Last of the Monster Kids

Last of the Monster Kids
"LAST OF THE MONSTER KIDS" - Available Now on the Amazon Kindle Marketplace!

Saturday, September 19, 2026

Halloween 2026: September 19th

 
How do you remake "Faces of Death," not exactly a narrative film that mostly drew attention for including – or claiming to include, anyway – real footage of people dying? It's not like a major studio was going to stitch together genuine autopsy and car wreck footage and drop that shit in AMCs nationwide. Secondly, why would you want to? Does the title have much name recognition among the general public, outside the realm of hardcore horror buffs? These are the debates I recall with my MovieManiacs.net forum bros all the way back in 2006, when it was announced that Universal's genre label Rogue Pictures would be remaking "Faces of Death." This was during the 2000's remake trend, when seemingly every cult classic of any note was getting a greenlight for a shiny redo. So "Faces," of all titles, was an unlikely pick but truly no more obscure than "The House on Sorority Row" or "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark." J.T. Petty was attached, a filmmaker who had previously made a mockumentary about snuff films, leading to speculation that his "Faces of Death" would follow a similar route. I vaguely recall some chatter about turning Dr. Gröss into a proper horror villain. Obviously, this iteration didn't get beyond the embryonic stage. Petty made a few more movies but seems to have shifted his focus to writing for video games these days. Rogue Pictures faced death in 2018. 

In the intervening twenty years, cell phones with HD cameras, inescapable social media, and a world more divided than ever has made real footage of death and destruction distressingly accessible. Clearly, in such a landscape, the idea of a new "Faces of Death" remained intriguing. This is presumably why Legendary acquired the rights in 2021, Daniel Goldhaber and Isa Mazzei attached to write and direct. Considering their film "Cam" had some real insight into life in the digital age, I was very curious about what form this project might take. Filmed in 2023, Goldhaber and Mazzei's "Faces of Death" spent three years trying to find distribution before IFC and Shudder actually did put it in AMCs nationwide this past April. It didn't make a lot of money but won positive reviews from the horror press, so time for me to catch up.

Margot is an adrift twenty-something working as a content moderator at Kino, a short-form video focused app. When an upload is reported, she's the one who has to make the choice of whether it contains objectionable material. She has chosen this difficult job as a way to cope with her own internet-related trauma: While performing a viral dance on some tracks, her sister was killed by an oncoming train. The clip leaked online and Margot became forever known as “Train Girl.” At work, she is presented with a clip depicting a bound person being decapitated by automated mannequins. She assumes it to be fake but the imagery sticks with her. Similar uploads soon appear, each depicting a person being violently killed by mechanized mannequins while a droll voice-over describes what is happening. Margot becomes increasingly convinced that the uploads are real and, after some sleuthing and with help from her horror buff roommate, learns that these are recreations of moments from the infamous “Faces of Death.” She's right. The videos are the work of Arthur, an internet-obsessed serial killer who is capturing people and using them as props in his deadly remake. Margot investigates further, soon drawing the attention of Arthur himself. 

As much as tech company overlords hope to eventually replace all paycheck demanding employees with computational models, as of this moment, a human being is double-checking the online content reported by a third party. This means every time a gore video, child pornography, animal abuse, and every other horrible thing you can imagine is taken down off Youtube or TikTok, presumably at least two sets of flesh-and-blood eyeballs had to look at it first. Unsurprisingly, this is a profession with a high rate of turnover, most not willing to deal with the psychological scars of seeing the worst humanity has to offer for eight hours a day. Setting a story around a job such as this is a fascinating premise. Now corporations are essentially paying people to watch private little “Faces of Death” videos every day, all day. If you stretch this idea out further, it means that shocking and violent imagery has become ubiquitous on the modern internet. Every time we open our app of choice, we are all taking a chance of seeing something way worse than staged footage of monkey brains being eaten. 

Goldhaber and Mazzei touch on the side effects of this in interesting ways. At the beginning of the story, Margot is no longer phased by videos of people taking nasty falls or of a bear dragging away a possibly dead body. She dismisses the first real murder she observes as a clever hoax. When she wants to get the police involved, her boss informs her to hold back, to allow disturbing content (as long as it's “fake”) to proliferate for now, because it's good for the shareholders. Outrageous content drives eyeballs and that makes money. When trying to determine if what she is seeing is real, she posts the clips to Reddit, where one commenter declares them to likely be real and then says it's a “nice find.”  What the fuck has the world done to us, where watching real death and human degradation has become a tedious job to some and a fascinating hobby to others? 

The film has few concrete answers, which are probably impossible to find anyway. Margot's own life is a consequence of this modern age. Where we are all obsessed with watching, real tragedies are recorded and spread around endlessly, and we all face it with little sense of injustice or outrage. Watching your little sister get hit by a train sucks and being constantly reminded of this all the time must surely chip away at the soul. Margot's personal tragedy has been reduced to a meme. That viral penetration is what the film's villain hopes to create with his murder clips, to achieve infamy by turning his victims' dying moments into internet hits. One of the first people he abducts is a would-be social media star, a teenage girl whose life seems to revolve around her phone's lens. Eventually, all Margot can do is accept her infamy and do her best to live on. The powers that be – the cops, the corporate overseers, other people with the power to step in – aren't going to do anything about it. It's up to the individual. This is the world we live in and we're stuck with it, some of us doomed to hunger for that viral superstardom and others cursed by it. 

It's the most honest conclusion the filmmakers could probably come to, even if it causes their “Faces of Death” to brush up against the often regurgitated horror theme of resolving personal trauma. However, more interesting ideas are within the film and remain frustratingly unexplored. When Margot first sees the violent clips, she doesn't believe they are real. (Much as in the original “Faces of Death,” a movie that less honestly played with the layers of reality.) This is also something all of us must deal with. All of us most be critical and skeptical of everything we see online now, because any of it could be fake. If we doubt our own eyes, what even is reality? The film's murderer is a sociopath, who sees other people as nothing but a means to an end. He cynically decides to pattern his killing spree after a cult classic 1970s mondo movie because “people love remakes.” It'll draw more attention to his crimes and insure his name goes down in history. All of his victims, people with lives and dreams of their own the script reminds us, might as well be A.I. simulacrums to him. This is not unlike an ice-cold studio exec, reducing all artistic endeavor to “content” that must be deployed in a calculated, revenue-generating fashion. Then again, if you watch a video about Iranian children burning to death after their home is struck by a missile and then pause and wonder “Is this AI generated?,” that's a damning statement about how the modern, capitalized era has fundamentally altered the empathy centers in all of our brains. 

The film ultimately looses the thread of the malleability of the truth, what that means for us, and how it reflects on our relationship with all the images we see on a screen. This must still be a thrilling narrative. That it certainly is. Mazzei and Goldhaber's script is well organized. They patiently, naturally lays out minor details that will become important later. Rather than Chekov's Gun, we have Chekov's Opioid Antagonist and Chekov's Metal Spike. The film is extremely tight in its editing. A split-screen sequence devoted to showing how Arthur easily determines Margot's identity and location from what she's posted online is a chilling reflection of how fragile our personal safety is now. The killer's identity being revealed right away allows multiple sequences of drawn-out suspense, where we watch as an unaware victim is observed by the person who means them harm. Multiple well done sequences of sneaking around, hoping to avoid detection, follow. The script smartly keeps other information close to its chest, waiting to reveal some aspects of Arthur's operation until Margot herself is discovering it. An attack in a darkened suburban home or a race from the killer's lair, as he spies his fleeing victims through the scope of a rifle, are excellently assembled variations on the same slasher movie tropes and Hitchcockian thriller techniques we've seen a hundred times before. 

