Well, it is November and that means I’ll be doing a few Film Noir reviews. This year I’m not going to get carried away with it. I did 35 horror reviews last month, so I’m only posting a couple of things a week for November. Half of those will be Film Noir reviews. The other half will be new movies or articles. Anyway, for the first one of the month I specifically wanted to check out “I Am Julia Ross” from 1945. The reason being that one of the horror movies I reviewed last month “Dead of Winter” (1987) was a loose remake of this movie. So after viewing that, it seemed only fair to check out the original. The movie is directed by Joseph H Lewis from a screenplay by Muriel Roy Bolton and stars Nina Foch, Dame May Whitty and George Macready.
Julia Ross (Foch) is offered a job as live-in personal secretary to a wealthy widow, Mrs Hughes (Whitty). She is somewhat desperate for work, so is keen to take the job. However things not what they seem and after arriving she is drugged and passes out. She wakes up two days later at a strange house on the Cornwall coast. All her possessions have disappeared and Mrs Hughes now claims she is Marion, her son’s wife. Naturally Julia doesn’t accept this but the pair have convinced the locals that she is mentally unwell. Making matters worse the son Raph (Macready), appears to be prone to violence and likely murdered the real Marion.
A Rose By Any Other Name
This is a short movie, with a runtime of just over one hour. Despite that the movie doesn’t feel rushed. It also didn’t feel much like a film noir. I can’t help but suspect as a British production, that this was mostly outside the influence of the growing genre. Instead it has been retrospectively placed in that pigeon hole by history. The plot is not too far off the gothic romance noir movies, but the style is probably closer to a 1930’s thriller. Despite the dire situation the titular character finds herself in, the film actually has a lot about it that is quite upbeat and lighter in tone. The movie even ends with the lead and her romantic interesting largely laughing off the entire trauma.
The main negative of the movie is how far fetched everything is. I have to say Dead of Winter actually handled the situation a lot better and in a way that made it feel more realistic. This movie however requires a heavy dose of suspension of disbelief. What balances that out is the claustrophobic atmosphere and Nina Foch is putting over her fear and frantic attempts to escape. May Whitty and George Macready’s menacing double act also helps. Macready’s Ralph is clearly a psychopath and is barely able to restrain his lust for violence. The performance is perhaps a little over the top but is tempered by Mrs Hughes. The pair work together where they wouldn’t by themself.
Conclusion
Overall, I think the horror remake is the superior film and Mary Steenburgen the better actress. But this movie is still worth watching. It has a touch of charm and a good amount on tension. While the far fetched nature of things strains the narrative, the short length means it doesn’t overstay it’s welcome. This is a strong 5.5/10.
October may be over, but I have one more horror review for you before I move on to other things. This one comes a little late, but unlike others I wasn’t overly enthusiastic about this movie. I’m talking of course about the latest addition to the Alien franchise “Alien Romulus”. The trailers had some cool visuals but I had my doubts that this would be anything but a less good version of Aliens, updated with a few modern cliches. The movie is from director Fede Alvarez and written by Alvarez and Rodo Sayagues. It stars Cailee Spaeny and David Johnson with support from Isabela Merced,
Aliens: Romulus is set between the first two Alien films, which is a little strange on the surface but does fit with the trend of going back to the original movie in these franchises. What is unusual here is it’s not a retcon sequel, everything else is still canon. The story follows colonist Rain Carradine and her friends as they attempt to escape their apparent indentured servitude to the Weyland-Yatani company at a mining colony. To do this their plan is to break into an abandoned space station that is orbiting the planet and steal the left pods so they can utilize their cryo sleep capsules and reach another colony. Unfortunately for them the space station was abandoned for good reason as this outpost has been used to experiment on the infamous Xenomorphs.
In Space No One Can Hear Your Callbacks
I predicted what this film was going to be back when it was first announced. That is basically the same as “Prey” (2022) but for the Alien franchise. A watered down less good version of the movies that worked with endless references from those better movies put in simply for the sake of it. Not a bad movie as such. but it’s like watching a tribute band perform the greatest hits of your favourite artist. The music is good, but given the choice I’d always rather watch the real thing. That’s the difference between tribute bands and this kind of safe overly meta sequel movie, you can’t always see your favourite band. You can however always see your favourite movie. So movies like Prey and Romulus are things you watch once and then go back to only re-watching the first two movies as you have been for decades.
What I didn’t realize was just how much of a greatest hits Romulus would be. It doesn’t just reference the first two movies, it throws callbacks to the more divisive ones. When it does reference the first two movies it lays it on so thick it takes you out of it. This is the very definition of “‘Member Berries”. It is not “Nostalgia done right”, these things are shoehorned in. Actually the elements from the divisive movies are actually done better than the ones from Alien/Aliens, because they do service the plot. This is not a movie created to do something new or interesting with the franchise, it is one designed to get bums on seats in the theatre with little care for if anyone will remember the movie in five years time.
Alien Queens Greatest Hits Vol 2
Nostalgia bait is one thing. But what about the movie in it’s own right? Well, on the positive the music and the sound design are fantastic. I really did enjoy both those elements. Indeed the only callbacks to older movies I liked were the musical ones. Visually the film is mostly good. I say mostly because there is one bit of horrendous CGI. Naturally, this is tied to the pointless nostalgia call backs. The characters inclusion is itself a dumb and lazy plot element but the CGI just makes it embarrassing. Unfortunately, the character is in the film throughout. One of the worst callbacks to past movies includes a particular type of Alien. While the concept is still bad, I think this version looks marginally better.
