A name that hasn't come up much when discussing the “Wrong Turn” sequels is Alan B. McElroy, the screenwriter of the original movie. McElroy gets a character credit on all the follow-ups, on account of having created Three Finger and his twisted brothers, but didn't have anything to do with them. McElroy – whose wildly divergent other credits include “Halloween 4,” “Spawn,” “Left Behind,” and “The Marine” – decided to return to the franchise he originated recently... Sort of. Ya see, 2021's “Wrong Turn” has been described as both remake or reboot of the series but is, more accurately, described as “Wrong Turn”-In-Name-Only. It ditches the inbred hillbilly cannibals for a totally different story of people on the Appalachian Trail encountering hostile forest dwellers. It's not even set in West Virginia! Still, I was curious enough about the new film to give it a look. It certainly can’t be any worst than the other sequels, right?
Scott is in search of his college age daughter, Jen, who disappeared six weeks earlier while on the Appalachian Trail. He eventually comes to a small town in Southern Virginia, where the locals are unfriendly. He soon uncovers the truth: While hiking with friends, Jen discovered the Foundation, a secret society hiding out in the woods since before the start of the Civil War. After one of her friends senselessly murdered a Foundation member, Jen and the others were put on trial. To save her own life, Jen chooses to integrate into the Foundation. After her father finds the hidden village, Jen has her chance to escape.
But none of that really matters because I actively disliked most of the characters. The establishing moment for Jen's friends is when they are hassled by a local yokel in a bar. Milla, the one in glasses, then explains that her urban millennial friends work just as hard, and have equally difficult lives, as anyone from this small town. I think this is suppose to make the kids seem down-to-earth and likable but the opposite effect is true. Even if what they say is basically true, they come off as conceited and out-of-touch. Worst yet, the film eventually comes around to admit that the kids were right in this scenario. It doesn't help that among the group is Adam, a belligerent and insensitive asshole that acts recklessly and blames others. There's also a lot of bickering in the woods, my least favorite trademark of this series. The characters who aren't annoying are indistinct, such as Jen, a protagonist we never get much insight into.
This "Wrong Turn" also earns some points for being the first in the series actually filmed in the United States. The movie was shot in Ohio, whose verdant woodlands make for a passable facsimile of the Appalachian Trail. I still get the distinct impression that Alan B. McElroy wrote this as a stand-alone script – probably called "The Foundation," which the movie bares as a subtitle in most international markets – before realizing it would be easier to sell it as a "Wrong Turn" reboot. The dialogue even features a potshot at the other sequels, which comes off as petty. Especially because some inbred hillbilly cannibals would've easily improve this movie. Nelson is clearly a talented director but your horror movie can't build suspense when you have characters the audience actively dislikes and such a half-hearted, confused story. [5/10]
For most people interested in such things, the story of Edward D. Wood Jr. ends shortly after the release of “Plan 9 from Outer Space,” his anti-masterpiece of outsider filmmaking. That's where the Tim Burton movie wraps up. If you're a real aficionado, you might know that Wood continued to write and direct, ending his career in nudie cuties and hardcore pornography. Yet there is an often overlooked episode in-between these two chapters of Wood-ian history. In 1958, Eddie shot a movie called “Revenge of the Dead.” A slightly unfinished version would have a brief theatrical engagement in one cinema the next year, before seemingly disappearing. Wood ran out of money to pay the film lab and the movie became more-or-less lost for twenty years. That's when sci-fi superfan Wade Williams discovered the footage, bought the rights, re-titled it “Night of the Ghouls,” and gave it a home video release. And so this hidden piece of the Ed Wood story can be “enjoyed” by all.
A medium calling himself “Dr. Acula” operates out of a supposedly haunted house in the woods, the former home of a mad scientist and his monsters. The truth is Acula is a fraud who is out to fleece old ladies out of their money. His girlfriend plays the role of the ghosts, a cover story to keep people away from the home. The police send two men to investigate: The cowardly Patrolman Kelton and Lt. Bradford. As Bradford digs into the phony operation, he also uncovers that mute brute Lobo – the last survivor from the mad scientist's days – also lumbers around the home.
