the anniversary of the the film, I was able to obtain the re-mastered director's cut for my very first viewing. This film was banned in many countries and hacked to death purposely by censors such that only recently has a full version (well, almost full) been restored. (There is apparently 15 minutes or so that is lost forever.) The director himself even cut alternate versions in attempts to get around censors for the films' initial release.
Equal parts Fellini (JULIET OF THE SPIRITS), Welles (THE TRIAL) and acid-rock art-house features, Russell pulls no punches delivering this scathing indictment of religious dogmatism. Dripping with color, contrast and composition, THE DEVILS is a visceral, if not sickening, orgy for the senses. One can almost feel the breath and sweat of the characters in their close-ups. An immediately obvious tactic of the filmmaking is the pacing and dramatic structure. Unlike films that annunciate (and over state) plot points and shifts in the dramatic arc as their narratives progress, this film has more of a "flattened narrative." Events unfold without any overt cues or build up for the audience, which one may take as either an effort toward a type of realism or as overt stylization. I found this approach underscored the "air" of the world in which the story takes place.
| |
I couldn't help but ponder how the film felt like Kubrick (A CLOCKWORK ORANGE) or Lynch (WILD AT HEART) only at three times the pacing. Russell's frenetic feel reminded me also of the Patrice Chéreau film QUEEN MARGOT(1994) where, as with THE DEVIL's, old-world France is portrayed as a busy, frenetic wave of emotion and debauchery, with public sentiment constantly shifting on the slightest of whims. Stakes are very high for the chracters as "mob rule" is the climate of the day. Religious dogma serves as the over-arching structure for all of society, including monarchy, with rules that must be obeyed else the most dire of consequences immediately ensue. Whether anyone is really a true believer is of no matter because acting like you are is one's only mode of belonging. Even the most pious of citizens are at risk, at any time, of being called into question on their faith and allegiance. Very much like Arthur Miller's THE CRUCIBLE, paranoia and self-censorship are not extremes, but a normal way of life.
|
Visual assault: Fellini and Lynch on CRANK!
|
EATEN ALIVE (1979)
Dir: Tobe Hooper (THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, POLTERGEIST, INVADERS FROM MARS)
In his follow up to his 1977 low-budget masterpiece THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, Tobe Hooper continues exploring themes of isolation, psycho-sexual displacement and the idea of the fractured family. I wanted to hate this grind-house 'sploitation low-baller, but there was so much going on I found myself oddly fascinated. The film is as rich in subtext as it is non-stop screaming and sensory assaulting production design.
As if part of a lost region in "The Twilight Zone" a nameless town exists outside of contemporary moral structure. The center of this town seems to be a brothel run by an ethically bankrupt and visually corpse-like woman named "Miss Hattie" (Carolyn Jones.) Our assumed protagonist, Clara (Roberta Collins), is a young girl, new at the world's oldest profession who botches her first client date because she won't do his un-natural sex acts. The only sympathizing character here is an African-American maid to Miss Hattie, who looks like she still exists in the slavery-era South. (Clearly she has no social power and after all, she works at a brothel.) Miss Hattie tosses Clara to street and she is left on her own to look for shelter on the swampy outskirts of town, at a decrepit old inn called the "Starlight Motel." Not unlike the Marion character in PSYCHO, Clara is abruptly and savagely murdered by the creepy old innkeeper Judd (Neville Brand). Obviously our story will not be about Clara! Innkeeper Judd chides Clara assuming her to be "one of Miss Hatties girls." At first he stalks her, pacing around nervously, then rips at her clothes as if he may rape her, but then brutally dispatches her with a gardening ho (get it: "ho") before getting rid of the body with the real stand-in for his latent libido / inner-rage / inner-id: a fearsome man-eating crocodile he keeps out back in the pond!
| |
The film almost wants to be a dramatic portrait of central character Judd, who may as well be yet another brother from the feral family in CHAINSAW, who is almost sympathetic at times, but is never the less, a psycho-killer. Although Judd is the "bad-guy," it is not abundantly clear who, if anyone, is the rightful "antagonist" in the story, since nearly everyone is painted as a victim of one stripe or another. The film jumps between an almost character-study drama of Judd (Like HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER, or George Romero's MARTIN) and its more obvious exploitative "slasher" ouvre. There are so many references to other films here, not the least of which is Hitchcock's masterful PSYCHO, with the Starlight in place of the Bates Motel. Equally as isolated and lost in time as the Bates' family drama, the Starlight harbors just as many horrors beneath its surface. It is not so much that Judd's murderous ways are the source of evil in this world as it is that the circumstances of the world in which Jeb exist have led him to become the kind of evil that he is.