The characters are a strong weakness for this movie too. Indeed these are just the dregs from an overly dystopian colony that is typical of the unimaginative modern view of the future. In Alien and Aliens while the company had nefarious goals, there was no indication that this film was set in a dystopian future. The crew of the Nostromo were just blue collar working Joes/Janes. They weren’t oppressed, they just weren’t pampered. Romulus though launches us instantly to a universe where the company effectively has slaves, who have no control over their destiny. The Company meanwhile have moved on from nefarious to full mustache twirling villainy. That makes the universe no longer feel real. The characters themselves have no real background to pull from and so feel generic outside of Andy the android and he’s not that much better.
Conclusion
Ultimately this is a movie that does nothing for the franchise. It is pretty, it is loud. Indeed one may say it is full of sound and fury yet ultimately signifying nothing. It has an extreme deficit of creativity and relies on nostalgia and callbacks. I originally thought this would be like Prey, but in many ways it’s more like “Terminator: Dark Fate”. It’s nowhere near as bad, nor does it remove the older films from canon. It does however repeat the same mistakes from those movies that derailed the franchise previously. That said, I did enjoy Romulus more than Prey (Or Dark Fate). That is mostly due to the visuals, sound design and music. It’s not a strong entry in the franchise, but it makes a reasonable popcorn movie. This is a 5.5/10.
That’s right, It’s the final night of my October Review Challenge. That means it’s Halloween and *that* means it’s triple bill time. As you can probably guess, I watch the movies I review in October the day before I post (Sometimes earlier). So what I do on Halloween is sit back and enjoy three old classics without the pressure of having to review them. But this year, I’m sharing the fun somewhat by offering you a triple bill of reviews as well. That takes this years review challenge up to 35 movies reviewed. A new record (For me anyway). Anyway, tonight I’ve got a mixed bag of 80’s horror for you. Ouija boards, rats and very small demons. Let’s get to it!
Of Unknown Origin (1983)
Rats. They are creepy, territorial and hard to get rid of. Some are harmless pets, but even those creep the hell out of a lot of people. Naturally rats have always found their way into the horror genre. Tonight’s movie is the rat horror “Of Unknown Origin” from 1983. This is based on the 1979 novel “The Visitor” by Chauncey G. Parker III. The movie is directed by George P. Cosmatos and stars Peter Weller (Of Robocop fame). Cosmatos would go on to direct such smash hits as “Rambo” and “Tombstone”. His horror CV isn’t quite as impressive but “Leviathan” and “Cobra” do have their fans (Including myself for the latter). Brian Taggert provides the screenplay, René Verzier the cinematography and Kenneth Wannberg composed the soundtrack.
The movie focuses on Bart Hughes (Weller), an investment banker. Bart has just moved into a recently renovated house in New York City. His wife and daughter are due to go on Holiday, with Bart staying at home to finish work on a major project he thinks will earn him a promotion. Not long after, a flood in the flat reveals the presence of a rat somewhere in the house and Bart sets about trying to kill it. This turns out to be easier said than done, with the vicious beast not falling for his tricks and turning his life into a living hell.
Captain Ahab
At one point in the story Bart throws the book he is reading at the ceiling out of anger at the noises he is hearing from the invading rat. We get a clear shot of what he is reading and it is of course Moby Dick. This is basically all you need to know about the movies subtext. This is one man’s obsession to prove he can eliminate his nemesis. The rat doesn’t quite turn out to be his undoing though I’m sure he probably didn’t earn his promotion at work after all that.
The rat itself doesn’t look particularly good, but the movie compensates by being clever with what it shows and when.The result is we actually get some pretty disturbing visuals with glimpses of the rats teeth or eyes or a tail disappearing behind objects. It’s certainly creepy. Most often though you don’t see anything, you just hear noises. The weight of convincing the audience to buy into this movie is entirely on Peter Weller’s head. It is his performance that is the driving force behind the movie and he doesn’t let us down.
You Dirty Rat
Your millage may vary with this horror. When the focus is something like rats, obviously how you feel about those animals is going to impact if you find the film scary or even just end up sympathizing with the rat. However, I think everyone can appreciate the fear of an unseen monster running around their home and appreciate Weller’s performance. The downside is that there just isn’t anything more to the plot. Once you get the Moby Dick reference it’s basically just man vs beast to the end. Man wins, but at a cost. Because of that I can’t really give this more than a strong 5.5/10.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 5.5 out of 10.
Ghoulies II (1987)
For the second entry in our triple bill I’m watching the sequel to 1984’s Ghoulies. This one promises to actually focus on the Ghoulies themselves instead of saving them for the final act as in the first movie. This is of course from Charles Band’s Empire Pictures (The precursor to Full Moon Features) and is directed by Charles’ father Albert. The screenplan is from Dennis Paoli and the movie stars Damon Martin, Royal Dano and Phil Fondacaro.
The setting for this sequel is a carnival fun house called “Satan’s Den”, which has found itself home to an infestation of Ghoulies. That is small mischievous psychotic demons. The funhouse is in danger of being shut down by the carnivals accountant/investor. The sudden arrival of the Ghoulies initially turns out a boon for business, but as their antics become more fatal it is down to Larry (Martin), Nigel (Fondacaro) and Nicole (Kerry Remsen) to deal with them.
Ghoulies Go To The Fair
I feel like there has been a definite budget increase between this and the previous movie. Not that it looks expensive, but we do see a lot more of the Ghoulies and they are a lot more mobile than they were in the first movie. That’s good because the creatures effects are pretty cool and their murderous antics are entertaining. One of the Ghoulies actually does get to get someone in the end… Ahem. The death scenes, including those of the Ghoulies are pretty amusing. That’s basically all they are going for here and that’s fine, this is a movie that knows what it is.
The acting quality is about what you expect for a Charles Band horror in the 1980’s. A just about passable lead and weaker performances the further down the cast you get. Nothing that really takes you out of the movie though and that is the important thing. The characters aren’t particularly compelling, but have a bit of charm to them. I love how the Fun House actually has a fully sharpened bladed pendulum as one of the attractions. Not to mention how quickly bits of it explode. Yeah, this carnival probably should have been shut down. I guess it’s part of the fun how little of this movie makes any kind of sense.