More truthfully, “Night of the Ghouls” is the same thing most of Wood's movies were: An attempt to recreate the sci-fi and classic horror movies that fascinated him so with little money and minimum talent. The script is an unsteady mishmash of various classic genre tropes and unfinished projects of Wood's. The premise of a spooky old building and a fake haunting engineered to cover up criminal activities can be seen in roughly a hundred old dark house movies. Some have noted that the plot resembles “Sucker Money.” The images of ghostly figures traipsing through the fog was Wood's best – and honestly not bad – attempt to recreate the moody atmosphere of old monster movies. Meanwhile, Wood would recycle names, plot points, and footage from various unfinished novels, scripts, and movies of his.
Even if it's more dull than not, I'm glad “Night of the Ghouls” was unearthed and released. It's pretty rough in spots, just in the sense that it's poorly shot and edited, with a plot that is hard to follow even by the standards of Ed Wood movies. Yet it's weirdest moments are memorably strange. It has a pretty good ending, the duplicitous villain being punished in suitably ironic, E.C. Comics style. Even at its weakest, there's something cozy about hanging out with oddballs like Criswell and Tor Johnson again. I suspect Ed felt much the same way. This would probably be an ideal flick to watch on a late night horror show, with a campy host telling cheesy jokes between scenes. Even if you would probably be fighting sleep during long stretches of it. [5/10]
“Arkangel,” an episode of “Black Mirror” from its fourth season, follows single mother Marie. After an incident where her young daughter, Sara, briefly disappears while at a playground, she installs ArkAngel in the girl. That would be a microchip implant that allows Marie to monitor Sara's location, see through her eyes, and even censor sights and sounds that might be distressing to her. Following an upsetting incident at school that causes Sara to harm herself, Marie puts the ArkAngel tablet away and promises never to use it again... But as Sara grows into a teenager, and begins to attract the attention of a bad boy love interest, Marie finds her spying on her daughter with the ArkAngel again. With disastrous results.
More than anything else, “Arkangel” is a really sad story about an overprotective parent whose anxieties wind up ruining both her and her daughter's lives. The first scene depicts Sara's birth. Marie feels guilty for having a C-section, as if she's failed as a parent before the child is even born. When it takes a minute for Sara to start crying, Marie begins to panic. This establishes a mother who desperately needs her child, to overcome for own deep insecurities. When she installs a device that essentially adds a parental filter to reality, Marie means well. Yet she ends up stunting her daughter's mental development. By wanting to protect her daughter, she damages her. As with every kid with an overprotective parent, Sara goes behind her mom's back to experience things. At that point, all the ArkAngel does is confirm her worst fears. In other words, Marie creates the scenario she most fears.
“Arkangel” probably qualifies for a Halloween marathon do to the unnerving way it shows how technology interacts with real life. The “parental filter” feature manifests as Sara seeing scary or distressing content – from a dog barking to her grandfather having a heart attack – through a digitized mosaic. As with the best of “Black Mirror,” all of the technology here seems fairly plausible. Apparently, “ArkAngel” is not a well regarded episode of this show – I have disengaged with the Discourse because I rarely watch TV when it's new – but I found it to be a fairly disturbing, involving hour. [7/10]
If you're wondering how I picked out this year's selection of shorts, I went to IMDb and cross-referenced Short Films and Horror, before going down the list in chronological. That's how I've been finding so many older, obscure gems. Like "The Return," a half-hour British film from 1973 also inspired by an Ambrose Bierce story. It concerns a man arriving at a spooky old mansion, ostensibly to buy it. He quickly worms it out of the caretaker, the sole resident, that the house is said to be haunted. That the previous owner, who despised physical deformity, went into a fit of rage upon discovering his wife was missing a little toe on one foot. He murdered her on their wedding night and her ghost supposedly still haunts the master bedroom. Convinced the previous owner was innocent, the man is determined to stay the night in the bedroom... And soon the truth is revealed.
If you're looking for a classic English ghost story for Halloween, "The Return" should fit the bill. The setting, of a drafty old mansion that is dark and isolated, provides plenty of old-fashioned spooky atmosphere. Combined with the shadowy visuals, the setting does a lot of heavy lifting. Most of the short is devoted to two actors – Peter Vaughn as the visitor and Rosalie Crutchley as the caretaker, both excellent – recounting the grim details of the murder. Which absolutely matches the feeling of sitting around and telling old ghost stories with friends. Especially when it's all done in that very prim and proper English way, where more is revealed by what isn't said than by what is.
No comments:
Post a Comment