If 2026's “Faces of Death” falls short of the bigger ideas it plays with, I can't hold that against the filmmakers too much. Goldfaber and Mazzei are extremely smart and know what they are doing. They've made a suspenseful, absorbing, grim horror movie here. More than one person has declared it to be a better “Scream” reboot than the actual “Scream” reboots we've gotten. This is also true, the movie actually presenting interesting observations about our modern relationships with violent images, old and new, within the context of an exciting killer thriller. The killer even wears a white mask, though the red contact lens are a nice touch. Also much like a “Scream” movie, Darce Montgomery's serial killer explains the thesis behind his master plan, also explaining part of what the filmmakers mean too. Montgomery also probably goes a little too far in acting like a screeching weirdo. (He also calls someone a “cuck” which, along with his overall shouting demeanor, causes us to assume he's right-wing or incel adjacent.) There's at least one sick, gnarly reveal that made me gag. The film also includes probably the best depiction I've seen yet of someone falling down an internet rabbit hole and becoming obsessed with a bizarre mystery they've discovered. Margot is so absorbed with getting the truth out that she actually delays escaping from the villain's house sooner, much to the annoyance of the other person there. Which is a good way to signal to the viewer that we are suppose to find her commitment to solving this thing unreasonably. But sometimes you get caught up in stuff.  

As a homage to John Alan Schwartz' largely mercenary original, 2026's “Faces of Death” is probably better than it deserves. The infamous Gorgon Video VHS release gets prominently featured. The re-creations of the original's most infamous moments are arguably creepier and better made here than in the seventies film. Should've sneaked the original's corny-ass theme song in there somewhere though. I was waiting for that. I also was amused by the way the remake's marketing played on the sense of being forbidden, much like the original did. Good to know we can still kind of pull that marketing gimmick off in the modern day, even if it's largely ironic. On the short list of meta “remakes,” this is a pretty good one. The ultimate horror film about the terror of the social media age and the dehumanizing effects of living behind a screen has yet to be made but this one is well done. Legendary missed a chance to make a collectable hollowed out monkey head popcorn bucket though. [7/10]



Devil's Bride (1974)
Velnio nuotaka


I don't buy movies on discs as much as I used to or would like to. This is mostly out of a desire to save money and because physical space for my collections is at a premium these days. Another reason is that the boutique DVD scene moves faster than I can keep up with. It seems like every month, a new label devoted to unearthing hidden gems and exporting international obscurities has popped up. What the hell is Deaf Crocodile, aside from a semi-aquatic reptile with a hearing aid? It's a home media company launched in 2025 that mostly specializes in art house cinema and animation from Eastern Europe and former Soviet Bloc countries. They are doing noble work but this is a corner of the film buff world I don't often explore. I first read about "Devil's Bride" years ago, a folk horror-tinged musical considered a classic in its home country of Lithuania. I assumed it was one of those titles so obscure in the English-speaking world that I would probably never get to see it. Instead, Deaf Crocodile gave it a loving restoration and it's currently streaming for free on Tubi. What a time to be alive. Let's delve into this more. 

Our story begins in Heaven, with a flock of angels singing the praises of a sleepy, bored God on a golden throne. Whenever he nods off, the angels sneak away to indulge in some earthly vices. One such ethereal being's not-so-virtuous activities are discovered and plucked out of Heaven. The being lands on Earth as the demon, Pinčiukas. He is soon found by elderly miller, Baltaragis, who ensnares the devil and makes him his slave. Baltaragis insists that the demon give him a beautiful wife and success and, in exchange, Pinčiukas will receive the couple's first-born daughter. This comes to pass but demons are a tricky sort and Baltaragis' wife perishes after birthing their daughter. The child grows up into Jurga, a stunning young woman. She quickly catches the eye of traveling laborer Girdvainus and the two fall in love. Determined to get his promised end of the bargain, Pinčiukas goes about manipulating and tricking the people in the village into breaking the young couple up. (While Baltaragis, full of regret, tries to set the demon up with his hefty, sexually veracious sister.) 

The first thing you'll notice about "Devil's Bride" is the stunning photography. The film is in vibrant color. The red interior lighting of the mill, Jurga's golden blonde hair, and the orange gowns of Pinčiukas' demonesses all pop right out. The most prominent colors are the natural greens and blues of the gorgeous Lithuanian countryside. Most of the film takes place in the rolling fields, lush forests, and quint lakes of the area. This setting is made further picturesque by wonderfully engineered props, like that striking windmill, God's golden throne, or a festooned window that shows up a few times. That last detail points towards what is the film's greatest strength, its sense of whimsy. Among Pinčiukas' various japes is summoning a black carriage out of a swamp, causing black-gloved hands to pop out of the water, or making coins rain from the sky. Those orange-clad familiars of his never contribute much to the story but are at the film's margins, boogieing down in the woods or throwing smoke bombs around. While the setting is ostensibly grounded in historical reality, lightly surreal touches like these created a dreamy tone of fantasy, play, and myth. "Devil's Bride" is, in other words, a fairy tale that fully transports its viewer to a place that looks a bit like our world but where much more fantastical things can happen. 

This is a fitting atmosphere for a musical to capture. Characters bursting into song and dance already establish this as an improbable story so it's good that the environment matches. The clear visual inspiration for "Devil's Bride," at least to my doofus American eyes with no prior familiarity with Lithuanian cinema, is "The Sound of Music." While these hills and field are certainly alive with melodies and harmonies, the soundtrack is far from Rogers and Hammerstein. "Devil's Bride" is instead powered by a consistently groovy rock guitar. There's a little bit of fuzz to the funky chords too, rooting the film's sound firmly to the early seventies psychedelic rock scene. "Devil's Bride" is a sung-through musical and I don't usually like those. It's hard for any song to stick out from the rest when the entire movie is singing. Individual melodies or lyrics tend to fade into a mishmash of indistinct notes. I guess "Devil's Bride" is not immune to this. I wasn't humming any bars or had any single songs stuck in my head after watching. However, the various movements are linked enough to the individual scenes, and the feelings they are summoning, to make it work for me. The music here is fun and bouncy, sung in a meaningful way, and always matches the emotional flow of the story. 

The most prominent of those emotions is longing. Every character in the film wants something. Pinčiukas gets kicked out of heaven because he wants to do something other than chanting "Holy holy" while circling Yahweh's throne. Once cast into the mortal realm, he wants his freedom and the girl. Jurga wants Girdvainus, Girdvainus wants Jurga. Her dad longs for his dead wife and for his daughter to be set free from the devilish deal he made. Even the side characters are characterized by unfulfilled desires. The town drunk dreams of unlimited money, with which he can buy endless booze and infinite women with, and he sells his soul to get it. The impish Pinčiukas is an object of desire too, for the miller's sister. (Who, in an amusing Winona Ryder/Jamiroquai situation, is randier than the diabolic beau she's set up with.) This makes every song in this singing/dancing musical an I Want song, connecting this archetypal story to a universal feeling. Everybody knows what it's like to want something they can't have, usually in matters of the heart. The solution the film finds brings its heavenly prologue down to Earth. Pinčiukas learns to love the one he's with and the united lovers find divine, ever-lasting bliss with each other. Ooh baby, do you know what that's worth? The final image is one of the funniest takes on a story's cast – even the demonic trickster – living happily ever after that I've seen recently, pulled off with the film's trademark casually surreal humor. 