They’ll Still Get You In The End
As sequels go this is giving the audience what they want. The main complaint from the first film was the lack of Ghoulies, so this definitely addressed that. However, that film at least had a plot. This is basically just Ghoulies being Ghoulies for an hour and a half. I don’t know why it wasn’t a more direct sequel to be honest. The intro is never explained and serves no purpose. The Ghoulies were already on the loose, so they could have just turned up at the Carnival. Anyway, this is a dumb fun film. Nothing more. Effectively it’s just a B-Movie version of Gremlins (Even more so even than the first one). For the fun factor and creature effects this narrowly hits a 5.5/10. You already know if you want to watch it.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 5.5 out of 10.
Witchboard (1986)
For the last movie of the 2024 review challenge I’m checking out Ouija board horror Witchboard from 1986. Written and directed by Kevin Tenney in his feature movie debut. Tenney would go on to direct a run of similar low budget horror movies to varying degrees of success. The movie stars Tawny Kitaen, Todd Allen and “Days of Our Lives'” Stephen Nichols.
The movie tells the story of a Linda Brewster (Kitaen) who becomes entranced into using her friend’s Ouija board alone after it was accidentally left behind at her party, resulting in her becoming terrorized by a malevolent spirit. Linda’s boyfriend Jim (Allen) and her ex Brandon (Nichols), whose board it was brings in a psychic medium (Kathleen Wilhoite) to exorcise the spirit. Things take a turn for the sinister when the psychic is murdered on her way home. Before Jim and Brandon can save Linda they have to find out just who the sinister spirit is that is terrorizing her.
Something Stupid This Way Comes
The cast and characters are not especially strong None of them are particularly likable and most of the supporting cast are given over the top personalities that just make them annoying, especially when mixed with below average acting. The worst offender is the medium Zarabeth, whose role is thankfully short. But the police detective is a close second. The leads are only marginally better. Despite that at least there are some interesting character dynamics.. The two male leads being old friends and now part of a love triangle is the most original thing, but It adds some much needed interest because outside of that their personalities suck.
The story on the other hand is actually pretty compelling and original. It is well paced and actually keeps you guessing at least until the final act. The layout of the three acts reminds me a bit of movies like Shocker and The Changeling where each act is virtually it’s own film. The middle act is probably the peak where the story turns into more of an investigation. Sadly the final act turns generic horror, leading to an underwhelming conclusion. There is pretty good use of sound throughout, both music and sound design in general. The visuals are not stunning but have creativity in places. .
Ouija Quit It
Overall this is a pretty average horror with a good story that unfortunately becomes silly at the end. The biggest problem is how annoying the characters are. Some, such as the police detective and the medium didn’t really need to even be in the story. The central three you could get away with providing everything paid off. Specifically, the relationship between the two childhood friends should have played a role in the finale. It didn’t though and the eventual solution was sort of dumb. While the movie is quite original, there’s a few too many flaws with this one to give it more than a 5/10.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 5 out of 10.
That’s A Wrap
Well, that’s it for this years October Challenge! The top five recommendations this year turned out to be Peeping Tom, Blood and Black Lace, A Dark Song, Opera and Crimson Peak. The only clangers (Below 5/10) were The First Omen and The Limehouse Golem. The rest was generally above average. I didn’t get in any Japanese horrors this year, but covered most of my usual traditions. Anyway, I don’t know what the future holds for me or this blog, but if I am back for another round next year I hope you will join me! Don’t forget, I do post reviews and articles throughout the rest of the year too. I’m most prolific in October and more horror focused, but I think you’ll find value to checking screen-wolf out all year round. Anyway…
Time for another horror double bill. This time we’re hitting the 1950’s for some classic horror science fiction. This was a popular sub genre in the fifties and in truth swayed more to science fiction but usually meant some kind of monster was involved along the way. No exception with this duo. So for your enjoyment I give you “It Came From Outer Space” from 1953 and “Day The World Ended” from 1955.
It Came From Outta Space (1953)
First up is the sci-fi horror classic: “It came from outta space” from 1953. This was originally released as a 3D movie as part of the first wave of that gimmick in the fifties. Indeed this was actually Universals first 3D movie. The movie is directed by Jack Arnold, often regarded one of the masters of sci-fi horror in the 1950’s. His other works include “Creature from the Black Lagoon” (1954), “Tarantula” (1955), and “The Incredible Shrinking Man” (1957). The story comes from prolific science fiction writer Ray Bradbury. It stars Richard Carlson and Barbara Rush, with support from Charles Drake, Joe Sawyer, and Russell Johnson.
A large meteorite crashes near the small town of Sand Rock, Arizona. Author and amateur astronomer John Putnam (Carson) investigates and realizes this is not a meteorite but a crashed space ship. Shortly after a landslide buries the spacecraft and as the only witness John has trouble convincing others to believe him. His girlfriend Ellen is the only one willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and helps him investigate. Over the next few days people start disappearing. Occasionally turning up apparently dazed and distant. Convinced this is something to do with the ship, John convinces the local sheriff (Drake) to assist. The question is, what do these visitors intend? Are they actually a threat?
The Night The Earth Will Never Forget
It’s worth noting this movie predates Invasion of the Body Snatchers, but not the Puppet Masters novel by Robert Heinlein. So at this point a movie where aliens assume the identity of regular people from a small town was a pretty fresh idea. Yet, through the lens of the modern day this could be seen as a subversion of that theme as the Aliens are not doing this as part of an invasion. The 50’s did actually have a fair mixture of benevolent and malevolent aliens. As is typical with the former types there is somewhat of a judgement against humanity on display here. Again, through a modern lens this is a little cliched but in the early 50’s this trope was only just starting to be established.