|
The creative use of sound in the film is striking and along with the editing and deliberate pacing of scenes, provides direct pathways to the subject matter the filmmakers are most fascinated with. As with the family meat business in TEXAS CHAINSAW, Judd's motel is a forgotten enterprise no longer on the main highway that doesn't know enough to die. Once a tourist attraction, the motel still features a creepy "zoo" with animals in cages and a ferocious crocodile in its pond. We are introduced to the zoo by way of a monkey in a cage that promptly dies, presumably from neglect. Immediately, the slow withering of this human cousin marks the hotel as a place where humanity is dead or comes to die. Judd, the lone survivor of the family business is an ethically lost veteran who obsesses over details he forgets and constantly mutters about "structure" and "trying to do what he was told." Hobbling on a false leg, we assume Judd is a war vet, only to find later that he lost his leg to his beloved crocodile. Judd defends the crocs murderous nature by crying, "It's just instinct! No harm is done if it's instinct!" But who decides what is instinct? The world Hooper creates here is a foggy, diffused place, expressed viscerally in the set design and heavy use of smoke and diffused lighting. Only the sheriff seems to be effective at getting things done but only because he is complicit with the social norms he exists in and, we can safely assume, only if he stays within them. He has sexual potential and the female characters are wooed in his presence. However, the sheriff seems only to surf over this world and whether he has any real moral character or cares whatsoever is never clear.
Meanwhile, Judd exists on at the Starlight, keeping his croc fed and his mind isolated. The loud, ever-present county music radio station seems Judd's only window to the outer world with its overly-simplified moral stories and relish for times gone by. Judd stalks and murders the females that come to the hotel, clearly undone by their sexuality. He either cannot or will not have healthy relationships so he regresses to a puritanical shell where he finds license to abhor the objects of his desire to murderous ends. Judd loathes the likes of Miss Hattie and company, although it is revealed that he was once a patron of the brothel, only "he scared the girls too much because he was all talk and little action." Judd is not an elitist of any moral high-ground, but simply a misfit.
|
Croc-blocked! / "Excuse me while I whip this out..." / "Behold my monster croc!"
|
The antagonistic Buck (Robert Englund) by contrast, is perfectly at home in this bankrupt world. With his penchant for "unnatural sex" he dominates and exploits his women who either run from him, as Clara did in the opening of the story, or acquiesce to his norms like the bar-hopping Lynette (Janus Blythe.) Buck sees Judd as nothing more than a simpleton and is not intimidated by him in the least. As much as Judd hates Buck and screams at him to stay away, he does nothing about it. Judd is as paralyzed and impotent as Buck is confident and his inner frustration just endlessly boils on. The sign on the front of the Starlight pointing the way to a "zoo" is aptly placed. This motel is a series of cages for a variety of living specimens, in a barely alive place lost in time, all waiting to be consumed by a pre-historic predator that has existed forever.
Hooper's apocalypse is not confined to Judd's microcosm alone. When Clara's father (Jose Ferrer) and sister (Crystin Sinclaire) come searching for her, we learn that Clara was once on the straight and narrow, but disagreements with daddy led her out into the big, bad unknown. Now diagnosed with a fatal ailment, Dad is in a panic to make things right with his daughter. A stalwart figure of a different, moral ethical time and place, Mr. Wood (get it: "wood") has grown soft, "dying a slow death" as daughter Libby (get it: Womens "Libby") phrases it. Clearly, men of principle do not exist in the world anymore, even beyond the boundaries of the Starlight Motel and Miss Hatties brothel.
|
One of the more curious sequences in the movie is when a young girl (Kyle Richards) hides underneath the inn after her father is murdered and mother imprisoned. The lattice work trim around the building serves perfectly as a cage and Judd simply locks the gate. From here the girl can see the crocodile in the moat but is safe from it. Judd crawls under to get her but she is able to escape. It is not until Judd pulls back the restrictive caging and allows the croc to crawl under the house that the girl is in peril. I'm not quite sure what of make of this physical sequence but it would seem there is something underneath it because the film plays it out at great technical lengths. Perhaps the scene is simply meant as an extended medititation on Judd's psycopathy, which had been previously restricted to a pseudo-moral pretense, but has now transcended all bastions as he goes after an innocent child in order to protect his secrets.