"Devil's Bride" is probably not the best choice for an autumnal horror marathon. Yes, there are demons in the story but the main one is a guy with a silly beard in a funny hat, not horns and hooves. His acts of supernatural deception are more mischievous than startling. The eternal damnation that usually follows deals with devils doesn't come up much. (This is opposed to the source material, a 1945 novel by Kazys Boruta with a notably downbeat conclusion.) The element that most pushes the movie into the spooky set is a last act montage of "Witchfinder General" style binding and dunking. Otherwise, this one is heavy on the "folk" but not-so-much the horror. There's been a couple of horror movies made in Lithuania more recently, if you're trying to find a truly macabre example. However, I still had a great time with "Devil's Bride," a brief but delightful dose of music and the fantastique rich with  cultural specificity. [7/10]



In Search Of...: The Ogopogo Monster
 
Much like his “Star Trek” co-lead, Leonard Nimoy was a great Canadian export. This makes it only sensible that, while monologing gravely about preposterous bullshit on “In Search Of...,” that he would discuss what is commonly called Canada's Loch Ness Monster. That would be Ogopogo, a serpent-like creature said to inhabit British Columbia's Lake Okanagan. The “In Search Of...” crew did their due diligence and connect the legend to local tales from the Secwepmc and Syilx tribes. They talk of a spirit dwelling in the lake called Naitaka, who offerings are made to before crossing. The documentary crew also sought out a diver, who swims around the lake and finds nothing much but rocks and cold. Mostly, the half-hour is filled out with stories from people who have claimed to have seen the monster. Before “in Search Of...” presents what they call the most compelling piece of evidence of Ogopogo's existence: A blurry home movie of a dark, splotchy shape moving under the water. 

As I mentioned when talking about “In Search OF's” episode devoted to Bigfoot, it's hard to deny that the evidence presented here isn't that convincing. Nimoy's host segments note how sincere and credible these eye-witness accounts are. This is in the same episode where some local pranksters pushed three tires attached to a inflatable dingy out onto the lake to hoax the TV show. When you look at the playful smiles on the faces of the people telling their tales, or the hard-to-believe claim that a couple has seen the serpent “forty or fifty times,” I would say we can never dispel people's tendency to just make shit up for their own amusement. Nor the need of authors to sell their work, as the presenter of the above mentioned home movie also wrote a book on the topic of Ogopogo. 

A scientist at an aquarium  compares what he supposedly saw in Lake Okanagan to a shark's skin. That would be a more notable statement if even experts weren't susceptible to bias and their own imagination. The episode's most convincing statements come from the episode's resident skeptic, trotted at the end. He points out that the lake is too small to support a breeding population of such a large animal. That it was formed by glaciers millions of years ago, with no connection to larger bodies of water since then. Though he does concede that “sea monsters,” in the sense of a large animal of some sort living in the depths of the ocean, can be said to exist. 

This episode probably needed more of “In Search Of's” trademark creaky reenactments. The episode begins with a pretty good segment re-creating a young wake-boarder screaming upon encountering the supposed beast. Otherwise, we simply get footage of some Native Americans sitting around a camp fire. Which isn't to say this episode doesn't have some camp value. The extremely Canadian accents of the people interviewed made me chuckle, with one fellow even ending his sentence with “eh?” Or a reporter who describes coming to the lake and hearing about the monster with baffled amusement. “In Search Of...” was never great television but it was incredibly cozy. I am not immune to the charms of lo-fi blurping seventies electronic music playing over footage of Moray eels squirming around a tank. [7/10]



 
Friday the 13th: The Series: Tales of the Undead
 
I think we've previously seen Ryan reading some comic books in past episodes of "Friday the 13th: The Series." It would seem it is more of a passion for him than previously revealed, as "Tales of the Undead" begins with him visiting his local comic shop. The owner has recently come into possession of a rare original copy of "Tales of the Undead #1," the first appearance of a hugely popular superhero named Ferrus the Invincible. To increase its value, the book has also been signed by Jay Star, the character's creator. A kid in the shop desires the pricey book and breaks into the display case to steal it. Upon grabbing the comic, he turns into Ferrus and murders the shop owner. Ryan and Micki determine the comic is the latest cursed artifact they have to track down. They reach out to Jay Star, an elderly and ill man who was screwed out of his share of the profits his character has made for the publisher. Upon hearing about what happened, Star tracks down the thief and grabs the magic book himself. Now able to change into the indestructible robot hero he created, the old man sets out to take revenge on those that wronged him. The only way Ryan and Micki can stop the monster, they believe, is to track down the lost artwork for the scraped issue that killed Ferrus the Invincible off. 

"Tales of the Undead" is one of those "Friday the 13th" episodes that feature a notable name in the opening credits. Alfred Sole, director of "Alice, Sweet Alice," apparently worked on the story for this one. In some ways, the episode suggests that the writers were quite familiar with the world of comics. The set-up nods at the speculators' market around the hobby that was shortly to reach its peak around this time. "Jay Star" is acknowledged to be a pen name based on the author's possibly Jewish or Polish last name, another insider detail. Mostly, the story of an artist who created a long-running character that has made millions for its parent company. but has been left penniless in his old age is as familiar to the industry as heroes fighting villains. The struggles of Siegel and Shuster or Jack Kirby to regain some control over the iconic heroes they created are well known. Even today, writers and artists whose work formed the basis for billion dollar franchises have to turn to GoFundMe to pay off medical bills or die from treatable conditions. 

In other ways, "Tales of the Undead" seems weirdly out-of-touch with the world of caped heroes it's riffing on. The focus on Star writing a story that kills Ferrus off, in the hopes that would at least spite those that betrayed him, is one thing. The idea that the company would not publish such a story, because they can't kill off their golden goose, is frankly implausible. When have comic companies ever been reluctant to kill off popular heroes that can easily be resurrected later? It's also a little weird that a superhero would debut in a comic called "Tales of the Undead." Maybe this was an example of a horror book following market trends and changing its focus after the debut of a popular character. That idea rubs counter to this being a first issue or published in the thirties though. Ferrus, a towering and hyper-violent robot guy, does seem more like a villain than a hero. I guess this could be an Incredible Hulk or Etrigan the Demon situation.  

That's just me being a nerd though. "Tales of the Undead" is a decent episode otherwise. Whenever someone transforms into Ferrus the Invincible, there are comic book panel style transitions. This is a clever workaround for what was surely the limited budget the episode had and also a neat homage to the media the episode is based on. A special guest star is brought into play Jay Star: Ray Walston, of "My Favorite Martian." This is the kind of part very much in need of an industry old-timer with plenty of age and experience on his face. Walston is good, showing a genuine anger at those that screwed him and even some creditable villainous cruelty as the episode goes on. The sequences with the killer robot are a bit awkward but mostly decently done. I wish the script was a little more consistent about how indestructible this supposedly invincible guy is though. He goes down fairly easily in two scenes. I also like the detail of Micki initially being dismissive of old comic books before getting hooked on them. The episode uses that turn-of-events as a prelude to more flirting cousins shenanigans, of course. Do you think Ferrus the Invincible ever crossed over with the Escapist or Condorman? [7/10]
 

Friday, September 18, 2026

Halloween 2026: September 18th


It is one of the most notorious titles in horror history. I believe I was in the sixth grade when a classmate informed me about “Faces of Death,” a documentary that presented viewers with real images of death: Automobile accidents, political assassination, war footage, executions. The idea comes across as almost quaint today, when any sixth grader with a cell phone can find such things within seconds. Who has time to assemble their gore reels into a faux-documentary format these days? Back in the dial-up era, such content was slightly harder to come across. Not so hard to find was proof that “Faces of Death” was mostly composed of faked footage. Despite that, the film itself remains. A cult following, composed of horror fans who recall when this was the ultimate litmus test for gore hounds, has gathered. Today this once widely banned film, the kind of thing you could only find at the sleazier video stores or among hardcore tape traders, can be streamed with ease. I've never watched “Faces of Death” before. As fascinated as I am by the morbid and macabre, actual footage of dead people or animals is not something I enjoy looking at. However, before watching the remake, I figured I better brave the original. 