I’m not sure why this was a 3D movie. It’s not exactly action heavy and is actually quite slow in places. Then again I could probably say that about half the 3D movies that were ever released. While the 3D is wasted, I also don’t find too much horror in this story. The replacement of people doesn’t lead to much in the way of paranoia. The abduction scenes show very little and look dated. Last but not least, the aliens only reveal their true form once and only in a peaceful setting. They did pretty cool though and very unique. Not as good as the “War of the Worlds” aliens from the same year, but that movie had more than double the budget. The science fiction elements have aged far better than the horror ones.
Conclusion
This is a straight forward science fiction story with mild horror elements. It would have been fairly original in it’s time, but feels cliched now. Likewise the alien when it is revealed would have been a lot more impressive 71 years ago. I’m not sure the 3D would have impressed even in the day, but I can only judge that based on the lack of action on screen since I don’t have a 3D version. For the most part this feels like a decent TV movie. There’s not particularly wrong with it, the acting is fine, the directing is fine. But it’s all done without any real flourish to it. Overall this is a perfectly reasonable 5.5/10. Not recommended as a horror, but if you are a fan on old sci-fi it is worth watching.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 5.5 out of 10.
Day The World Ended (1955)
For the second part of this double bill I’m reviewing the independent sci-fi/horror “Day The World Ended” from 1955. This is a post apocalyptic tale from the godfather of B-Movies, Roger Corman. This was actually his first full horror and his first in science fiction. Before then he’d only directed a couple of westerns and a handful of scenes for “The Beast With A Million Eyes”. The movie was written by Lou Rusoff (Who would later be a producer on another apocalyptic tale “Panic In Year Zero”). Richard Denning stars with support from Lori Nelson, Adele Jergens, Mike Connors and Paul Birch.
Set just after the events of an atomic war. A handful of survivors in an isolated box canyon find themselves cooped up in the home of former U.S. Navy Commander Jim Maddison (Birch) and his daughter Louise (Nelson). The visitors include small time hood Tony (Connors), his moll Ruby (Jergens), heroic geologist Rick (Denning), an irradiated and apparently dying man called Radek (Paul Dubov) and an old gold prospector called Pete (Raymond Hatton). They face three separate struggles for survival, the first against the dangers of radiation and the question of what the coming rain will bring. The second against the dangerous feral mutants that have appeared in this new irradiated world. The final struggle comes from inside and Tony’s plans to eliminate the other men and claim the rations and women for himself.
War Never Changes
I’ve always been a sucker for post apocalyptic fiction. Not only is it one of the great “What If”‘s of fiction, it always provides an excellent character study. Many of these films are effectively versions of the “Strangers in a room” story. These usually feature people sheltering from a storm, but this time the storm is radioactive. Usually these groups of people include at least one villain that drives a lot of the plot and this is no exception. Tony is clearly going to be a huge life threatening problem the whole way through. It’s hard not to see it as a plot hole that they don’t do anything about him until after he’s tried to take over the shelter several times, attempted to rape Louise and obviously killed his own girlfriend.
The rest of the film is focused on more far fetched science fiction elements. This is exactly the kind of 50’s science fiction that the “Fallout” video games took influence from. Indeed Radek, recovery from radiation sickness and how he now thrives on radiation is suspiciously similar to the Fallout concept of “Ghouls”. In this film, much like in the game radiation simply mutates a lot of the animals it makes contact with. The film doesn’t show us anything but sketches of most of these mutations, but the idea is to pave the way for the movies primary monster. The monster looks pretty good, but only turns up at the end and dies shortly after.
Conclusion
This is a somewhat stripped down movie that features a lot of good ideas that struggle to fit in to the run time. Certainly none of them get as fully developed as they deserve. The acting is passable, but at this point in his career Corman didn’t really direct the actors and that shows. The personalities of the characters come across as stereotypical archetypes. The monster looks pretty good for the age and limited budget and Corman certainly made the most of the sets. It’s a pretty impressive debut in the genre, but Roger would certainly do better later in his career. This ties with the other half of this double bill with a 5.5/10. If you like post apocalyptic tales and old sci-fi you will enjoy it.
As we roll closer to Halloween I’ve decided to up my game and do three double bill reviews. I’ve picked movies that won’t require me to be too verbose in my analysis, but should still be fun. First up is a 1992 Doctor Double Bill. That is I am review the comedy horror Doctor Giggles and the fantasy horror Doctor Mordrid both from 1992. The coincidences don’t stop there though as they both star an actor named Combs. They aren’t related but if you watched TV in the 1990’s you probably recognise them both.
Dr. Giggles (1992)
First up is the horror comedy slasher film “Dr. Giggles” from 1992. Directed by Manny Coto and written by Coto and Graeme Whifler. While Coto may not be the most recognizable name as a director, he has become a regular writer for horror television over the years. His credits include Dexter, American Horror Story and the Exorcist TV series. One instantly recognizable name from the 1990’s in Holly Marie Combs (One of the stars of the TV series “Charmed”) and Dr. Giggles was her first staring role in a feature film. Slashers though are more about the killer than the final girl and here we have Larry Drake playing the titular villain. Larry previously played the villainous “Durant” from the movie “Darkman” (1990).
Thirty Five years after a killing spree by Dr. Evan Rendell resulted in him being shot dead by police, his unhinged son (Drake) has escaped from an asylum and returned to the town of Moorehigh to continue his fathers work. He becomes increasingly obsessed with Jennifer Campbell (Combs), a young woman with problematic heart. The original cause of Dr. Rendell’s killing spree was that his wife’s heart was failing and he became obsessed with giving her a transplant (By killing people and cutting out their hearts). Now his son wants to replace Campbell’s heart and will kill anyone else that gets in his way.
