Halloween 2023: October 24th

It Lives Inside (2023)

I've been talking up A24 a lot this season, which is not surprising. They are, by far, the most talked-about and hotly debated studio and distributor among the Film Twitter/Letterboxd crowd. But they aren't the only game in town, as far as aggressively hip indie studios go. Neon, especially since “Parasite” won all those Oscars, has been gaining more and more heat. The studio has never backed down from horror releases either, having distributed “Titane,” “Possessor,” and “The Lodge.” Having become smart Oscar campaigners, Neon's reach has gotten wider, allowing them to put weird shit like “Infinity Pool” and “Crimes of the Future” in multiplexes. Probably the studio's most blatant attempt to court horror fans came this past September with “It Lives Inside.” 

Samidha is the teenage daughter of Poorna, who is a devout Hindi. She often braces against her mother's faith and traditions, working hard to become more Americanized. This includes discarding her former best friend, Tamira. Since they've been apart, Tamira has become more withdrawn and begun behaving strangely. She's obsessed with a strange jar she carries everywhere. One day at school, Tamira asks for Samidha's help. In response, Sam smashes the jar. This unleashes the spirit that lives inside, the sanity-destroying and flesh eating demon from Hindi lore known as the Pishach. Sam doesn't believe at first but, as the otherworldly entity targets her and her family more, she soon realizes she has to stand up to the spirit. 

In many ways, “It Lives Inside” has all the hallmark of a modern “elevated” horror movie. The film has the brooding sound design and overcast visuals we associate with the style. Moreover, it foregrounds its subtext, leaving the audience little doubt in what this movie is really about. Samidha rejects the traditional racial and religious identity of her parents. She barely speaks Hindi. She doesn't wear the clothes and dismisses the holidays and rituals. Even shortening her name to “Sam” is a sign of how much she wants to integrate with secular culture. By fighting off a demon from Hindu mythology, Sam will become closer to her mother, to Tamira, and to her own culture. This marks “It Lives Inside” as a clear motion picture about the question of assimilation that faces all immigrants coming to a new country. 

Yet this is hardly a maudlin drama that simply sneaks in a few scares. “It Lives Inside” is very committed to scaring the shit out of the audience. Writer/director Bishal Dutta tries multiple techniques to make us jump out of our seats. The sinister soundscape builds and builds, until someone is attacked by some horrible, unseen force. Clearly influenced by “The Babadook” and “Hereditary,” the film delights in yanking people violently through rooms, down stairs, or into glass display cases. There are intense nightmare sequences, where Sam's skin boils and pops, and a creaking, body contortionist ghoul. While its PG-13 rating keeps “It Lives Inside” from getting too gory, scenes where a swing set turns deadly or a body levitates through the air feature some surprisingly visceral violence. In its last act, “It Lives Inside” even becomes a a straight-up monster movie, the Pishach assuming a toothy and slimy physical form.

While many films come off as trite for following trends so closely, “It Lives Inside” manages to be consistently scary. Perhaps that's because the movie gets the most important thing right: We care about the characters. Megan Suri, as Samidha, and Neeru Bajwa, as Poorna, have a difficult path ahead of them. Both are characters that are, on the surface, unlikable. Sam is a testy teenager, who pushes her friends away. All the supernatural shit that happens is her fault, as one act of cruelty from her unleashes the demon. Poorna, meanwhile, is a stiff mother who argues a lot with her daughter. Yet both performances ground each character, so that you understand where they are coming from. We get invested in their relationship quickly, so watching Suri and Bajwa grow closer again is rewarding. 