In the tradition of mondo movie shock-docs before it, "Faces of Death" attempts to assemble its salacious footage in the context of a documentary with some sort of point. A pathologist with the not exactly convincing name of Francis B. Gröss – actually actor Michael Carr, who seems sleepy – is our host. After many years of looking death in the face, he claims to be haunted by recurring dreams of a funeral. He has dedicated himself to examining footage of different forms of death from around the world, in hopes of gleaming some deeper understanding of our mortality. The film is actually the work of John Alan Schwartz, previously an assistant editor on eleven episodes of "In Search Of...," who roughly splits the film into segments loosely based around gruesome themes: The animal world and slaughterhouses, autopsies, crime and punishment, religious rituals, natural disasters, accidents, the horrors of war, and the possibility of life after death. 

What this means in execution is "Faces of Death" leaps between quasi-documentary footage of debatable merit, obviously staged episodes, and genuine footage. The latter element most gives the sickos what they came for. The difference in film grain makes the actually gruesome stuff easy to spot. A woman committing suicide by leaping from a building is distressing. A political assassination happens so quickly as to be indistinct. A parachuter crashing to the ground is similarly blurry. Extensive recordings of the inside of a kosher slaughterhouse or an coroner's workplace is, simply put, extremely gross. What benefit do we as viewers receive from looking at sheep being skinned, cows having their throats slit, the fat and sinew being cut away and the bones ground into pulp? The recording of morticians steadily going about their work, peeling faces back to remove internal organs only to sew the flesh into place, seems to draw a parallel between these two places. The final act shows us the remains of a bicyclist struck by a truck, the brain matter picked off the asphalt. We similarly see the aftermath of an airplane crash, globs of barely recognizable bloody flesh clinging to the street, or a waterlogged corpse washed up on the beach. Are we all but electric signals bouncing across spongy brain matter and piloting an assemblage of meat and bone? What truly separates us from the steak on the plate, other than our slaughterhouse being the world? 

Obviously, Schwartz or anyone else who worked on the film were not pondering too hard on such esoteric topics. The gnarliest footage in "Faces of Death" represents nothing more than a sleazy geek show, from exploitation filmmakers hoping to make a few bucks by showing people shocking images. People want to pay to test the strength of their stomachs, so "Faces" throws a dead body on-screen. Shoddy reenactments and obviously hoaxed imagery being placed alongside real newsreels, of starving children or mass graves, shows how sincere the filmmakers were about delving into human understanding. If I were a family member or loved one of any of the deceased pictured here, I would certainly like to see their bodies treated with more dignity. The script has the narrator delivering faux philosophical monologues over the grotesque footage. Much of which isn't very interesting, though one or two line at least has a certain poetry to it. A random aside about how, if genocide on the level of the Holocaust occurs again, we should all go to Hell. Or ruminating about switching to vegetarianism after seeing the inner workings of an slaughterhouse or a farmer chopping a chicken's head off. But those are fleeting moments in a film that feels more like, in line with Schwartz's past credits, a version of "In Search Of..." hosted by the Evil Spock from the Mirror Universe. 

The question then becomes what value, if any, "Faces of Death" has in 2026. Unsurprisingly, it mostly exists now as a camp artifact, thanks to those unconvincing staged sequences. An alligator attack on a golf course contains a lot of alternate camera angles for supposed raw footage of a guy getting chomped on by a wild animal. A bear attack is more hilariously awkward. A husband goads a sedated looking grizzly until there's a dramatic scream from his camera-holding wife, a fumble of footage, and a shot of the bear chewing on something inside the man's shirt. The most notorious moments are the most ridiculous. Satanic hippies sliced open a body and smear blood on their tits on their way to an orgy, a moment of such clumsiness that I'm not sure why it was included at all. The infamous monkey brains supper is so melodramatic in its presentation, that it feels like a farce. (Though that poor bound macaque clearly was really getting smacked in the head with rubber mallets. At least the dog fight sequence actually depicts two pit bulls trying to mate, with a little fake blood spread around.) 

The moments in "Faces of Death" that most made me laugh are less lauded. The epilogue devoted to an investigation of a supposed haunting and seance definitely feels like a regional horror film from 1976. The most baffling decision made was to end this cinematic vomitorium with a life-affirming montage of moms and babies, animals in the wild, and beautiful sunrises set to a truly maudlin piece of auditory schlock. And, yeah, once or twice, the filmmakers actually stumble upon an interesting visual. Faked footage of a police shoot-out, concluding with a suburban rifleman being gunned down and scenes of his butchered wife and kids inside, plays like proto-found footage. The recreation of Dr. Gröss' nightmare includes some decently eerie first person perspective of a casket being lowered into the ground and covered with dirt. An interview with a supposed political assassin distorts his voice and covers his face in such a way as to add a surreal edge. The recreation of an execution by electric chair suggests some degree of actual horror by the filmmakers at what they are showing us. As much as "Faces of Death" is classified strictly as artless hucksters pointing a camera at dead bodies or cutting together traffic accidents, there was a molecule of talent or skill involved here. Those involved probably should've scrapped together a few more bucks and made a cheapie horror flick instead. 

But that wouldn't have made as much money. As a con man's shtick, the movie is mildly impressive. These guys really did throw this shit together on the fly and made millions of dollars off it. Several sequels would follow, the degree of bullshittery in each varying. A cottage industry of more explicit shock-docs would spring up in "Faces'" wake. Questionable exercises in free will like "Death Faces" or "Traces of Death" would give those craving actual footage of death and the grisly aftermath exactly what they asked for. All of these are the ancestors of LiveLeak, Ogrish, BestGore, and other seedy corners of the internet devoted to showing us awful things. I guess some folks are nostalgic for such things. Schwartz's "Faces of Death" made me laugh from its shoddiness and awkwardness a couple of times. I don't object to the film existing and believe that, perhaps, there are contexts where footage such as this could be presented in a meaningful manner. Merely looking at animals and dead people getting chopped up does little for me. "Faces of Death" has its place in genre history but how worthy it is of being sought out, in this day and age, depends on how interested you are in this disreputable style of filmmaking. [5/10]
 



Cinemas were first built in Afghanistan in the fifties. Locally produced motion pictures began to emerge in the next decade. In the aftermath of the Cold War, the newly emerged government banned film productions within the country. When the Taliban took control a few years after that, even watching a film was declared a crime. There's been growth since then, though the Afghan film industry still remains small. Letterboxd currently list 173 feature length, finished titles with Afghanistan as their primary country of origin. Of that entire list, only two seem to fall within the horror genre. A project entitled “The Yesterday's Shadows” was supposedly released in 2011, though I can find no way to watch it. 2019's “Ruthless Father,” however, can be located with a minimal amount of effort. Director/star Hamid Ehsas announces in the opening credits that this is Afghanistan's first horror movie, which at least seems to be true from any practical perspective.

The same credits also declare that, excluding the supernatural and romantic elements, “Ruthless Father” is a true story. Which is kind of like saying “This story is true, except for all the stuff we made up.” Nevertheless, the plot concerns a cruel father who mistreats his wife and their three sons. Every day, he sends his boys – Hamid, Fahim, and Fayaz – out into the city to work. When they return home at night, he beats them until they hand over whatever money they made that day. Aging into adulthood, Hamid has decided he's had enough. He decides to marry the woman he loves – whom the extremely wonky subtitles describe as “his uncle's daughter” – and start over in a new town. Instead, his dad bullies him into simply moving into his house with his new bride. While Fahim is at work, thieves supposedly attack the home and murder Hamid with an axe. This is the first in a string of tragedies that befall the family, it becoming evident very soon that supernatural forces have cursed the household. 