Open Up And Say Arrrrrgh
Slasher movies swarmed the 1980’s, so by the time 1992 rolled around we’d seen pretty much everything. It wasn’t until 1996 when “Scream” added a layer of polish and a big touch of meta-references that the genre started to feel relevant again. With that in mind you can see why this film had mostly negative reviews when it came out. However, we’re a long way from the 80’s now and slashers that don’t try and drop twists, subvert expectations or be self referential suddenly feel sort of fresh.
It helps that Dr. Giggles brings a lot of personality to the table courtesy of Larry Drake’s performance. The methods of killing and the medical puns make him a memorable antagonist. It also helps to have Hollie Marie Combs as the final girl. As well as being a generally good actress, few people feel quite as wholesome as Hollie. That works well for a final girl as it makes you automatically sympathetic. The rest of the cast are somewhat below average and don’t offer anything memorable. They aren’t so bad as to take you out of the movie and most of them are just there for the kill count so this is fine.
The Last Laugh
This is a formulaic yet fun slasher movie. The villain is memorable and has a distinct personality. The final girl is actually a good and recognizable actress (Who achieved fame later) and plays the part well. The kills all fit the theme and there’s even a few good visuals along the way. Against that is a paper thin plot with more than a few holes. That doesn’t get too in the way with a comedy horror slasher so this narrowly earns a 6/10. High than I expected to give this! If you like slashers and/or comedy horror I’m sure you’ll enjoy it.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 6 out of 10.
Doctor Mordrid (1992)
In the early 1990’s Charles Band’s Full Moon Entertainment became quite ambitious. In 1990 they released the movie “Robot Jox”, not a great movie but ahead of it’s time for what it tried to achieve on a modest budget. Marvel meanwhile was not in a great place with it’s movies. It wouldn’t be until 1998’s “Blade” that they started the journey to the modern era of superhero movies. Instead their most recent movies were Dolph Lundgren’s “Punisher” (1989) and 1986’s Howard The Duck. Not movies that set the world on fire. So no shock they were willing to give Band the rights to make a “Doctor Strange” movie. Sadly (Or luckily) those rights expired while this film was in pre-production and Band decided to simply change the names and move forward with it.
Anton Mordrid (Jerffrey Combs) is a wizard tasked by a being called “The Monitor” to protect the Earth from an evil Wizard called Kabal (Brian Thompson). Kabal needs to acquire the philosophers stone and a number of alchemical elements to unleash his minions from the fourth dimension. Mordrid befriends and is assisted by Samantha Hunt (Yvette Nipar), a research consultant to the police. As Kabal gets closer to his goal, Mordrid is suspected by the police of committing the crimes and he must escape custody and meet his nemesis for a final showdown at the Cosmopolitan Museum.
Master Of The Dark Arts
This is one of those horror adjacent movies, simply because it involves dark magic. In truth it’s no more a horror than Charmed or Buffy the Vampire slayer. Brian Thompson, who plays the evil antagonist “Kabal” was a regular on both of those shows and honestly I wouldn’t have been surprised to see the Shannen Doherty or Sarah Michelle Gellar turn up. Brian has one of those combinations of faces and voices that make him perfect villain material. His acting ability was never quite enough to raise him to a higher level and so he became type cast. For a cheap horror though, he’s perfectly adequate. Jeffrey Combs however is actually a much better actor than his long run of low budget horrors and TV shows would suggest. Any time he turns up in a movie like this, the quality raises.
Despite the budget this is a well put together movie with a mostly higher quality level of acting than you may expect. But in typical Charles Band style that is only true of the main characters. Once you reach the bit parts the acting quality drops right down. Again though, not really any worse than an episode of Charmed. Most aspects of this movie are reasonable. They just about get away with the effects at the end of the movie, which were obviously minimized for the sake of the budget. The big problem is the script. It is 50% generic and 50% plain bad. The climax felt sort of random and unearned as did the relationship between the main characters.
It’s A Kind Of Magic
This is film that could have been a lot better even with the special effects limitations of the day. Effectively being a Doctor Strange movie, we have a raw concept we know can work. We have an excellent protagonist, a good leading lady and a villain that slips into the role like a comfy pair of shoes. But then we have a plot that doesn’t seem to have any plans for how to tell a story with these very fine ingredients. The movie is on the short side at a mere 74 minutes, so it’s no surprise it feels like it was just about to get into its stride when BAM it’s over. As a result, the best I can give this is a 5/10. This is basically a TV movie. If you want to see Jeffrey Combs at his best, check out “Re-Animator” (1985) instead. If you are curious about the Doctor Strange movie that never happened it may be worth watching, otherwise give it a pass.
Bloody Hell is a 2020 independent horror comedy from director Alister Grierson and writer Robert Benjamin. It is based on an idea Benjamin came up with while at an airport and is his feature film debut. The film stars Ben O’Toole and Meg Fraser (Also making her debut). Support is from Caroline Craig, Matthew Sunderland and Travis Jeffrey (Playing twins). The movie is mostly set in Finland, even though none of the main actors are finnish and most of the movie was actually filmed in Australia.
Rex (O’Toole), is an ex-military man that has just been released from jail after his heroics in taking out a gang of bank robbers cost the life of an innocent woman. He is seen by some as a hero and others as a villain. Either way his celebrity status is too much for him and so he opts for a fresh start… in Finland. Unfortunately for him he is immediately kidnapped by a family of cannibals and wakes up tied to the ceiling in a basement and missing a foot. Fortunately he is tougher than he looks and he has an ally… the voice in his head.