It is interesting that at the end of the story, the survivors are not necessarily the innocent nor the most guilty ones. The child is not old enough to be held morally accountable (but is none-the-less female.) However, the two adult women who remain (Faye and Lynette) are the two who had partnered with men who had accepted their societal roles. Hooper's female characters are all at the mercy of the male figures and the ones who have given up hope are allowed to survive. Perhaps survival means "surfing" the moral universe, like the Sheriff does, rather than fully investing in people and things that try to stay true to themselves and ultimately do not last. Judd's subversive croc is the ultimate beast that does not discriminate when it comes to victims, it simply craves the living. A great equalizer of sorts, above the social and political concerns that dominate the human characters, the croc may be a catharsis for a time, but ultimately Judd is prey to it as much as everyone else. In a world without moral humanity, such a mindless beast becomes king.
Certainly aware of its grind-house nature, EATEN ALIVE cashes in on the 'sploitation slasher trends of its time and certainly of its predecessor THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE. In spite of these factors, EATEN ALIVE is full of subtextural content and continues the apocalyptic allegory of post-Vietnam, post-Watergate America Hooper began with CHAINSAW.
|
THE AWAKENING (2011) Dir: Nick Murphy
Exquisite for 2 acts but betrays itself in the third by getting bogged down in its own melo-drama. Subtext starts to become overly stated in the dialogue and the end has us sorting through purposely ambiguous text to figure out what is real and what is inference. Terrific performances, set design and cinematography. Much like THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE(see review), THE ORPHANAGE(see review), THE INNOCENTS(see review), FRAGILE(see review), HAUNTED(see review), and THE OTHERS on the themes of "what is the nature of a ghost?" Yes, once again its all about a ghost that is trying to reveal a secret injustice from the past, but there is also a big plot twist. British B-listers Rebecca Hall and Dominic West deliver strong performances as tightly-wound, sexually repressed wartime survivors. The musical score is also strong until the climax when it grows all too operatic, as with the other elements of the film.
| |
THE CABIN IN THE WOODS (2011) Dir: Drew Goddard (writer of CLOVERFIELD and TV's LOST, ANGEL and BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER )
Regurgitated genre plot masquerading as a clever satire of regurgitated genre plots, that is itself neither clever nor a legitimate satire. The name "Joss Whedon" should say it all. If you're a geek who likes mindless geek send-ups for their own sake, this may be for you. All frosting and no cake. If you're a horror fan who liked ZOMBIELAND(see review) or a sci-fi fan who liked GALAXY QUEST(1999), this may be for you. A horror film this is not.
I get the satire thing, I do. I'm a fan of TREMORS and EIGHT-LEGGED FREAKS and I love drive-in genre pics and grindhouse "Sploitation" cinema. Look at my reviews on this site of GRINDHOUSE: PLANET TERROR(see review), BLACK SHEEP(see review), SLITHER(see review), and DEAD SNOW(see review). If you want real horror satire, check out George A. Romero's CREEPSHOW and especially his LIVING DEAD franchise(see review), or Sam Raimi's EVIL DEAD franchise, or the RE-ANIMATOR franchise among others.
I loved CLOVERFIELD (see review) which was written by Goddard (and no, NOT the French Maestro, but the American punk who directed this stinker), but reading the text of an interview with him regarding THE CABIN IN THE WOODS reminded me of Chuck Lorre's statement on his scandalous firing of Charlie Sheen from their TV series TWO-AND-A-HALF MEN. Namely, a lot of wanna-be, self-justifying, post new-age babble about mythology and social relevance and genre awareness. I felt myself getting dumber as I read it. Wow, these filmmakers really thought they were being clever. Ouch. They could have just said, "look, we're horror fans and it was mindless fun," but they didn't.
| |
This movie made me angry, mostly because many friends and colleagues whose opinions I respect fell for this garbage. Is this what passes as clever self-referential filmmaking nowadays? Sadly, yes. Most teens who saw this movie aren't old enough to recognize any of the references in the film and it frightens me to think that such an audience will attribute everything they take from this film, TO THIS FILM.
We suffered through the Tarantino years with audiences thinking his plot-twist exercises were new and unique genius (and now Hollywood has given him an Oscar.) We've endured the musings of film students whose first glimpse of media criticism came from Oliver Stone via his NATURAL BORN KILLERS. We've held our breath during conversations about perception and reality via THE MATRIX. We've waded through the post-modernism of Rob Zombie's nihilistic remakes as "commentary." Enough is enough. Joss Whedon and company- please go back to the W.B. where you belong.
