Among the “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” cast members, Nicholas Brendon did not have the best post-show career. One can only assume that his well publicized personal problems effected his ability to book steady gigs. Presumably, his related substance abuse issues contributed to his untimely passing earlier this year, at the age of only 54. Though it has become popular to hate on the character, Xander was always one of my faves. Brendon's way with dialogue and easy-going presence was a big reason why. I wanted to honor his memory by watching a film featuring the guy this season. While the temptation to critically re-evaluate “Pinata: Survival Island” was there, I decided to look at the probable high-light of his film career. That would be 2013's “Coherence,” a micro-budget sci-fi indie that got stellar reviews upon release and continues to make brains itchy to this day.
In the sky, Miller's Comet makes a rare close-pass by Earth. Eight old friends gather at the home of Mike and Lee for a dinner. Emily's cell phone screen shatters as she's talking to boyfriend, Kevin, who is also attending. Two other couples – Hugh and Beth, Amir and Laurie (who used to date Kevin) – also soon show up. What starts out as a casual dinner takes a strange turn when the power mysteriously goes out. A trip outside shows that the entire neighborhood has gone black, save for one house... A house that looks a lot like Mike and Lee's, with a table set for eight inside. Hugh's brother is a physicist and instructed him to call, if “anything strange” happens. That sets up the clear realization that the comet passing overhead has opened up a gateway between alternate realities. The house guests soon begin to question from which realities each of them have originated and the mechanics of the situation they are in. Inevitably, things take a deadly turn.
Films that are described as brain teasers, those motion pictures that present Big Ideas within the context of complex plots, cause me to think of the opening line of Demi Adejuyigbe's Letterboxd write-up of “I'm Thinking of Ending Things.” “Too dumb to understand this.” “Coherence” is not quite as convoluted or layered in its plotting as that film or “Primer,” the other indie sci-fi success it's most often compared to. However, this is still a motion picture that takes its time to explain what quantum coherence is. (Though incorrectly.) The thought experiment of Schrodinger's Cat is brought up multiple times. The film doesn't merely use the concept of alternate realities as a starting point, like most stories concerning the subject does. It sets out to deliberately confuse the audience. The viewer is meant to be as jumbled up and uncertain about what is happening as the characters are. I also suspect that the viewer is meant to catch on to how this works around the same time the characters do. That moment never came to me. The mechanics of “Coherence's” multiverse alluded me. The way it is determined who is from w hat reality or when the switch might have taken place went over my head. I'm not a total idiot. I get that the image in the night sky of the comet breaking into countless pieces represents the infinite directions our life can go in. Nevertheless, I was still stumped by much of this.
The somewhat confusing nature of “Coherence's” script was probably a result of how the movie was made. The film was born of director James Ward Byrkit, a storyboard artist and frequent collaborator of Gore Verbinski, hoping to make a feature as cheaply as possible by shooting within his own home. He had the actors improvise much of their dialogue and many of the scenes, so that the story remained unpredictable. The narrative was then largely assembled through editing, allegedly involving a number of flow charts. It's an interesting approach to filmmaking and I admire Byrkit's chutzpah. However, through it all, maybe he should've worked on defining his characters more. The cast of “Coherence” never quite emerge as individuals to me. When it's actually part of the plot that people can shift personalities or traits from scene-to-scene, it's hard for the audience to say who any of these folks. Trying to figure out their interpersonal entanglements did not always hook me. Too often, “Coherence” amounts to one of my least favorite genre film tropes: Characters picking a moment of crisis to argue about, rehash, or escalate into screaming arguments over petty disagreements and years old resentments.
While I definitely am dumb, I was able to get a general idea of what “Coherence's” thematic concerns are. Clearly, this is a rumination on the nature of fate. As the different versions of these characters come and go, the little ways in which they are different are reflected on. The only thing separating one version of someone from another is a small selection of choices. What object they put in a box, what number they associated with themselves. At the same time, these minor choices have clearly had an influence on their entire lives. Which presents a frightening possibility: We have no control over our own existences. The choices we make are random, determined not by ourselves but by chance. Therefore, the paths are lives take occur without any input from us. The people we are results from how the dice fall, not from what we do. I think most of us have struggled with this feeling, that the entire universe and our role in it is complete happenstance. “Coherence” comes the closest to meaningfully touching on this idea near its climax. That's when the apparent main character attempts to choose a better life for themselves from a sprawling web of alternate realities. Who hasn't fantasized about that, of a slightly better version of our own lives? Of a version of us that would be happy and successful, if only a few things had gone differently?
I guess what I'm saying is... I can clearly see that “Coherence” is clever. I like the way it approaches big ideas within the context of a small, simple location. Approaching cosmic horror from this direction, one that threatens to make us go mad by encountering ideas at the edge of scientific comprehension, is probably a more thoughtful approach than just throwing some tentacles and eldritch abominations on-screen. At the same time, the central gimmick of “Coherence” defeats itself a bit. Eight characters is too many to easily track of, much less keep straight in a tumble of possible worlds. Still, there's plenty to admire here. And as an ode to Nicholas Brendon, it's a good one. His role clearly seems to nod towards his own run-ins with alcoholism, while still displaying the incredible charm and verve he had. I'm gonna miss that guy, much the same way I'll miss all the better worlds I could be living in if my choices had been improved. [6/10]
In the sky, Miller's Comet makes a rare close-pass by Earth. Eight old friends gather at the home of Mike and Lee for a dinner. Emily's cell phone screen shatters as she's talking to boyfriend, Kevin, who is also attending. Two other couples – Hugh and Beth, Amir and Laurie (who used to date Kevin) – also soon show up. What starts out as a casual dinner takes a strange turn when the power mysteriously goes out. A trip outside shows that the entire neighborhood has gone black, save for one house... A house that looks a lot like Mike and Lee's, with a table set for eight inside. Hugh's brother is a physicist and instructed him to call, if “anything strange” happens. That sets up the clear realization that the comet passing overhead has opened up a gateway between alternate realities. The house guests soon begin to question from which realities each of them have originated and the mechanics of the situation they are in. Inevitably, things take a deadly turn.