Hello Me
There are many different flavours of horror comedy around. Some are dark and twisted, others are so heavy on the laughs they barely count as horror. Some lean heavily into B-Movie effects and aesthetics and others are more realistic and rely on fluke and idiocy to create mad situations. That last group is where you’ll find “Bloody Hell”, but it’s a specific sub-flavour of that because it relies on the protagonist being quite unhinged himself. The situation in which he finds himself in should by all rights be terrifying, but because he is talking to an imaginary version of himself that is calmer and more in control, the situation actually becomes a comedic one. It’s quite a clever idea conceptually.
One of the things I noticed with this film is how fast the time went by. In actual fact the protagonist spends most of the film strung up in the basement, but it doesn’t feel like then while you are watching it. Other things go on around him, including flashbacks revealing what happened at the bank. These help break it up, but in actual fact most of the movie is one character talking to himself. We see the voice in his head as a physical manifestation so the scene feels like a genuine conversation. This works surprisingly well and then when the final act kicks off and he breaks free, the action is swift and clever. The pacing is pretty much spot on.
Finnish Him
It’s impossible not to see the influence of Deadpool on this movie or perhaps more accurately Ryan Reynolds. In many ways the movie reminds me of Reynold’s “Voices” horror comedy, which used a very similar trick. In that Reynold’s is a serial killer but the film is framed through his imaginary conversations. Sometimes with his pets and occasionally the dead bodies of his victims. Bloody Hell isn’t quite as funny as Voices, but it does have the scope for sequels. Indeed the film definitely hints at more to come and I hope we see it. O’Toole doesn’t have Reynolds natural wit and charisma on screen, but he does and pretty good job of impersonating it. This was Meg Fraser’s feature debut so her performance was very impressive. It’s worth noting, since none of the cast were actually Finnish, so they had to learn to speak the dialogue for the role.
Overall, this is a smoothly put together movie that works pretty well for what it is. It isn’t overly funny or particularly scary but it keeps you entertained. The protagonist is likeable despite being a little crazy and the action scenes, while minimal, are fun. I imagine the film would drag a little on second viewings but it’s definitely worth watching once. This is a solid 6/10 and a recommendation. Apparently a sequel is being considered, I’ll be there for it!
Cynical cash in sequels were not an invention of more recent years. They were part of Hollywood since the golden age. Curse Of The Cat People is the sequel to “Cat People” from 1942. Both films were written by DeWitt Bodeen. To Bodeen and producer Val Lewton, this was a lot more than just a cash in. They took a radical direction with the story, much to the chagrin of the studio. This was Robert Wise’s directorial debut, however the original director on the film was Gunther von Fritsch. Gunther was fired for falling too far behind in shooting but approximately half of the movie is his work. Simone Simon, Kent Smith and Jane Randolph return to their roles from the previous film and they are joined by the movies young star Ann Carter.
After the events of “Cat People” Oliver Reed (Smith) has married his former co-worker Alice (Randolph) and moved to Tarrytown, New York. They have a 6 year old daughter called Amy, who is awkward and struggles to make friends. Oliver is concerned that she lets her imagination run away with her instead of socializing. Part of his concern is because he saw what happened to his former wife Irena when she lost her grip on reality. In a strange twist Amy befriends an invisible figure that appears to be the ghost of Irena. She also makes friend with a senile old lady, a former movie star that now thinks her own daughter is an impostor. Oliver tries to bring her daughter to reality but may end up only driving her away from him.
Are Cat People Without Cats, Still People?
Curse of the Cat People is a unique movie (Not bad for something 80 years old). The expectations for this sequel would be for it to be a monster like it’s predecessor. But while the original involved curses and cat people, this has neither. Instead it’s sort of a ghost story. Maybe not even that, since the ambiguity of the story leaves it just as likely the ghost was only ever a figment of a young lonely girls imagination. It is a story that has a bit of sentimental sweetness to it, but is actually quite sad. Not just in the lead girl but also the senile old woman that befriends her while rejecting her own daughter. It is a story about the border between fantasy and reality and how that impacts people. It’s really not a horror film. Yet, it is a direct sequel with three returning characters.
These days people talk like audience expectation as if this is not something that has ever been subverted before and yet here we are. A sequel to a monster movie turned into an emotional character drama with a hint at ghostly activity. It’s no surprise reactions to the film were decidedly mixed with fans of the first film often very disappointed while those that had no particular affection for the first simply enjoyed the film for what it was. Indeed that it wasn’t a horror was probably a bonus for those people. The movie even seems to retcon the events of the previous film, placing it all firmly inside Irena’s head, despite that movie showing the audience her in panther form. The only cat in this sequel at all is the street cat in the opening scene that was awkwardly edited in to the movie at the last minute.
Child Psychology
It seems the only way to really judge this movie is as a stand alone. That said, it was marketed and is still listed as a horror, so I’m not going to give it a complete pass for not having anyone mauled by a big cat. As a character drama Amy is a very compelling character. Eight year old Ann Carter did a great job with her performance. Her career was derailed by polio before she broke through as an adult, but she definitely had talent. You certainly feel her innocence and loneliness. Even as she is accidentally driving a wedge between another daughter and her mother, she is never anything but well meaning. Speaking of which, that story between Barbara and Julia Farren is quite heart breaking in it’s own right. It’s a strange secondary story to Amy’s that shares more with it thematically than anything else.
The themes are the interesting thing here. Because we are talking about psychology, senility, madness and the imagination of children. Ollie Reed has his own journey, perhaps one of forgiveness for his former wife Irena’s madness or to see that kindness and love is a better antidote to a delusion than anger. We reference the madness of Irena as an adult, the senile madness of Julia Farren believe her own daughter is an imposter and the childhood madness of Amy’s imaginary friend. These are all depicted with a supernatural overtone to it, yet none of it really does seem to be. It’s actually quite a clever bit of story telling.
But Is It Even A Horror?