4-4-13
In memory of Roger Ebert
|
A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET (2010 Version)
Dir: Samuel Bayer
Remake for a new generation of kids that adds nothing to the original, but in fact loses all the charm of the 1984 original. Executive produced by Wes Craven (director of the original version) who at least is pocketing some revenue from the remakes of his own films. Having followed Bayer's prolific music video directing career I was interested to see his vision for this re-make, but it proved to ba an enormous so what.
| |
ANTS! (aka: IT HAPPENED AT LAKEWOOD MANOR) (1977)(TV) Dir: Robert Scheerer
That old made-for-TV flick with Suzanne Somers about ants taking over! Woohoo! Finally got to see the whole thing. In keeping with all other post-JAWS "animals attack" flicks (DAY OF THE ANIMALS, ALLIGATOR, GRIZZLY, PIRANHA) Man encroaches on the natural world and subsequent imbalances create a creepy-crawly insect karma-train that comes back to bite!
As I wrote in last year's 2012 reviewz (see here), there is a certain nostalgia with these films that I miss. As much as these are dated works, part of what dates them is the way that films of that era were built on solid foundations of story and character, even to a fault. That is to say, these TV dramas play comfortably to an episodic-drama and sit-com audience by not straying far from the scenarios and characters we're used to from regular TV. Although this structuralist approach is obviously cliche (even for its time) it nonetheless establishes a tried and true point of departure for whatever its moral premise may be. This is not to say that this element is "right" or "wrong", just that it was the style of the time for these specials. ANTS! may play a bit like an episode of THE LOVE BOAT with its ensemble cast of variant characters, but stilted as it may be, it strikes a bold contrast from the morally ambiguous "anti-hero" centered dramas of today's standard. For those of us growing up in the 1970's and 80's, this can often come across as refreshing as it does predictable and "canned."
As a kid, I saw the first 2 acts then it was my bedtime! In the morning I prodded my Dad, "What happened! Did they escape?" Dad explained that the last surviving characters sat still and used rolled up wallpaper as breathing tubes while they let the ants crawl over them until help arrived. This idea freaked me out and I finally got to see it. There's something in the idea that the heroes cannot escape unless a certain price is paid that appeals to me.
| |
THIS HOUSE POSSESSED (1981)(TV)
Dir: William Wiard
This made-for-TV frightener came out in the era of Tobe Hooper's POLTERGEIST(1982) in the early eighties. I only caught the last 5 minutes of it and loved the idea of animated things coming to life in a haunted house and going on a murderous rampage! This is total child-nightmare stuff, but it was nothing more than a tease here. All these years later, I found the full feature on YouTube and finally got to see it! Turns out, that last five minutes was the only good part of the entire movie(!) The rest of the film is a romance drama with a really un-spooky mystery story that only leads to some freaky horror elements at the very, very end. In short: TOTAL BUMMER!
The opening scene has a garden hose coming to life and attacking a young couple in the yard. You could almost not see the fishing wire holding it up too. This provocative opener was merely to bait us in for the seemingly endless romance tale starring the somehwat-sexy Lisa Eilbacher (as a cheap Stephanie Zimbalist substitute) and Parker Hardy-Boys Stevensen as a pop singer (yes, you have to suffer through some cringe-worthy songs.)
Around this same time, in the wake of POLTERGEIST, I saw the Twilight Zone episode "A Thing About Machines" for the first time. So impressed was I that I made my own 8mm movie of my parents kitchen coming to life and the phone handle flying around and other stop-motion goodness (and yes, you could totally see the fishing line!)
* Special thanks to YouTuber "Charles787980" for helping me find this one online.
| |
Garden hose of doom!
| Fireplace of death!
|
Evil eyes... / Shower of blood! / Gates of Hell!
|
LES DIABOLIQUES (1955)
Dir: Henri-Georges Clouzot
Not a horror film but a suspense thriller built around a love triangle of "who is double-crossing who." Solidly made and well acted throughout. The back of the Criterion restored DVD featured a provactive lead in to the film by explaining the basic plot: After plotting and carrying out a murder, the criminals hide the body in a swimming pool. Later when the pool is drained, the body is not there!
| |
PHASE IV (1974)
Dir: Saul Bass
Incredibly droll, minimalist styled sci-fi thriller from the famed animator and graphic designer Saul Bass. Equal to films like SILENT RUNNING, LOOKER, THE PARALLAX VIEW and CAPRICORN ONE in its style and tone, PHASE IV tries to be like Michael Crichton's ANDROMEDA STRAIN, but instead puts us to sleep. Ethical drama about scientific hubris and meddling with genetics boils down to a very isolated drama between three characters in a remote desert lab.
| |
THE BEING (1983)
Dir: Jackie Kong (NIGHT PATROL, BLOOD DINER)
Officially listed as a horror/comedy- thank goodness. Co-stars Martin Landau and Ruth Buzzy!
