Halloween 2024: October 9th

Mahakaal (1994)

Don't think for a minute that remakes of foreign language hits are a strictly Hollywood phenomenon. Look no further than Freddy Krueger for an American pop culture creation that other countries simply could not stop ripping off. Mexico brought us “Don't Panic” and its croaking Virgil. Indonesia mashed up Freddy with “The Exorcist” in “Satan's Bed.” The Italians had their own take too, naturally. Of all these Nightmare Feddys, none are more notorious than “Mahakaal.” With the English title of simply “The Monster” – though “Time of Death” seems to be a more accurate translation – the film has become notorious for being India's answer to Wes Craven's classic, with all the tropes you associate with that country's cinematic language. For years, out-of-context clips of the “Bollywood Freddy Krueger” movie have been passed around for hardened horror fans to laugh and point at. Perhaps one should not be so quick to dismiss the film though, despite it being a blatant knock-off of an iconic classic. “Mahakaal” is the work of Shyam and Tulsi Ramsey, two of most popular Hindi horror directors. That suggests the film deserves to be examined more deeply than its status as a meme suggests. 

College student Anita is having nightmares about a strange, scarred man with a clawed metal glove. She notices the wounds she sustains in her dreams seem to translate to her physical body when she wakes up. Her police chief father – still heartbroken over the murder of his youngest daughter, Mohini, years earlier – tells her not to worry about it. Her friend Seema is having the same dreams too. While on a picnic with their boyfriends, Prakash and Param, Seema dies violently in her sleep. Param is the only suspect in the case but he is also soon bizarrely killed in his prison cell. As the nightmares continue to haunt Anita, she discovers the same clawed glove in her father's desk. It turns out her dad buried a sorcerer named Shakaal alive after he murdered Mohini to increase his magical powers. Shakaal has now returned as a dream-invading demon, determined to rebirth himself into the physical world by possessing Anita and getting his revenge on the police chief. 

Inevitably, "Mahakaal" will be of most interest to western horror fans for the elements it blatantly takes from "A Nightmare on Elm Street." The film doesn't stop at swiping the general premise – a burned murderer with a razor gloves kills people in their dreams – and goes so far as to directly copy several scenes. Anita, our Nancy stand-in, falls asleep in class and sees a dead body in a plastic bag beckoning her into a boiler room. When Param surprises her outside school, it mirrors Rod trying to convince Nancy of his innocence in Craven's film. Obviously, the dream killer framing a girl's boyfriend for her murder is a plot point taken directly from "Elm Street." "Mahakaal" doesn't stop at emulating the original either. As the film goes on, it starts bringing in ideas and sequences from the sequels too. Anita being possessed by Shakaal, so the villain can re-enter reality, is clearly inspired by "Freddy's Revenge." Later, Shakaal kills the secondary villain by springing out of his waterbed, replicating the "wet dream" kill from "Nightmare 4." There's a shot of the glove sailing through the air by itself too, which I suspect was also inspired by that sequel. 

As similar as "Mahakaal" is to the Krueger canon, the differences are notable as well. No film is made in a vacuum, "Mahakaal" filtering the Hollywood creation through a Hindi cultural lens. First off, everyone is made older, the teen heroes being transplanted to college. The Freddy stand-in's status as a child murderer is downplayed and his perverse tendencies are totally absent. This means the stranger danger premise of a weirdo dragging a kid down into the boiler room for unspeakable reasons are gone too. Shakaal still hangs out in a dark, hot, industrial setting but no deeper reason is provided. Shakaal also still has a fucked-up face but he's now a victim of being buried alive, instead of burned. (He also has a full head of hair, sporting a mullet of sorts.) All of this feels like a result of different censorship standards. Indeed, "Mahakaal" keeps most of its gore off-screen. Shakaal's methods involve covering his victim with a blanket when they get slashed or summoned cobras to bite them to death. The bladed glove is more for intimidation than execution, it seems. The only changes that seem to truly reflect Indian ideology is a scene where a Hindu monk is consulted and Anita's parents still being together. 

Instead of filtering Craven's original through the unique sensibilities of their culture, the Ramsey brothers mostly stand Bollywood cinematic staples alongside the familiar moments. Which is to say "Mahakaal" contains countless wild tonal shifts. First and foremost: Yes, the movie is a musical. Disappointingly, this does not mean the Freddy rip-off sings and dances. However, Anita, Prakash and their friends do perform several extensive numbers. Prakash and Anita head to the beach and sing a lengthy song about their love for each other. Later, the gang goes on a picnic, resulting in another long production about what a great idea that is. After Shakaal takes over Anita, it leads to a full-blown disco sequence. What is most staggering about these scenes is there is no attempt to blend these songs with the horror tone of the rest of the movie. The characters will go from being chased by Not-Freddy through his spooky lair to a music video-style breakdown. It catches you off-guard. This isn't my genre of music, so I can't say the trilling vocals, repetitive lyrics, and chintzy melodies are appealing to me. Though that picnic song is kind of catchy...