Here we get to the problem. As a horror, this is not good. The only person that dies is an old woman of a heart attack. The only threat to anyone is from their own madness. The ghost is most likely just an imaginary friend and the vast majority of the movie isn’t even trying to present the viewer with any other conclusion. Ambiguity is always a benefit in movies that walk the line like this, but they barely attempted any. Madness can be a strong horror theme, but not in the way it is used here. The only character even portrayed as at all menacing is Barbara. Yet the story doesn’t do anything to make us think she is anything other than a poor abused daughter burden by her mothers senility. She is more sad than scary.
So with that all in mind, I have the dilemma of how to rate the movie. It was certainly a misleading film on the surface, but there is a solid, intelligently made movie underneath. As a horror though, which is ultimately what it was marketed as, it doesn’t work. This is more of a family movie than a horror. My instinct here is to give this a 6/10 and a mild recommendation with the caveat that you need to go in expecting a psychological character drama and not anything even mildly horror related.
Tonight I’m reviewing Michael Winner’s 1977 supernatural horror “The Sentinel” from Universal. The movie stars Cristina Raines as model “Alison Parker”. Support comes from a vast array of movie stars from the past, present and future (For 1977) including Ava Gardner, John Carradine, Christopher Walken and Jeff Goldblum. Richard C. Kratina provides cinematography and Gil Mellé, the music. The movie is based on the novel of the same name by Jeffrey Konvitz. Winner and Konvits adapted the screenplay between them.
Alison Parker is a fashion model with a history of suicide attempts. These date back to an incident where she walked in on her father during an orgie. After moving into an apartment block in Brooklyn she begins to experience strange physical problems. These include fainting spells, insomnia and hearing things. She begins to become agitated by her bizarre neighbours, only to be told that the only other resident there is an elderly reclusive priest. Meanwhile, Alison’s lawyer boyfriend Michael (Chris Sarandon) is being investigated by cops Gatz (Eli Walloch) and Rizzo (Christopher Walken) over the suspicious death of his wife. Alison and Michael attempt to unravel the mystery involving the apartment and the mysterious priest. Ultimately a dark secret will be revealed.
I Am The Way Into The City Of Woe
This is very much a 70’s horror. Edgier and less subtle than the 60’s with more than a little weirdness. It has a pace that starts off slow but builds up more momentum as it goes and then throws everything but the kitchen sink at you for the climax. The movie knows how to unsettle the viewer while keeping them glued to the screen. Michael Winner obviously knows what he is doing, but a lot of this is fairly normal stuff for the era and demonstrates why 70’s horror was so effective. With the Christian/Dante themes I can’t help but compare this to the disappointing “The First Omen” film I reviewed earlier in the month. This demonstrates exactly the kinds of things that film lacked. Specifically, the edginess and the commitment to a religious view point (And associated fears).
That said, this movie clearly takes a lot of influence from Rosemary’s Baby. The way the other “Residence” of her apartment block approach her in a friendly and yet creepy manner and how ultimately they have evil intentions towards her. That is straight out of Polanski’s playbook. Between that and the influences of the various demon/devil related movies of the 1970’s this movie doesn’t feel especially unique or original. But it’s not cliched. Compared to many of the modern takes on this sub-genre, it actually feels relatively fresh. The story itself is straight forward and relies on a slow reveal of information to drag it out. Most of the events in the film don’t really matter that much and several plot threads seem to disappear into the ether.
Abandon All Hope, You Who Enter
Among the many peripheral characters are Christopher Walken and Jeff Goldblum. Both have very small roles, which is a shame but it’s early in their careers. Goldblum plays a director and Walken plays a cop. Of the two Walken comes closest to having some relevancy to the plot, but both threads drop away before the final act. Effectively the police are just there to imply that Alison’s boyfriend Michael may be a murderer. They drift out of the woodwork for the second act and vanish again by the third. Goldblum’s role has even less impact as it’s tied to Alison’s day job as a model, something that barely factors into the story.
The strength of this movie is entirely in the events that happen in the apartment block itself. The introduction to the neighbours, the revelation that they may not be real and the parade of weirdness in the fact act. These elements are what makes this film interesting. It’s not enough to raise it up to a true classic, but it is memorable and unsettling. The pacing is good, but the plot could have been structured better so that all the threads felt worthwhile. This is a solid 6/10. Recommended, but don’t expect to be blown away,
The Substance is a new body horror movie from French writer/director Coralie Fargeat. It was made for a mere $17.5m by Universal through their “Working Title Films” UK subsidiary. It stars Demi Moore and Margaret Qualley with support from Dennis Quaid. The movie has not had a particularly large release, but has done well for it’s budget. Notably though it has had very positive reviews with many calling it the film of the year. So naturally I had to work this into my October horror reviews. Side note, this is my 100th horror review on the blog!
Moore plays “Elisabeth Sparkle”, a fading star that is about to loose her aerobics show due to her age. After being in a car crash a surgeon slips a USB stick into her pocket with a note saying “This changed my life”. On the stick is an advert for a treatment known as “The Substance” that promises to perform miracles. Specifically to create a better version of you that will then share your life. There are rules though, the most important being that you switch every seven days without fail. Being desperate to rekindle her fame and be loved by the audience once more, Elisabeth agrees. Thus “Sue” (Qualley) is born. The instructions warn “Remember you are one”, but that may be easier said than done.
Every Seven Days Without Fail
This is a film that heavily indulges in itself. Everything is heavily stylized, but each shot hangs on a few moments more than it needs to and the arty stuff is thrown in almost every second. The style is actually good, but the film milks each idea for far too long. This leads to the main problem with the film it is far too long. You just don’t need two hours and twenty one minutes to make a body horror. The story is actually pretty simple and you know where it is going from fairly early on. Dragging out each scene wasn’t really necessary artistically, to tell the story or to enforce the themes.