In a small rural factory town, an evil corporation dumps toxic waste and lies about it. From the goop is born a weird genetic mutation with one eye and lots of sharp teeth and a hunger for human flesh! A local hick is the only one with the smarts and the macho to take on the creature. The mayor is corrupt, the police ineffective and the girl is a local waitress who actually believes the hero when he says there's a monster running around. Seems only the rustic yokels have the high ground in this story. There's a big showdown with the creature at the factory and the special effects are horrible but comical. The end.
Honestly, I found myself rooting for this stinker at times, especially in the third act. The Special effects are so bad yet there is a sense in which the film does not talk down to us, but rather, makes light of itself. The final credits are presented in a "where are they now" style a la THE CANNONBALL RUN or some such, as if to make it very clear not to take the film seriously. Martin Landau is terrific as a scientist working-for-the-man who abandons his post to combat the real threat and atone for his sins.
There's one sequence in the story that takes place at a drive in. The film playing on the screen is, of course, a mindless slasher flick. A totally nude girl is attacked in a hotel room and the scene goes on for a lengthy few minutes. I laughed out loud realizing that the movie-within-the-movie here is likely a piece from the same filmmakers (I don't know for sure.) This flagrant work-around allows the filmmakers to showcase needless R-rated T&A into an otherwise PG looking film. Clever!
| |
INVADERS FROM MARS! (1953)
Dir: William Cameron Menzies (THE MAZE)
If someone other than Ed Wood made PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, this would be that film. The art director/production designer of GONE WITH THE WIND and FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS, takes a turn as director in this classic sci-fi red-scare thriller.
The same kind of ridiculous Ed-Woodian script is at work here, only (somewhat) aptly made. Martians are on the attack and no one seems to be surprised as one tween-age boy bravely uncovers the entire plot and leads the adults to a swift and patriotic victory! God Bless America! This story and its expositional dialogue could have only come from a time and place where fear of communist plots drove people to complete conspiratorial hysterics. My favorite parts are when they all start talking "science." The film, as with many others of the same era, plays like a public-service announcement for science. The characters go on at length about theories and details, as if we the audience are not necessarily following, but are warmly overwhelmed in a super-comfy way about how Science knows everything about everything. Of greatest concern is not that it turns out Aliens exist, but that they exist exactly how we figured they would. Namely, the aliens are Martian, live underground out of sight from us and are plotting against us (why wouldn't they be?) A rocket about to be launched from Earth to Mars is the inciting incident that leaves the Martins no choice but a pre-emptive strike against Earth! The paranoid human experts have assumed rightly about everything. This of course mirrors the space race and the red-scare of the 1940's and 50's that gave rise to INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE and THE BLOB to name a few. Unlike those features however, INVADERS FROM MARS! does not stand the test of time with its allegories intact, but rather succumbs to its more timely stylistic whims. The ending provides a twist double-ending as the boy wakes to find it was all a dream, then sees a UFO land for real. This would seem to set up some kind of coming-of-age statement about passage into adulthood or some such, but was really confusing. (This trick ending was axed in the British release of the film.) Tobe Hooper explored the coming-of-age element more directly in his 1986 remake version of INVADERS FROM MARS!
UPDATE: Horror director Nicholas McCarthy pointed out something I missed, which is that INVADERS FROM MARS is essentially the point of view of a child's dream. This context goes a long way toward explaining the stilted atmosphere of the story and much of my criticism. Thanks Nick!
| |
INVADERS FROM MARS (1986)
Dir: Tobe Hooper (THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, EATEN ALIVE, POLTERGEIST)
Not nearly as fun as the original it attempts to re-tell. Epic FAIL from Hooper, who once was horror royalty as the director of the original TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE. Not sure where you can go with a stinker like the original INVADERS FROM MARS! except perhaps pure spoof-dom, a la LOST SKELETON OF CADAVRA or PLEASANTVILLE or Tim Burton's MARS ATTACKS!. However, Hooper neither gives this a camp nor a serious treatment and we are left scratching our heads.