After watching “Ruthless Father,” I felt the same way I did after watching “Dead Sands,” the Bahrani zombie movie I covered last year. Both were made by aspiring filmmakers with limited resources, in a country with little professional support for projects like this and no established horror cinema traditions of its own. So I'll start by saying some positive things: “Ruthless Father” features some effectively atmospheric lighting in several scenes. A nightmare sequences includes some cool billowing fog and lights semi-abandoned buildings in fluorescent reds. It looks neat. There's also, I believe, a decent attempt to build suspense in a few other sequences. A haunting set piece beginning in a locked bathroom, featuring bloody hand prints slowly moving up the wall, is decently executed. The filmmakers certainly show potential. 

Otherwise, it's hard not to notice that a clear lack of professionalism inhabits most of “Ruthless Father.” The acting is embarrassingly stiff, with most of the performers mechanically rattling off the dialogue they've been given. The music is heavy-handed, often overwhelming the dialogue in a scene. I suspect some of the score is license-free music, or at least sounds generic enough to be. The pacing is quite poor, with multiple scenes stretching on for far too long. Such as when a pair of night watchmen at a cemetery indecisively go back and forth on whether or not they are, in fact, seeing a guy at a grave. Or several extended moments of people walking up stairs or sitting down, which feel like nothing more than padding. I hear that Indian cinema is popular in Afghanistan and the masala influence is evident in “Ruthless Father.” There are a few music video style fantasy sequences, of the brothers wooing their ladies, that feel very out-of-place compared to the rest of the film. Not as out-of-place as the sudden burst of action movie theatrics. An apparent flashback to the day of Hamid's murder features the guys doing over-the-top spin punches and leaps. Except “Ruthless Father” clearly did not have the budget or resources to hire an actual stunt coordinator or fight choreographer. The scene is instead instantly giggles-inducing, peppered with misplaced or mistimed slow-motion and ramping. 

Maybe the biggest problem facing “Ruthless Father,” more so than its amateurish production values or awkward acting, is a script with little in the way of suspense. Perhaps the above fight scene is so over-the-top because we are meant to recognize it as bullshit. I'm reluctant to spoil the film but, needless to say, the facts about how the son of a physically abusive father ended up suddenly dead, right after he attempted to assert control of his own life, are not hard to predict. With this prediction in mind, the film's vengeful haunting is still inconsistent. In some scenes, Hamid's ghost seems to target people who had nothing to do with his death. At one point, it appears in angelic white to explain that it means no harm to someone. I would say having your film's antagonist outright announce that they aren't going to hurt certain characters undermines their threat potential, man. 

In general, “Ruthless Father” is simply a mawkish, off-note motion picture. The attempts at scares are often derailed by super limp digital effects, a bad sound effect, or a poorly timed shock. The script is heavy on the melodrama, with several romantic subplots amounting to nothing. The film's ideas about what are scary – a photograph's eyes changing suddenly – are more corny than intense. The version I watch comes with its own subtitles, an English translator being credited as well. The result of their work is below-par, with most sentences being barely coherent and text-speech abbreviations like “pls” cropping up. I'm still trying to figure out what insult “son of a donkey” is a mangled translation of. It's hard to be too down on a film like this, more-or-less the first of its kind. This is the rough prototype that better, future productions will hopefully build on. But that doesn't make it any less rough either. [3/10]
 

 
 
The Mind Beyond: Stones

The British Broadcasting Corporation used to be quite fond of anthology programs. Programs like “Play for Today” or “Screen One” would present original, stand-alone dramas, often adapted from contemporary stage plays or other classy source material. Another example was “BBC2 Playhouse,” whose main distinguishing characteristics seems to be that it, uh, aired on BBC2 instead. In autumn of 1976, born of producer Irene Shubik's personal fascination with the topic, “Playhouse” would devote six broadcasts to the theme of extrasensory perception. This sub-series was labeled “The Mind Beyond” and several of its episodes have been pointed out folk horror scholars. Such as “Stones.” It concerns a plan by the British tourism board to move Stonehenge from the Wiltshire field it's resided in for centuries to Hyde Park, in the middle of London. Historian Nicholas is fiercely opposed to the idea. (Not the least bit because the project's head is his wife's old college boyfriend.) In his research, he uncovers unknown lettering hidden under the spine of a book on the subject. This leads him on a journey to investigate the power and meaning ancient stone structures like Stonehenge had... And may still have, as the monoliths seem to be holding a strange sway over Nicholas' adolescent daughter.

On one level, “Stones” really shows the limitations of seventies British television. As an hour of television, “Stones” is quite dry. Almost the entire runtime is devoted to different stuffy old British men, standing around in rooms, talking about things. Nicholas talks about the plan to move Stonehenge with other officials and academics in tuxedos. He goes to a friend and expert in languages and talks about the symbols he's uncovered. He ends up in a museum and argues with the keeper of the old books. He journeys to a book seller and discusses the sales history of several old stones. At least one of these encounters has him outside, near the henge itself, as he discusses the topic with a portly, jolly Welshman. It is, obviously, not the most cinematic presentation. The performances are all quite stately and British. While the conversations about the history of Stonehenge, and especially past doomed attempts to move it, are intriguing... I'll admit, my interest did start to wane during all the talk of the mysterious symbols. You would think an expert on Stonehenge, of all people, would recognize that the weird letters resemble the standing stones he's always talking about. 

The stiffness of the characters and their long-winded discussions may, in fact, be the point. Early on, Nicholas is accused of having “The Oxford Problem.” He's so deep into the world of academia, so used to talking about ideas, that he's no longer able to talk to people. The rest of the hour certainly backs that up. His relationship with his wife seems tense. She references past relationships as being more active and passionate. Later, Nicholas defaces a book after being directly told not to do that. After a secretary doesn't respond to him, he dismisses her as annoying and doesn't notice that she's literally deaf. He's most clueless about his own daughter, whom he doesn't seem to notice has been having distressing dreams and acting very strangely. The irony is that the girl's unusual behavior is directly connected to the old rocks he's obsessed with. If he actually bothered to pay attention to people, and not premises, he might have noticed that. 

Where “Stones” is going with all this talk of ancient ruins and their power over people is not revealed until the final minutes. Whether it's a satisfying pay-off or not is debatable. No answers are provided for the strange power of the stones. Whether an otherworldly force is acting through them or if they are simply imbued with that power through our belief in them, this is not specified. However, Stonehenge sure doesn't want anyone to move it. A show like “Beasts” would connect its more academic ideas to a greater point about human nature, to why these beliefs exist and have endured. “The Mind Beyond” is more about the mysterious nature of these things. This is not as compelling but this episode does generate some spooky vibes. The montage of the stones' magical abilities is well done. The creepiest moment occurs when a photo is found, with one face marked out and two more left. Like “The Blood on Satan's Claws,” “Stones” uses ancient rituals to comment on anxieties around what the kids today are getting up to. Interesting but could've used more murder magic. [6/10]
 

 
Friday the 13th: The Series: Root of All Evil

“The Root of All Evil” features probably the grisliest plot device “Friday the 13th: The Series” has cooked up yet. A man working in the garden with his bitchy mother clobbers her over the head with a rake. He then feeds her body into the mulcher, cold hard cash being spit out the other end. Eventually, the machine ends up on the property of a rich woman, currently converting the grounds into a public garden. Among the groundskeeper is Adrian, seemingly a formally homeless youth who owes some people money. After an old enemy harasses him on this, Adrian discovers the money generating powers of the mulcher. He soon intuits the mechanics of this supernatural process: That people worth more in life generate more cash when feed into the machine. Ryan and Jack are soon on the case, while Micki finds herself pulled between her new life and her old one. 