The bizarre tonal shifts do not stop there. "Mahakaal" wildly leaps through different genres without warning. Everyone in the film is friends with Canteen, who can charitably be called the wacky comic relief. He is introduced impersonating Michael Jackson and later mimics Bruce Lee. A very long scene has the same actor playing the weird, pervy owner of a hotel. The comedy here is, to say the least, not to my liking. It's mugging, obnoxious, loud, and unending. As inexplicable as that moment is, a later scene tops it. While Anita and a friend are out on the town, a group of thugs attempt to assault them in a restaurant. Canteen appears to save the day while dressed as Shahenshah, a character from a 1988 film of the same name that, as far as I can tell, is some sort of superhero. That this wacky comedic scene is proceeded by a threat of sexual assault is also not uncommon in "Mahakaal." Anita is almost raped by a gang leader named Randheer. (In addition to multiple scenes of women wearing wet clothes, seemingly a common form of acceptable titillation in Bollywood cinema.) This results in an awkward, if elaborately choreography, fight scene. In fact, sudden pyrotechnics and high-kicking fight scenes can occur any time in "Mahakaal." I guess in a world where people bursting into song and dance is commonplace, everyone being down for a rumble isn't unexpected either. This is, unavoidably, eventually applied to the villain as well. "Mahakaal" concludes with Anita's boyfriend beating the shit out of Shakaal. Let's see Johnny Depp try that.

From my admittedly limited exposure to Indian cinema, bizarre right-turns in style and tone like this do not appear to be altogether atypical. The result is an unpredictable experience. "Mahakaal" is not without some decent horror ambiance. Shakaal's nightmare realm is often shaded in moody purples and reds. Chains dangle from the ceiling ominously. There's a cool, Raimi-esque shot of the camera swooping through the air, not to mention a few P.O.V. angles from the glove. A chase scene through a freezer full of huge sheets of ice is well done. Shakaal mostly hangs out in a creepy den decorated with an enormous skull. The attempts to copy the gore of the original is usually underwhelming, resulting in a lot of very clean looking skeletons popping out or an underwhelming skinless face. However, the finale features both an enormous guillotine and a wall of slowly advancing spikes, which are welcomed additions. 

However, my attempt to genuinely like "Mahakaal" was ultimately a futile one. The comedy is so annoying. The musical numbers are not well integrated into the rest of the story. The ever present but casually dismissed threat of sexual assault did make me uncomfortable. Seeing low budget recreations of famous Hollywood scenes are not truly worth the two hours and twelve minutes it'll take for you to watch this. Indian cinema is a vast landscape, reflecting cultures, languages, ideas and styles. I'm sure horror films better than this have been made in that industry. There's certainly a novelty to "Mahakaal" but, sadly, it's grating humor and whiplash inducing style changes left me more baffled than enthused. [5/10]

The Seduction of Amy (1975) 

Phantasmes

Last year saw the release of "Orchestrator of Storms," as comprehensive a retrospective on the career of Jean Rollin as we're likely to get. Over the years, I've grown quite fond of the French director's dreamy, campy, lady vampire-filled work. The documentary gave me a peek at some of the more obscure corners of Rollin's career too. Such as his occasional forays into hardcore pornography. Rollin's horror films usually strayed into the erotic but, to keep the lights on, he took several triple-X gigs in the middle seventies. Rollin himself was dismissive of his smut but he did deem one worthy of carrying his actual name. "Phantasmes" would see the filmmaker sneaking in some of his reoccurring obsessions amid the expected unsimulated humping. The film currently survives in two forms: The unsubtitled French original and a dubbed U.S. cut, retitled "The Seduction of Amy" and missing twenty minutes. Either print is in miserable shape but, in the name of completeness, I watched both. In other words: I'm reviewing an actual porno and, yes, I watched it twice. Truly, it has come to this.

As you'd expect from a motion picture belonging to this particular genre, "The Seduction of Amy" is rather light on narrative. Amy is a virginal maiden who escapes being assaulted after the brute (played by Rollin himself) punches her into a lake. When she awakens, she is in the secluded chateau of Count Gideon. He claims to be a widower but the truth is stranger. The castle was once owned by the Marquis de Sade and the rituals he performed compel the current residents to get up to similarly unrestrained actions. Other women and guests wander into the building, engaging in lusty pleasures. When Gideon is done with them, they are locked up in the dungeon and subjected to the lash. Will innocent Amy be the next victim of the count's twisted passions or can she reach his inner heart? 