The special effects of the alien creatures via Stan Winston Studios disappointingly play like muppets from Jim Henson's THE DARK CRYSTAL, I suppose for laughs(?) The child actor in the lead here is not very good, at least not good enough to carry the film but oh wait- it turns out his co-star Karen Black is his real-life mom. Black, a cult horror favorite is over-drawn and under-directed here. The pacing is agonizingly slow with no pay offs and even the musical score is banal at best. Unlike in the original film, no one believes the boy much, although he still is able to accomplish things way too easily. Not sure what statements are at work here if any.
The end offers the same false ending as the original, the boy wakes from the dream only to find a real saucer now landing. Hooper goes a little further however, as the boy next runs to his parents room and upon opening the door, sees something and screams in horror. The film abruptly ends here in a freeze frame and we never see what the boy saw in the room. Are his parents gone? Abducted? Are they enemy drones as in the dream? Is he witnessing them having sex?? Or is it that all of these possibilities are kinda, sorta the same? We are left without enough information to plausibly decipher what is inferred here. The action-packed climax prior to the weird ending plays with a lot of gender sociology and sexual symbolism (if you want to see it that way) and clearly is following a "hero's journey" subtext of the descent through hell and deliverance to the real world, etc. So is the film telling us that becoming an adult is like waking from a dream state to discover that nightmares are real and your parents can't help you anymore? I think this is what is going on but have no way to be sure. Unlike films which over-state their subtext at their own expense, Hooper's vision doesn't quite give us enough.
| |
SHUTTER (2008)(U.S. Version)
Dir: Masayuki Ochiai (INFECTION, HYPNOSIS)
Another J-Horror (Japanese horror) cross-over remake for American audiences that features visual gags about an angry, vengeful ghost. This time, it is a Japanese director (Ochiai) re-making a 2004 Thai film of the same name by director Banjong Pisanthanakun.
Much like THE GRUDGE and THE RING (from the same producers) there is some plot involving modern media (VHS tapes, photographs, the internet, etc.) breaching the gap between the really-real and the nether-world. This time its a photographer and his wife who start seeing ghost images in their pictures and figure out they are being haunted by a female ghost. Playing like a made-for-the WB teen drama, the characters are quick drawn and way too pretty and there's a big secret that is revealed and no one cares. There is also a lot of un-explained spooky stuff that makes no sense, even with the supernatural element- seeing yourself mutated in mirrors, weird dreams, imagined accidents- which seem to have nothing to do with the rest of the ghostly events. All-in-all a thrown together quicky that relies on cheap CGI visual shocks and little story.
| |
TWISTED BRAIN (aka: HORROR HIGH) (1974)
Dir: Larry N. Stouffer (SANDS OF ECSTASY)
I saw this flick one late Friday night on "Uncle Ted's Ghoul School," a local cable affliates late-nite horror fest, when I was about 14. It took me a while to find it all these years later because apparently it was re-named as HORROR HIGH (or perhaps the other way around?) I vividly remember several scenes in the film and the overall dated and lackluster production value. Most of all, however, I remembered a certain sinister and subversive mood and tone from the film, which haunted me for a long time. A grindhouse "sploitation" film, HORROR HIGH winks at the camera with its tried and tired story and characters, as if it's a given we understand this to merely exist as backdrop for juicier exploits. Basing itself rather loudly on the "Doctor Jekyl and Mister Hyde" story, TWISTED BRAIN builds on familair genre motifs in order to present a violent revenge tale.
Given the no-budget nature of this blip-on-the-radar feature, I thought I would never find any info about it, let alone a copy. YouTube comes through as I found this forgettable-forgotten under its "HORROR HIGH" monicker. Curiously, many of the user comment threads mentioned the same haunting details I remembered from my teenage viewing- the violence, the stark production value and the funky score. I was struck by the films' opening sequence featuring the quintessential nerd Vernon Potts (Pat Cardi), with his greasy hair, muttonchops and horn-rimmed glasses riding his bike to school. Even in the early Eighties this seemed like a movie from another, by-gone era. However, it is the abject sadness of the film and its central character Vernon that I remember most.
| |
A classroom film viewing of "Jeckyl and Hyde" makes us aware that Vernon hasn't been keeping up with his studies due to his obsession with chemistry. In the chem lab, Vernon shines, working diligently on his potion that he believes will prove the ability of man to physically transmutate. It seems that Vernon's only friend is "Mr. Mumps" his lab guinnea pig, that is until a pretty and well intending classmate begins showing interest in Vernon. Robin sympathizes with Vernon's struggles explaining that she believes he has a "good heart." However, goodness and empathy are not part of Vernon's world.