Here's another episode with a silly pun as its title. A need for money is what motivates the Villain of the Week to kill, his job and the nature of the machine putting him literally close to roots and plants. While this observation is about as shallow as can be, “Root of All Evil” almost stumbles on something genuinely thoughtful. Adrian doesn't seem to be a bad guy at first. ___ plays him as tired and in a bad situation, desperate to do anything to survive. When he stumbles onto a device that literally makes money, in exchange for human bodies, it's understandable that he would be tempted to cross some moral boundaries. We are all dependent on how much cash we can make in this sad, capitalistic society of our's. Indeed, most of us have jobs we hate, doing something we normally would not do, simply because we need the paycheck to live. The script almost seems to say that class boundaries are what genuinely force people into bad circumstances that cause them to commit crimes. Sadly, this is tossed out by Adrian becoming more of a blatant, unhinged villain as the episode progresses. How someone's “worth” equates to what the mulcher produces is vaguely defined. Are we talking about their financial worth? Their philosophical worth? A greater point about social structures and what value human life actually could have been made here but the episode falls short. 

Maybe the A-plot is a little underdeveloped because “Root of All Evil” also builds up some continuity in its B-plot. Remember how Micki had a lawyer fiance in the first episode? He's been referenced once or twice since but this is the second time he's actually been on-screen. He wants to know why his bride-to-be is spending all her time at a spooky antiques shop and not with him. An understandable concern but the guy is such an obvious jerk. I'm not surprised this plot point arrives more to write an awkward, lingering premise out. I guess the show deserves points for remembering this detail at all and not simply ignoring it. More than anything else, this sets up more of that hilariously uncomfortable tension between Ryan and Micki. He seems more jealous of her boyfriend than simply concerned about their mission to collect evil objects. Indeed, the guy even suggests that Micki is cheating on him with Ryan. The script points out that they are merely cousins by marriage, the program encouraging its viewers not to be weirded-out by the incest subtext. The same reason why all those videos on the internet are about “stepsisters,” in other words. Anyway, this episode is notably for its gory set-up but certainly needed to be further fleshed out. [6/10]


Thursday, September 17, 2026

Halloween 2026: September 17th

 
It begs the same question now as then: Why? Why remake "Psycho," one of the most hailed and studied films ever made by the medium's most lauded master? It will inevitably be compared to the original and found lacking. I suppose the same could be said for making sequels, which didn't stop Universal and produced some interesting results. If a filmmaker was compelled to remake "Psycho," surely it would be out of a desire to explore something unsaid in the original. To go deeper into Norman Bates' twisted world or to reinstate the elements from Robert Bloch's novel that didn't make it to the screen. Instead, Gus Van Sant came to studio head Casey Silver with a pitch for a shot-for-shot remake of Hitchcock's classic. Silver found this to be, quote, "a very strange idea." Van Sant, however, was still riding high on the critical, commercial success of "Good Will Hunting" and apparently could get any crazy idea green-lit. Upon release in 1998, Van Sant's "Psycho" was met with confusion and irritation. Most audience members seemed annoyed that they were presented with an almost identical but obviously inferior version of "Psycho." Critics generally found the project to be pointless, which was probably the consensus opinion. I mean, it would have to be. A 1-to-1 reenactment of "Psycho" could be achieved far more easily, and in a far more satisfying manner, by simply renting "Psycho" from the video store. Why spend 25 million dollars on that and several million more on releasing it? 

Now, Gus Van Sant is an artist, a reputation earned from his prominent position in the New Queer Cinema Movement of the eighties. He has been called upon to explain himself a few times over the years. While he's given vague answers that he remade “Psycho” “so no one else would have to” or by explaining that all remakes are merely “marketing schemes,” his true intentions are observable within the film. Van Sant's “Psycho” is a meta-experiment. If we take the screenplay to a great movie and shoot it in the exact same way as was previously done, will the results still be a great movie? The answer is obviously “no,” that you'll only get a rather literal pale imitation. You would think any filmmaker who has actually done the day-to-day work on the set would understand that. The alchemy happens because of who is there, the choices made in the moments, and copying that is not the same thing as doing it.
 
Nevertheless, I suppose it's an experiment worth trying, simply to prove if it could be done. Or as an expression of the filmmaker's obsessive fixation on the minutia of another work of art. If the stories of Van Sant and company keeping a VHS of Hitchcock's original on set and watching and re-watching scenes right before trying to replicate them are true, I suspect the remake is most a manifestation of that. He wouldn't have been the first nor the last die hard fan to attempt this. However, usually such an experiment is done by kids or students working with what's available to them and not the resources of a major studio with big stars on-screen. It's an exercise done more for the filmmakers themselves, to see if can replicate what made their favorite subject special, to push themselves to that level of greatness. It was presented to a mass audience anyway, with its own degree of pomp and circumstance and pretensions around it. 
 
But, okay, Gus Van Sant. I'll play your game. If the thesis of your “Psycho” is that the people making the film indirectly change it, even when slavishly following the blue print, what does the evidence say? Yes, Van Sant's “Psycho” is different from Hitchcock's, despite the fidelity to the source material. It is noticeably worst. Obviously, a wide released film in 1998 was going to be in color. Unable to replicate the original's stark black-and-white cinematography, the remake instead amps up the color. It makes the interior of the Bates Motel reds, greens, and yellows. The colors of Marion's bright dresses, the clean white of Norman's final prison cell, and Mother Bates' immaculately preserved bedroom are all strikingly colorful. It's not as creepy but it looks interesting, at least. 

Most of the other riffs on what came before are noticeable down grades. This is most obvious in the editing. Amy E. Duddleston cuts the remake faster than the original, managing to shave about three minutes off the runtime. Subtle though it may be, the result feels rushed. This “Psycho” feels impatient, unwilling to sit with its characters as much. I would say it sinks any chances for suspense but that was never possible, because we know every reveal and moment before it comes. The devotion to duplicating the exact camera movements, the smooth pans around Norman as he cleans up the murder scene or peering down as Mother is carried into the fruit cellar, feel less like an organic expression of the story and its themes. It's not careful choices to draw us in. It's choreography, Van Sant and his team doing the Groucho mirror gag with Hitchcock but failing to convince us that we are seeing the same thing. This is also true of the score, Danny Elfman and Steve Bartek brought in to tweak Bernard Herrman's music just enough that you notice it's different but not enough to feel like anything but a glitchy cover.

Despite everyone describing this as a “shot-for-shot” remake, it's not exactly. Minor updates are made to the story, Lila wearing headphones in one scene and the amount of money Marion steals being increased. The late nineties R rating is secured by adding stab wounds, more blood, and Anne Heche's ass in the shower scene. To show  equal oppretunity offense, I guess, Viggo Mortensen's modesty is barely maintained by carefully placed body parts in the opening scene. Most notoriously, we hear Norman tugging on his dick while looking through the peep hole. Imagine the fun the sound designer had trying to find the perfect fap-fap sounds for that moment. These additions certainly don't make the material more shocking or upsetting, while dragging away some of the original's subtly.

The other changes are even more intrusive. The sound design ups the discordant chatter in the background, which is only distracting. Lila entering into the Bates mansion occurs in daylight, rather than night, a choice that is significantly less atmospheric. She also lands a punch on Norman after he's restrained, some ill-made decision to make the character more proactive, I guess. The most baffling choices are surreal visual interludes during the murder scenes. Split-second cuts to a nude woman in some sort of mask or a cow in the middle of the road during Arbogast's face slashing do nothing but make the audience asked why they are there. The faster paced editing renders the tightly-wound frenzy of the shower stabbing to a rejected industrial rock music video. Why set out to make a shot-for-shot remake only to add these sudden swerves? That does nothing but cause the film to fail at its own stated objective, quite confusingly. 