The copy of "The Seduction of Amy" floating around the internet – unsurprisingly, I watched it on a porn site – is in rather sad condition. It's dark and murky. The color grading shifts randomly from scene to scene, scratches and grain are ever present, and the reel visibly breaks at one point! However, through the subpar presentation, one can spot some of the Rollin trademarks. The isolated chateau setting has the gothic trappings that define his career. This becomes especially apparent when Amy – in a see-through nightgown, another Rollin trademark – wanders the castle at night with a candelabra. Rollin's visual playfulness and love of horror atmosphere shows the most during a coupling set in a tomb. The female performer's shadow is cast large over the stone walls as she goes about her business with her male costar. The final love scene takes place on a beach, though not the beach that crops up in so many of the director's films. 

Thematically, the film is abreast – excuse the pun – of some of Rollin's other work. "The Seduction of Amy" can never quite capture the dreamy atmosphere of "Shivers of the Vampire" or "Lost in New York," being far too preoccupied with the earthly nature of the flesh. There are touches here and there though, especially when Gideon leads one of his conquests for a walk around the castle ruins. The story, of an innocent wandering into a frightening and corrupt world, recalls "The Demoniacs" and "Living Dead Girl." The way Amy inevitably partakes in the explicit actions without sacrificing her own pure demeanor, acting out of love and not lust, is another reoccurring idea of the director. As seen in "The Iron Rose" and "Night of the Hunted," naïf like female protagonists lost in dangerous and sexual netherlands, pulled between corruption and child-like perspectives, was the obsession Rollin was most stuck on, outside of vampires and creepy locations. Instead of "Dracula" or "Carmilla," "Beauty and the Beast" feels like the main source of reference here, what with a young maiden becoming the captive of a monstrous but pathetic man whose better nature she slowly brings out. 

As for the horror content, it's light. The spooky setting, women in cages, and themes of madness and obsession push the film into the margins of the genre. The most blatantly horrific scenes involve Amy being chased back to the castle by a menacing bank of fog and a DeSadian whipping. You can tell Rollin was doing his best to insert some of his personality into this one. However, unavoidably, "Phantasmes" fills most of its runtime with bodies intertwining in all the ways you'd expect. I know various scholars have gone to bat for the artistic merits of the porno chic era but "The Seduction of Amy" doesn't strike me as a good example of that. The lovemaking is mechanical. The camera work is clinical, with lingering close-ups on the orifices and appendages of the participating models. An earlier sequence in the shadowy catacombs of the castle suggests maybe Rollin was able to balance his aesthetic with adult movie expectations. However, most of the rest of the film is made up of the kind of sweaty, hairy eroticism likely typical of any motion picture of this type. The English dub, meanwhile, features some truly atrocious pop-rock on the soundtrack. Repetitive, tinny songs about "a red-headed woman" and how you can "double your pleasure" make many of the graphic scenes hard to get through. And not that kind of hard either... I thought seventies porn was supposed to have funky guitar soundtracks? I was promised bow-chicka-wow-wows. 

Every film deserves to be graded on its own merits. Since "The Seduction of Amy" is designed to get the viewer off, the questions must be asked... Is it arousing? Well, the actresses are all fairly attractive and you see a lot of them. Rollin regulars the Castell sisters appear, participating in some school girl themed spanking and other ribald activities. For the most part, it's tedious rather than interesting, much less erotic. I prefer my smut with more artistic flair or fetishistic intensity than this, it seems. Something about the equation is off when you think a porno movie would be better if the sex scenes were cut out. Since this is supposedly the best of Rollin's hardcore movies, I don't think I'll be compelled to dig up any of the other ones. My morbid curiosity is appeased but neither my higher nor lower functions were especially tickled by this presentation. We now return to our regular programming. Begone bushes and dongs! [5/10]

The Outer Limits (1995): First Anniversary

After watching an episode of "Goosebumps" yesterday, it got me thinking about horror/supernatural themed show for kids that's actually good, "So Weird." That show was molded by two writers, Jon Cooksey and Ali Marie Matheson. (Both of whom, by the way, I've had a chance to interview.) Among that duo's credits is also an episode of the 1995 revival of "The Outer Limits." Since I haven't liked most of the installments of this series I've watched, that gave me an extra incentive to watch "First Anniversary."

Based on a story by Ali's dad, "First Anniversary" follows an insurance agent named Norman. Through work, he meets the beautiful Ady – whose first husband recently died in a car accident – and the two quickly marry. The first year goes great. However, after that, Norman has moments where he's suddenly disgusted by the taste or smell of his wife. He tries to ignore it but the incidents escalate to disturbing audio and visual hallucinations as well. After his buddy – who is married to Ady's best friend – suffers a similar delusion and dies because of it, Norman fears he's cracking up. But he's not. His wife truly isn't what she seems and is hiding a horrifying secret.