In a violent standoff with the creepy school janitor, Vernon is forced to drink his chemistry mixture. After getting violently ill, Vernon emerges transformed into a violent psycho. After making quick work of the janitor, Vernon transforms back and realizing what he has done, cleans up all the evidence of the scene. Days later, pressured by the taunts of his opressors, Vernon makes more of the chemical potion and after purposely drinking it, goes on a homicidal rampage.
Central to the films' morality is the fact that Venon chooses to take the potion knowing exactly what will happen when he does. Unlike a projection of the subconcious or manifestation of an evil twin or an external parallel of demons or aliens, Vernon purposely becomes his own monster. So downtrodden is he, that Vernon cannot resist the temptation of a magic elixer that allows him to act out in ways his real self never could. Along with the insular world the story sets up, this moral reality would seem to tell us that some situations can be so bad that they cannot be transcended. Vernon's potion doesn't lead him to superhero status and vindicate his unseen virtues, rather, it unleashes a violent inner "id." At one point Vernon postulates that the potion taps into primal homosapien nature and that this nature, in its purest form, is morally corrupt. Yet, Vernon continues to pursue making a potion that will take him to this exact state. If Vernon's brilliant science would allow him to emerge from himself, all that is left to emerge is bitterness. The film is clearly aware of fairness and justice, but portrays a world where none is possible, at least not for nerds.
| |
The geeky outsider channeling his inner "mainstream" in TWISTED BRAIN (aka: HORROR HIGH)
|
Perhaps the most interesting relationship in the movie is between the local police investigator (Austin Stoker) and Vernon. These two are clearly the only characters with any intelligence in the story and their dialogue the only substantial banter. Even the girl, as well intending as she wants to be, talks with the whimsical idealism of a child and continues to date the dumb jock Roger even though he harasses and beats up Vernon all the time.
The rest of the adults in the film are either absent (as in Vernon's parents) or are simply walking stiffs fulfilling societal roles (or movie script roles!) It is a further element of tragedy that Vernon and the inspector must find themselves as opposing forces rather than allies. The hideous Coach McCall and his merry band of muscle heads are hilarious as a bunch of dumb jocks arm wrestling and worshipping brute strength. Brutish strength is returned to the Coach as the mutated Vernon stomps him to a bloody pulp with football cleats in the gymnasium bleachers!
Vernon's first victim is the creepy school janitor, who's cat gets into the chemistry lab and torments Vernon''s guinea pig "Mr. Mumps." Oddly enough, both characters show loving affinity for their pets, even though both characters are bent on evil violence. (Is the janitor perhaps a projection of Vernon in the future?) Both pets die as well as the janitor himself (his head pushed into a vat of acid!) Vernon expresses little remorse, even for his own pet. He accepts that Mr. Mumps was a necessary part of his "experiments." Clearly, nothing in Vernon's life comes above his obsessive science- not school, not family, not pets, not the girl. Even as we might expect Vernon to be a champion of humanism given his plight, he doesn't seem terribly sympathetic to anything.
One cannot overlook the sexual and/or homoerotic subtext of the film as well. After his first "kill" Vernon wakes to find himself home in bed, his sheets stained with blood. Moving quickly, Vernon hides the guilty evidence, quickly stashing the soiled sheets until he can fully dispose of them. A slow-motion sequence at the gym contrasts the skinny, outcast Vernon helplessly tussled by shirtless boys in the locker room in a viscerally poignant underscoring of male gender struggles. Something is curiously different about Vernon that everyone notices, from the teachers to the police detective to Robin. Vernon's overall ambivalence to Robin's advances also call into question what undertones the film might be hinting at. Whatever Vernon's iconoclastic character represents, it is certainly not of the comfortable mainstream. This reality is one that seemingly cannot be left alone by the rest of society and Vernon is again and again called out and made an example of.