One must be forced to ask another question: Is the “Psycho” remake a prank? Did Gus Van Sant giggle mischievously while burning through Universal's money, as he wankishly played a game of monkey-see-monkey-do with Hitchcock? Perhaps. Vince Vaughn adopts a loose-limbed, cocked hip physicality to Norman. His nervous prater projects more a sense of insecurity than under-the-surface instability. Meanwhile, his body seems squeezed into Anthony Perkins' tight-fitting turtlenecks. The impression is that the serial killer is now a swishy homosexual, giving his face-to-face confrontation with Sam Loomis a new layer. Norman now wears his mother's nightgown when acting out his murderous impulses, a sillier visual that seems to also point towards deliberate camp. The fruit cellar is now a bird-filled, curtain decorated chamber. That suggests a kind of giallo-esque, DePalma like exaggeration. If the remake had embraced that tendency more frequently, I be more charitable to agree with those that enjoy this film as a subversive act of queer parody. 

All the performances seem to have been ramped up a bit. Anne Heche adds a squirrely quality to Marion Crane, which feels like an attempt to reinterpret the character in the more openly neurotic nineties. While the film is ostensibly set in the modern day, William H. Macy is playing Arbogast as even more of a noir throwback. There's a recognizable character actor in most of the supporting roles. Robert Forester as the psychologist, James Remar as the highway patrolman, Phillip Baker Hall as the sheriff, Rance Howard as Marion's boss. All fine performers whose presence are never anything but distracting, a further indication to the viewer that we are watching an elaborate fan film rather than an involving work of art on its own. You really feel that way when Flea, of all people, shows up as Bob, the guy working in Sam's shop. Why, man? Why'd do that? 

And “Why?” is the same question I opened this review with, meaning I'm no closer to finding any deeper meaning in this act of cinematic imitation. Van Sant inserts himself into the space in the original where Hitchcock's cameo was. He is now talking to a rotund man in a hat, a clear stand-in for Hitchcock who is supposedly berating the younger filmmaker. This furthers my feeling that  “Psycho” (1998) is not a legitimate attempt to retell this story. It's not an especially effective act of meta-commentary on the idea of remakes or authorial intent. As a prank, it's not that funny either. I can only conclude that this was some masochistic humiliation for its auteur, Van Sant doing a blasphemous act and luxuriating in how obnoxiously pretentious and pretentiously obnoxious he's being. If you're into that kind of thing, more power to ya but I got little out of it. [4/10] 
 


Ooe-yama Shuten-dôji
 
You might have noticed that I am fascinated by similar folkloric concepts emerging across different, far-off cultures. St. George slaying the dragon to save the princess was likely inspired by Ragnar killing the serpent for Thora. Or Perseus rescuing Andromeda from Cetus... But what of Rama's wife Sita being abducted by demon king Ravanna? Or Māui protecting the bathing Hina from Kuna, the eel god? These are comparable stories that developed independently of each other. The hero, the maiden, and the monster he must save her from is a narrative that resonates deeply within the human soul. In Japan, another island nation often isolated from the rest of the world, there are stories like this too. Susanoo dismembering Orochi for the sake of Kushinadahime is probably the most direct parallel. Consider, also, the tale of Shuten-dōji. A hard-drinking ogre who dwelt on Mount Oe and had a habit of snatching young maidens, actual historical figure Minamoto no Raikō is credited with decapitating the monster. The most famous beat of the story then occurs, as the not-quite-expired head of the beast takes one last chomp at the samurai. Luckily, Raikō wore a couple extra helmets that day, which is all the demon gobbled before it died. It is a beloved legend in Japan, often adapted and referenced across pop culture. One such example is the 1960 film "Ōeyama Shuten Dōji," a samurai-and-kaiju predecessor to Daiei's later "Daimajin" and "Yokai Monsters" series. Since we rubes overseas don't know what the hell a Shootin' DJ is, the film is internationally known as "The Demon of Mount Oe."

Princess Nagisa is the bride to the emperor. After a demonic ox attempts to abduct her, she is transported to the city of Genji and placed under the care of general Raiko. The princess reveals that she is cursed. Demons follow her to Genji. Tsuno, Raiko's greatest warrior, is attacked by a witch and slices off her arm. Bandits, some of whom possess magic powers, torment the village. Nagisa reveals that the emperor stole her from the mountain-dwelling bandit king, Shuten-dōji. He was once human, a disgraced samurai, and is now plotting to kill the emperor with his band of otherworldly cohorts. Raiko is tasked with assembling a team to scale Mount Oe, confront and kill Shuten-dōj, and bring this reign of terror to an end. 

"The Demon of Mount Oe" begins with a heavily stylized rendition of the Shuten-dōji tale as Japanese audiences in 1960 would probably know it. After that wild opening, the film then announced that it's going to tell you "the real story" behind this legend. Yes, the film belongs to that style of post-modernist fairy tale adaptations, an approach surely taken from Matsutarō  Kawaguchi's source novel. This is probably why the sake swilling demon king of the mountain is simply a guy in this version, played by Kazuo Hasegawa in a really cool wig. That approach also assumes the audience is already familiar with the traditional telling of this story. Minamoto-no-Raiko, Watanabe no Tsuno, and the rest of the Four Heavenly Kings are introduced with little preamble. The script weaves a few different legends into the plot, alongside various historical battles. The film stars Raizō Ichikawa and Shintaro Katsu, a few years before headlining two long-running samurai franchises for Daiei. Both actors are put in similar looking period garb, with the same style of make-up on their face. When this is combined with a plot that frequently leaps around in time and location and has a large cast of characters, "The Demon of Mount Oe" proves a little hard to follow for a clueless American like me. 

For the same reasons, it's a bit tricky for me to engage with what is obviously the film's attempt to deconstruct a famous folk tale. All the more so because director Tokuzō Tanaka and screenwriter Fuji Yahiro do not dismiss the otherworldly elements. Shuten-dōji may be human in this telling but he's still backed up by demonic henchmen. Like Kidomaru, who can teleport and turn into that hideous bull demon, and the ninja-like Tsuchigumo, who shoots silk from his fingers before changing into a big-ass spider. The plot concerns folkloric devices like a witch having her true form revealed in her reflection, disguising herself as an old woman to retrieve her detached arm, a sword that glows in the presence of demons, and a magical arrow being delivered by the gods in a dream. This back-and-forth between more grounded elements and blatantly fantastical ones throws me off a little. Maybe the Japanese don't feel the need to distinguish as much between historical fact and legend as we stiflingly literal Americans do. 

Of course, the monster stuff is what got me to watch “The Demon of Mount Oe” in the first place, so I can't complain about its presence too much. Indeed, the fantasy sequences are the best part of the film. Compared to the relatively grounded and black-and-white “The Whale God,” the previous Tokuzō Tanaka film I wrote about, this one is very far-out and colorful. The opening sequence is all surreal lighting and frantic movements. The first appearance of Kidomaru is proceeded by a swirl of colors in the sky. The sequence where Shintaro Katsu meets and fights the witch is lit in bright pinks and purples and shot on an intentionally artificial looking sound stage. When she ascends up into the air and takes him with her, that is achieved in an effect that clearly looks fake but in a playful, dream-like way that really sells that this is a reenactment of an old folk tale. This peaks during the confrontation with Tsuchigumo, whose web of entwining silk are usually accompanied by bright flashes of lights. The giant spider sequence does feature a fairly stiff puppet, whose awkwardly spurts sparks from its mouth and slowly kicks its eight legs. It also takes place on a back-lit night set, with interesting uses of pyrotechnics and cinematography. It's all very stylized and neat. 