My other issue with the film is the predictability. Any film that literally lists rules, you know the the direction of the film will be to break every single one of them. It’s just a matter of time (and it’s a long time). The pay off on the last one is pretty impressive though, I’ll give them that. To be fair, body horror tends to be predictable, so this is a minor issue. I did wonder early on if most of the story was meant to be a hallucination after the car crash or even something experienced as Elizabeth died. Neither came to pass, but to be fair also wasn’t ruled out. The truth is this is a film where reality isn’t really important.
You Are The Matrix
The world in which the film takes place doesn’t feel very much like a real world. That’s not a criticism though since this is clearly intentional. But it is a sign of just how much this film is about style and themes. All the characters outside of the main two (who are in fact, one) are shallow shells of characters that don’t feel real. This is because they aren’t important to the story. This is a story about one person and one person alone. One person and two actresses so it’s a good job Demi Moore and Margaret Qualley were up to the task.
To me this seems to all be a metaphor for plastic surgery. More specifically for how it is crutch many Hollywood actresses reach for at a certain age. It’s an unfortunate thing and almost every time they end up looking worse than aging naturally. This movie really looks into this from the perspective of the women that go through it. It is ultimately a tragedy. It’s not an entirely sympathetic one though. It’s also not a film that shies away from the grossness or comedy of a body horror. The former it indulges in throughout, but the latter kicks into gear for the final act. This is an act that wouldn’t be out of place in a Charles Band or Troma horror comedy.
Termination Is Final
This is a good movie, but I’m not sure it warrants the “Best movie of the year” labels it’s been receiving. The ending is more funny than tragic and the movie drags a lot getting there while they show you a few more close ups of peoples teeth or piles of meat. The themes are sort of in your face and the plot is a straight line towards disaster. That is a plot that works, but it’s nothing special. The visuals however are good. The sets, sound design and editing (Length aside) are very impressive. The body horror is sufficiently gross (Which is the entire point) and everything more or less works. So, how do I score this? I think a strong 6/10 is fair. It’s a recommendation, but I do think you need to like body horrors or art movies to enjoy this.
Guillermo Del Toro has become a bit of a tradition for my October review challenge. I reviewed “Cronos” (1993) and Mimic (1997) in previous years. This year I’m checking out “Crimson Peak” from 2015. Del Toro directs this from a script penned by himself and Matthew Robbins. Long time collaborator Dan Lausten provides the cinematography and Fernando Velázquez provides the soundtrack. The movie stars Mia Wasikowska, Jessica Chastain and Tom Hiddleston. This one I’ve been sitting on for a while so I can watch it as part of the October challenge. It’s actually one of Del Toro’s personal favourites, despite the fact it lost money in the box office.
Ghosts Are A Metaphor For The Past
Our movie opens in 1887 and we are introduced to a young Edith Cushing (Wasikowska), who is visited by the ghost of her dead mother. Her mother warns her to beware “Crimson Peak”. Years later and Edith is an aspiring author struggling to get her ghost story published. Publishers are not keen on a woman writing ghost stories it seems, even though Edith insists the Ghosts are just a metaphor for the past. Edith is the daughter wealthy businessman, Carter Cushing (Jim Beaver), one day she is wooed by a dashing young man, Sir Thomas Sharpe (Hiddleston). He and his sister, Lucille (Chastaine) are visiting America from England in the hopes of finding investors for his invention, a digging machine.
Carter is firmly against the relationship, but after he dies under mysterious circumstances Edith ends up moving to the Sharpe estate in England. A foreboding mansion situated atop a red clay mine (Which it has been sinking in to for years). Things are not what they seem though. Edith is becoming ill and keeps seeing ghostly figures around the Mansion. These ghosts scare her at first, but she begins to realise they do not mean her harm and may be trying to warn her. Meanwhile, Dr. Alan McMichael (Charlie Hunnam), a friend of Edith and her Father from back home suspects foul play in Carter’s death and is investigating.
Red Snow At The Crimson Peak
Since this is a Guillermo Del Torro movie it is no surprise it is a beautiful film to look at and it really is end to end with this. From the snow storms, to the old mansion (Inside and Out) the use of the red clay, the machinery, the look of the ghosts, it all looks great. More impressively though it is all pretty original looking. I mean, I’ve seen a million creepy old mansions, but Del Torro makes it feel new and unique. The same for the ghosts. The plot on the other hand is as old as the gothic romance genre in general. I’ve definitely seem this plot before, or one very similar. The only difference here being the inclusion of the ghosts. However, these ghosts tend to be on the periphery of the plot. They add an extra layer to the film, sort of like the creatures of “Pan’s Labyrinth” Despite how they look, they are not malicious threats and for the most part can only been seen by Edith.
But this is what makes Del Torro special. He is like a cook that takes something like beans on toasts and throws a little twist to it that makes it a culinary delight. Without the ghostly elements and the clever visuals this would be almost the default gothic romance. Nothing to see here at all. But he adds a twist and it becomes something more. Of course this is also a film with a fairly small main cast. Predominantly three characters and so a lot of the weight of the film falls on these three. Luckily for the film these are Tom Hiddleston, Jessica Chastain and Mia Wasikowska. All very capable actors. None of them blew me away, but they all did well.
Conclusion
Your mileage may vary with this movie. A lot really depends on how much you like gothic romance. For me, I have some affection for the gothic romance films of the 1940’s, such as “Rebecca” (1940) and “The Spiral Staircase” (1946). They aren’t my favourites, but I like them. If those are among your favourites however, this may be an all time classic for you. If not, well, you will still enjoy the visuals but probably be quite bored. Personally, I felt the plot was a little too generic and since the film is quite slow paced it did drag in places. But, even when it did, I was still able to enjoy what was on screen. For me, this is a strong 6.5/10.
You must be logged in to post a comment.