In other words, I was surprised by how much “It Lives Inside” worked for me. Dutta lists “A Nightmare on Elm Street” as an influence, which you can clearly dictate here. Like that film, Dutta links his horror with generational divides but isn't pretentious about it. That makes this one quite a bit more likable and accessible than many films that have followed in Jennifer Kent, Jordan Peele, and Ari Aster's wake. This one seems to have received fairly divisive reviews, so maybe I'm the odd one out here. Still, I found a lot to like in this fusion of standard horror movie tactics and weightier issues. [7/10]

Circus of Horror (1960)

After being thoroughly impressed with “Night of the Eagle” earlier in the Halloween season, I decided to give one of director Sidney Hayes'  earlier horror films a look. Much like “Night of the Eagle,” “Circus of Horror” was made for Anglo-Amalgamated. The film was an attempt to replicate the box office success of their earlier hit, “Horrors of the Black Museum.” A circus setting was decided on early on, another example of contrasting the safe thrills and jolly entertainment of the big top with grislier terrors. Or maybe it's just because circuses are naturally, weird, creepy places. Either way, the result would be, much like “Black Museum,” another odd fusion of campier elements with harder edged, proto-slasher-like violence.

Shortly after the end of World War II, plastic surgeon Dr. Rossiter botches a surgery on a rich woman named Evelyn Morley, leaving her hideously deformed. Getting into a car wreck, Rossiter has his own face altered. He flees the country with his assistants, Angela and Martin, and arrives at Valet's Circus, a on-the-verge of failure circus in France. After performing reconstructive surgery on the circus owner's scarred face, Rossiter watches Valet get killed by a bear. Assuming the identity of Dr. Schuler, Rossiter takes control of the circus. He fills the performers with deformed criminals, whose faces he changes and he blackmails into working for him. Rossiter murders the beautiful women working in the circus after they reject him, blaming it on accidents in the circus. A crime reporter investigates. 

Anglo-Amalgamated's horror films always struck me as a blatant attempt to emulate the formula that made Hammer such a sensation. Instead of focusing on replicating the gothic settings, the way Tigon did, Anglo-Amalgamated went the more direct route: Pack their movies full of flesh and blood. A graphic neck stabbing, part of a knife-throwing performance being sabotaged, and a mauling from a lion show a surprisingly amount of blood for 1960. Even then, the main focus does seem to be parading as many scantily clad women around as possible. Erika Remberg appears as a scarred hooker who murders her johns, introduced with the camera focusing on her thighs and cleavage first. She later has a shower scene. Vanda Hudson, as the horse riding daredevil, gets a prominent scene where she's just wearing her undergarments. Yvonne Romain, of “Curse of the Werewolf,” is the last babe in little clothing that gets introduced. Yvonne Montaur, as the virginal heroine, also parades around in some tight, low-cut outfits. This really seems like a movie made to showcase beautiful women.

Aside from its focus on violent deaths, “Horrors of the Black Museum” was notable for its largely amoral tone. Michael Gough's scheming serial killer was more-or-less the film's protagonist. This trend also continues in “Circus of Horrors.” The film has a good guy, of sorts, in the form of the crime reporter who enters the story and romances Montaur. Yet most of the movie remains focused on Dr. Schuler. He torments Angela and Martin, blackmailing them into staying on. He does much the same to everyone else around him, constantly reminding Remberg of her troubled past. The mad surgeon's obsession with the various beauties that wander in and out of the circus is what actually motivates the plot. This isn't a mystery about stopping the bad guy, it's about watching the bad guy be a son-of-a-bitch to those around him. This creates a decidedly depraved atmosphere, centered around Anton Diffring's performance.

Ultimately, however, “Circus of Horrors” is not as focused as “Horrors of the Black Museum.” The larger cast means the film splits time between multiple characters, most of them never getting much time to be developed. Romain's character is especially notable for how she enters the plot in the second half and takes over a thread previously occupied by another character. It's strange to me that the mad plastic surgeon element of the plot never really connects with the circus setting. Why would a surgeon take over a circus? Why would his reformed patients suddenly develop talents they can perform in the three rings? It feels like two ideas – an “Eyes Without a Face” style story of a mad surgeon and a circus-set horror movie – where mashed together despite not having much to do with each other.