For all the verve in its fantastical scenes, “The Demon of Mount Oe” still favors feudal melodrama more than monstery stuff. There are many scenes of court intrigue, two love triangles, and at least one dying declaration of affection. At about two hours, it gets a little long winded at times. Yet the film is also likable in its stylistic bursts. There are, in fact, three separate dance numbers as well, all of which are quite interesting. One of which involves Shintaro Katsu kicking up his heels, if that's something you want to see. “The Demon of Oe” is not as grimly intriguing as “The Whale God” and doesn't feature the crowd-pleasing kaiju destruction of the “Daimajin” trilogy. It's still scratch that itch for me, of seeking another corner of obscure Japanese monster movie action. Also, I've enjoyed how many times this review has given me a chance to type “Shuten Dōji.” It's a fun name! Shoe-ten Doe-jee! [7/10]
 


Thriller: The Double Kill

The episode of “Thriller,” Brian Clemens' British crime and murder anthology from the seventies that has nothing to do with someone whose name is surely Boris Karloff, I watched last year was pretty good. So here's another! “The Double Kill” concerns Hugh Briant, husband to rich heiress Clorissa. The two are fighting more often, as Clorissa uses sleeping pills to soothe her restless mind and Hugh spends all night at poker games. The man has developed a habit of bragging in public about all the riches and wealth in their home and also how they have no locks on their windows. He's hoping a burglar will enter the house, a common crook he can then blackmail into killing his wife. That way Hugh receives her significant inheritance and doesn't have to get his hands dirty. He thinks he's found the man in a shifty-eyed young thief named Max Burns. Max has other plans though, deliberately leaving clues behind that implement the husband. Now Hugh has to enact a new plan, that gets rid of the loose end and clears his name.

“The Double Kill” is a twisty act of misdirection most made worth seeing by Gary Collins' lead performance. The prolific star of film and TV brings his resounding voice to the role of the scheming husband. Collins slithers through every scene, quite confident in his own ability to manipulate those around him. When he gives his proposal to the various home intruders he “auditions,” the certainty and smoothness in his delivery is quite convincing. The script, of course, is build around increasingly upsetting that sense of control. Watching this guy slowly loose his grip on the plan he's cooked up is worthwhile. His facial expressions as the cops reveal each new piece of evidence against him is almost comical in how on point they are. While watching this jerk slowly blow his cool as he's double-crossed at every turn would be fun, Collins' instinct as an actor are sturdier than that. A guy like this isn't going to slip up overnight. This is why Hugh is still toying with Max in their final scene together, still so confident that he can make this work. 

He can't, of course. “Thriller” has a fine twist ending coming the viewer's way. I can't decide if it's a cheat or not. It doesn't depend on misdirecting our attention so much as leaving a very key piece of information hidden until the finale. I didn't see it coming though, so I guess that means the writers got me. “The Double Kill” does keep you guessing, largely because Stuart Wilson as Max is so effectively unpredictable. You are left wondering which of these snakes will come out on top. While the twist is a good one, “The Double Kill” lacks a satisfying punchline of an ending. The implication is that the guilty party will get their comeuppance soon enough but they probably should have shown that on-screen as well. Nevertheless, this is a well assembled and nicely acted bit of seventies pulp, if a bit too stately in its presentation. I usually like the dryness of these British seventies shows but “Thriller” definitely feels a little more dry than the others I've seen. [7/10]
 

 
Friday the 13th: The Series: Shadow Boxer
 
 I love how literal the titles of "Friday the 13th: The Series" episodes tend to be. "Shadow Boxer" is about a cursed pair of boxing gloves that makes the wearer a champ in the ring... At the cost of causing their literal shadow to detach from their body and act upon their anger and resentment, beating the target of that rage to death. The Villain of the Week is Tommy, a wannabe boxer and current janitor at Manny's Gym. After coming across the gloves, he quickly starts winning matches. People around him also begin to die violently, including Manny himself who left the letters T.O. in his own blood at the crime scene. The Curious Goods team are on the case, with Micki pretending to be romantically interested in Tommy in order for Ryan and Jack to get into his apartment. This has unforeseen consequences. 

The rule I laid down last time, that any given episode of "Friday the 13th: The Series" is only as good as whatever baddie the heroes are chasing this week, holds true. If this episode had been made in 2026, the script would probably characterize Tommy as an incel. He's a loner, a smaller-in-stature young male that seems to simmer with resentment at everyone around him. In the gym, he's surrounded by bigger, stronger guys who are better at the sport of punching people into submission than the physically weak Tommy. He glares at Manny's favored student with jealousy and rage. Modern online Tommy would call this guy a "Chad," the Alpha Male that denies him access to that which he believes is his. (Or, since the rival is a black man, he would call him "Tyrone," because incels are also totally absorbed in the hyper-racist rhetoric of the terminally online right.) It's not being an outcast or shrimpy that makes Tommy an asshole. It's his unearned sense of entitlement. Tommy believes he deserves to be a champ. The magic boxing gloves allow him a short cut to achieve that dream of being intimidating and easily cutting his objects of scorn down. The same way an AR-15 does for any bitter, misogynistic manlet. 

While the plot is focused on the ultra-macho world of the gym and the ring, Tommy is still super weird about women. Micki is given the unfortunate task of charming the young psycho. The script doesn't go into it but Tommy is immediately enamored of Micki, presumably because womanly attention is something else he longs for that has been denied him. Probably because he's also a sexist jerk. After sharing one piece of pie, he assumes this female he's never talked to before, who knows nothing about him as far as he's aware, wants to sleep with him. "Shadow Boxer" takes an unexpected turn in the last act. The villain is defeated and the Cursed Artifact of the Week retrieved, the point where this show would normally end. Instead, it goes on for an extra act, Tommy breaking into Micki's apartment. He restrains her in bed and threatens her with a knife, a set-up obviously reminiscent of sexual assault. Denied access to the object he wants, he turns to violence, just like he did with the guys at the gym. Bitterness over not having what he's been taught should be his is the root of Tommy's evil. 

Josh Miller's script is not that deep and "Shadow Boxer" doesn't get into the web of toxic masculinity that births monsters like this. Tommy's rage manifesting as a shadow is a clever, Jungian image but the guy is also a sleazy ass in his regular life. His anger is not exactly repressed. It's mentioned that each of the boxers have nicknames like "Killer" or "Terrific," emphasizing that violence and triumph is what distinguished people in this world. Yet the gym seems pretty chill otherwise, the episode having neither the time nor depth to explore why prizing aggression and victory over everything else produces kids like Tommy. The script is also unaware enough that it depicts Ryan giving Micki a playful smack on the ass as charming male behavior. Which may just be another example of this show seeming to forget that these two are cousins and probably shouldn't have a will-they-won't-they dynamic going on. What's a little incest in-between solving weekly mysteries, ya know? 

As is typical of this show, it eventually gets bogged down in the nonsensical magical rules around its cursed object. Tommy's shadow is beaten back by bright light, leading to a goofy scene of Micki fighting it off with a flash camera. The exact link between the gloves' wearer, the shadow, and the object itself are not always clearly defined. The climax features an especially confusing turn of events, in how Tommy is defeated. Still, this is easily one of the better episodes I've seen so far. It shows that our modern day "crisis of masculinity" isn't anything new, that entitlement and might-as-right attitudes has been producing guys like this for a while. [7/10]