"First Anniversary" is obviously a metaphor for a problem a lot of couples experience. Namely, that period when you've known your partner long enough to have seen all their bad habits. Despite your love for them, maybe you're annoyed by something small they frequently do. Maybe they make a weird noise when they chew or pick their nose or whatever. In other words, this is a sci-fi/horror escalation of what's commonly known as the end of the honeymoon period. Most of us, in these moments, realize our partners are human too and don't worry about it. But some relationships don't survive this revelation. "First Anniversary" blows up this idea into a husband suddenly finding all of his senses repulsed by his wife after a year of marriage. It's a good idea to turn into a horror story. "First Anniversary's" best moments is when Norman catches a glimpse of his wife in the shower and, for a split second, only sees a hideous, pulsating blob. Or when he hears her in the kitchen, making disgusting wet monster noises. Moments like these play like brief lapses in sanity, the kind of horrible but easily understood experience that horror can bloom from.

Unfortunately, this is the nineties' "Outer Limits," so there's not much room for subtlety. The metaphor is obvious and it goes hand-in-hand with some uncomfortable subtext. All the women in this episode are inhuman monsters trying to pull a trick on their husbands, before killing them. I think this is supposed to be an interrogation of sexism. Ady does love her husband, we find out. Running with the idea that there are secrets women keep that men can't understand is interesting. In execution, it looks like all women are part of a vast conspiracy to emasculate guys though. And it doesn't help that this is a pretty horny episode, featuring some pay-cable quality eroticism and exclusively casting model looking women in the roles. 

Another reason I checked this one is the cast. Matt Frewer plays Norman, with Clint Howard appearing as his best friend. Since "The Outer Limits" seemingly always ends up turning on the melodrama, the performances get quite campy before the end. I suppose that's to be expected of the otherwise decent Frewer and the typically mugging Howard. The creature effects are also better the less we see of them. Once the monster is seen clearly at the end, it's less creepy than catching a glimpse of a hairy, slimy hump. The script has to painfully explain what's going on before the end too, forcing this story solidly into the realm of sci-fi when it could've existed as dream-like horror instead. Despite the many reservations I had about "First Anniversary," the basic idea is still good enough. Combined with one or two effectively gross moments and it's still one of the more tolerable episodes of the nineties "Outer Limits" I've seen. [6/10]

The Addams Family: Progress and the Addams Family

The thirtieth episode of "The Addams Family" sees the spooky brood caught in the wheels of progress. The family's archenemy Arthur Henson is back, now functioning as the city commissioner. He plans to build a freeway through the town. Right through the Addams' living room, sending an eviction letter to the family and condemning their mansion. Gomez and the gang don't take this lightly, of course. When multiple attempts to convince Henson to change his mind don't quite connect, the family touches on a novel solution: Simply strap their home to the back of a truck and move it across town... Right next door to where Mr. Henson lives. 

Most episodes of "The Addams Family," in one way or another, match the family against the values and institutions of more traditional society. "Progress and the Addams Family" makes that an explicit confrontation. Once Henson threatens the family's home, the Addams go on the offensive. The running gag of Fester threatening to shoot people in the back returns. Lurch angrily grumbles at a demolitions worker and Thing shakes his fist/himself at another intruder. (Though from the way Morticia asks, you'd think he made a far ruder hand gesture.) However, the Addams prevail simply by sticking to their moral code. Henson isn't defeated with Gomez's circular legal knowledge. Instead, the Addams decide to be good neighbors and build their new home next to Henson's house. This horrifies him, naturally, and he changes his mind about the freeway. It displays the Addams Family's philosophy. They are unapologetically, uniquely themselves. They do not seek out confrontation and, instead, defeat naysayers by continuously refusing to capitulate. Those standing on less sturdy philosophical ground will eventually back down and the Addams will endure. It's a fascinating lesson to teach. 

Aside from exploring the family's credo, "Progress and the Addams Family" is simply a very funny episode that packs the gags in. There's lots of wacky fun here. Such as Granmama inventing two sticks that can produce thunder, Cleopatra being picky about her pork chops, and an amusing conversation about a judge's wig. The broadest and silliest gag involves the house being shipped across town, and the family preparing for that. (This is accomplished via some clever stock footage.) My favorite joke involves Gomez tearing up a letter, tossing it overhead, and the crumpled balls of paper simply vanishing. I also like a moment where Gomez, upon gazing at his wife, simply and sincerely announces his love for her. These two absolutely are the ideal couple! Good, silly fun and sharp social satire in its own way, "Progress..." is another highlight of the show's first season. [7/10]