Desptie being heavily uneven, “Circus of Horror” does have its moments. Donald Pleasence appears in the first act, with a preposterous French accent and gets to dance with a bear. (Or, rather, an actor in an unconvincing bear suit.) Later, Differing is chased by a big goofy gorilla, a scene I was really hoping would build to a bigger moment. The make-up used to create the various facial deformities are all quite vivid and well-done. Still, this one was a bit of a disappointment. None of the atmospheric direction or psychological intrigue that made “Night of the Eagle” so good is present here. If you're in the mood for a proto-slasher set in a circus, you're probably better off with watching “Berserk!” Or a later Anglo-Amalgamated production, the similarly named krimi “Circus of Fear.” [6/10]

Room 104: Itchy

The Duplass Brothers' “Room 104” has to have one of the best, most versatile premises for an anthology show I've ever seen. I've especially enjoyed the horror centric episodes. I was attracted to “Itchy” because it revolves around a young man dealing with a nasty skin condition. As someone who has struggled with psoriasis since my teenage years, I was intrigued. The episode follows Craig, whose skin is covered with pulsating sores due to an unknown condition. On the advice of his dermatologist, Dr. Blake, he's staying in a hotel for a weekend, never wearing any clothes, removing the bedding, and taking frequent baths. Craig sends video messages to Dr. Blake, growing more desperate as the weekend goes on and his skin gets worst. In trying to get to the source of his condition, he discovers something shocking about his past. 

“Itchy” was directed by Patrick Brice, who also made the “Creep” films for the Duplass Brothers. Much like those films, this episode is presented in a found footage format, playing out as videos Craig sends to his doctor. Another thing “Itchy” has in common with the “Creep” duology is mining uneasiness from the question of how unstable exactly the protagonist is. Craig, at first glance, just seems to be sick, his long time skin issues taking a toll on his mental health. However, actor Arturo Castro has a squirrelly quality from the first scene that makes the viewer slightly uncomfortable. The fact that he's naked the whole episode contributes to this mood. His monologues grows increasingly nervous and shaky as the story progresses, really leaving the viewer to wonder how unwell this guy is. Especially once he starts talking about being abducted by aliens. 

That last point is a good example of how “Room 104” can repeatedly catch you off-guard. Since the format of the show are so loose – any story can happen in Room 104, as long as it stays in Room 104 – you're never entirely sure we're this is going. Yet “Itchy' is not so much about psychological horror. Instead, body horror is the focus here. The moment where Craig leaps into a bathtub he's filled with bleach, only to immediately leap out while shrieking in pain, is rather bracing. Especially as we see his sores growing and bubbling on-camera afterwards. The make-up here is excellent, seeming like a very realistic skin condition, just an especially bad one. The ending goes to even weirder, more visceral places. Which admittedly caught me off-guard, though some mediocre digital effects during the climax ends things on a bit of a sour note. Still, there is certainly some squirmy thrills to be had with “Itchy.” [7/10]

Voodoo (1999)

After Ke Huy Quan won his Oscar earlier this year, it emerged that the former Short Round also produced a short horror movie when he was in film school. That would be “Voodoo,” which was also the directorial debut of Gregg Bishop, who would go on to make “Dance of the Dead.” The black-and-white, nearly dialogue-free short follows a man who comes to a woman's house for a hot date. He likes what he sees and the woman seems into him too. Her young daughter has different plans though. She creates a voodoo doll and attaches a photo of the man's face to its head. She then proceeds to abuse the doll, causing the man to make a horrible mess of the date. He finds a way to get his revenge though.

“Voodoo” is a simple enough premise. It's devoted to a guy going through all sorts of exaggerated abuse, at the hands of a sadistic little girl. The resulting shenanigans show a creative mind at work here. The voodoo doll is stuck with pins and shoved in a microwave. The doll also causes the man to slap his date or fall flat on his face. Cory Rouse, as the man, has a really expressive face and a keen sense of physical timing. This makes him a good choice for a character who gets put through the physical wringer like this. “Voodoo” is essentially a live-action cartoon, its camera movements and angles working in a similar over-the-top fashion. That tone continues through to the final moment, which is a hilariously twisted note to end on. You can definitely see some of the same energy that Bishop would bring to his later films here. [7/10]