Whether its the boys in the locker room or his classroom teachers, everyone picks on Vernon and calls him "pathetic." The chiding English teacher chops up Vernon's science paper with her cutting board as she threatens to keep him from graduating. As with the other adults, she only points out Vernon's failings, rather than acknowledge his gifts. In the most disturbing scene of the film, the changed Vernon corners his evil English teacher in her classroom at night after a terrorized run through the halls. Feeling her way in the dark, her hand slips across her precious cutting board. Down comes the blade and off with those fingers! Gripping her face with her finger less hand she slips, falling across the desk, her head directly under the blade. SLICE! Off comes her head as a close-up shot reveals what is obviously a plastic mannequin head hitting the floor. The camera zooms out swiftly to reveal that it is in fact a mannequin- one set up the police as they investigate the murder the following morning. Clever and snarky editing!
Institutional infrastructure plays as sociological construct as the camera frames twisted angles of Robin running haplessly through shadowy school hallways with locked doors. The evil Vernon has managed to turn his place of personal torment into his own house of horrors. But why would Vernon hunt Robin just as he does his enemies? Vernon's inner rage is so profound that it spites all else. As the mutant Vernon nears escape from pursuing cops, he stops to attack Roger rather than get away. Once again, the rage overtakes any other concerns and Vernon dies at the hands of the police. Robin kneels weeping over Vernon's bloody body, now transformed back to normal. The inspector and his crew stare in silence as the camera pulls out and the opening song is reprised for the final credits. Everyone is a helpless witness to the tragic nature of Vernon's plight and the film ends in sadness.
What a world! What a world!
|
UNKNOWN ISLAND (1948)
Dir: Jack Bernhard
Really a sci-fi / fantasy but do to its themes I'll review it here. Obviously a rushed out genre pic at the time, what makes this B-list classic interesting is how it responds to the norms of its era. Tired pacing, rubber suit dinosaurs and bad acting do not entirely kill this wanna-be, as there are some interesting and/or comical moments to embrace. (Most notably, the entire first act, which much like its predecessor MIGHTY JOE YOUNG, is one long conversation in the back of a bar.)
As with all dinosaur adventure fantasies of the era, UNKNOWN ISLAND is an offspring of Merian C. Coopers masterful KING KONG. Cooper's classic was the culmination of years of foreign safari films that tried to bring audiences exotic and epic "animal pictures." These flicks involved native tribes and ancient cultures, contrasted against American cultural norms of the Pre WWII era. Here is where a motif was born of tying the male-centric, patriarchal tribal normative with the idea of the "beast of the wild." Women (specifically western, white, virginal and usually blonde women) were portrayed as damsels in distress, at risk of being "violated" by the freedom of the wild. Of course, it is the western white male who comes to her rescue, crashing in on the laws of the jungle with his modern technology, post-Victorian morality and manly confidence. This allegorical motif became the basis for KING KONG, where the giant ape KONG represents ultimate masculine power and therefore the freedom and unrestricted domain of the wild. However, KONG's masculine power is also his undoing as he falls for the archetypal "beauty," only to be outwitted by her human suitor in the chaos of the "civilized" modern world,
(his ""cocksmanship impugned' as it were.)
| |
UNKNOWN ISLAND draws from the KONG masculine dynamic and twists it toward bizarre and hilarious directions. With only vague references to scientific truth vs. macho hubris as a sub-plot, the films main thrust (pun intended) is a meditation on how man can be tempted by the wild to become a pure beast. What starts as a seemingly intact social structure with all classic archetypes in place, quickly un-ravels into run ladies run! The man with the most testosterone gets you for dinner!
Not surprisingly, the transmutation to pure beast is also the undoing of the type-A male, as he merely becomes another monster of the jungle, doomed to a mortal struggle against other mindless prehistoric beasts. (Similar to Leslie Nielson's hilarious big-city business man in DAY OF THE ANIMALS see review) The woman is left psychologically broken because she is not strong enough in character to actually learn and transcend from her experience. The science nerd has to choose between dying to protect his scientific truth or surviving to live without it. Ultimately, the nerd and the girl are allowed to survive since they were too morally high-ground (aka: not man enough) to be tempted/taken by the jungle. This leaves us with a peculiar and comical moral resolve since Nerd-guy is not masculine enough for the girl to attract to and she is not enlightened enough for him to appreciate. Everyone loses except the law of the lost island, which stays lost because all the evidence is destroyed, as it must be, since such wild abandon can never be allowed to interface with the civilized world. Then the very end has the survivors yucking it up on the departing ship as if nothing happened!
|
The dude with the biggest man-parts wins! in KING KONG(1933)
The un-bridalled male retreats to what he relates to best: a giant phallis scraping the sky.
Unfortunatley, this is not Kong's phallis but Man's, so the ape pays the price.
|
|