Films that are described as brain teasers, those motion pictures that present Big Ideas within the context of complex plots, cause me to think of the opening line of Demi Adejuyigbe's Letterboxd write-up of “I'm Thinking of Ending Things.” “Too dumb to understand this.” “Coherence” is not quite as convoluted or layered in its plotting as that film or “Primer,” the other indie sci-fi success it's most often compared to. However, this is still a motion picture that takes its time to explain what quantum coherence is. (Though incorrectly.) The thought experiment of Schrodinger's Cat is brought up multiple times. The film doesn't merely use the concept of alternate realities as a starting point, like most stories concerning the subject does. It sets out to deliberately confuse the audience. The viewer is meant to be as jumbled up and uncertain about what is happening as the characters are. I also suspect that the viewer is meant to catch on to how this works around the same time the characters do. That moment never came to me. The mechanics of “Coherence's” multiverse alluded me. The way it is determined who is from w hat reality or when the switch might have taken place went over my head. I'm not a total idiot. I get that the image in the night sky of the comet breaking into countless pieces represents the infinite directions our life can go in. Nevertheless, I was still stumped by much of this.
The somewhat confusing nature of “Coherence's” script was probably a result of how the movie was made. The film was born of director James Ward Byrkit, a storyboard artist and frequent collaborator of Gore Verbinski, hoping to make a feature as cheaply as possible by shooting within his own home. He had the actors improvise much of their dialogue and many of the scenes, so that the story remained unpredictable. The narrative was then largely assembled through editing, allegedly involving a number of flow charts. It's an interesting approach to filmmaking and I admire Byrkit's chutzpah. However, through it all, maybe he should've worked on defining his characters more. The cast of “Coherence” never quite emerge as individuals to me. When it's actually part of the plot that people can shift personalities or traits from scene-to-scene, it's hard for the audience to say who any of these folks. Trying to figure out their interpersonal entanglements did not always hook me. Too often, “Coherence” amounts to one of my least favorite genre film tropes: Characters picking a moment of crisis to argue about, rehash, or escalate into screaming arguments over petty disagreements and years old resentments.
While I definitely am dumb, I was able to get a general idea of what “Coherence's” thematic concerns are. Clearly, this is a rumination on the nature of fate. As the different versions of these characters come and go, the little ways in which they are different are reflected on. The only thing separating one version of someone from another is a small selection of choices. What object they put in a box, what number they associated with themselves. At the same time, these minor choices have clearly had an influence on their entire lives. Which presents a frightening possibility: We have no control over our own existences. The choices we make are random, determined not by ourselves but by chance. Therefore, the paths are lives take occur without any input from us. The people we are results from how the dice fall, not from what we do. I think most of us have struggled with this feeling, that the entire universe and our role in it is complete happenstance. “Coherence” comes the closest to meaningfully touching on this idea near its climax. That's when the apparent main character attempts to choose a better life for themselves from a sprawling web of alternate realities. Who hasn't fantasized about that, of a slightly better version of our own lives? Of a version of us that would be happy and successful, if only a few things had gone differently?
I guess what I'm saying is... I can clearly see that “Coherence” is clever. I like the way it approaches big ideas within the context of a small, simple location. Approaching cosmic horror from this direction, one that threatens to make us go mad by encountering ideas at the edge of scientific comprehension, is probably a more thoughtful approach than just throwing some tentacles and eldritch abominations on-screen. At the same time, the central gimmick of “Coherence” defeats itself a bit. Eight characters is too many to easily track of, much less keep straight in a tumble of possible worlds. Still, there's plenty to admire here. And as an ode to Nicholas Brendon, it's a good one. His role clearly seems to nod towards his own run-ins with alcoholism, while still displaying the incredible charm and verve he had. I'm gonna miss that guy, much the same way I'll miss all the better worlds I could be living in if my choices had been improved. [6/10]
Chorakhe
"Jaws" had a massive impact on the world of cinema. And I do mean the "world." How much of a global success Spielberg's shark thriller was is evident in the wide range of rip-offs that emerged from various far away locations. The Italians, naturally, went hog-wild but filmmakers from Spain, Japan, Australia, India, Mexico, Turkey, Brazil and Greece also threw their hats into the pool. A popular tactic for "Jaws" knock-offs was to simply replace a shark with another water-dwelling predator. Surely, no one will notice the suspicious similarities to a mega-popular blockbuster if it's a movie about an octopus, an orca, a barracuda, piranha, a manta ray, aqua Nazis, and sometimes a bear or a car. The second most cinematic semi-aquatic muncher of limbs is, naturally, the order of Crocodilia. To the point that gator and croc movies form their own subgenre. In 1978, some lunatics in Asia got together to make the first "Jaws" rip-off with a crocodile. "Crocodile Fangs" was directed by Korean filmmaker Lee Won-se in Thailand with a cross-continental cast. The film was then re-edited by notorious Thai filmmaker Sompote Sands, who mixed in more footage from other Thai productions. This version was then dubbed and further recut by American producer Dick Randall to create the motion picture now known as simply "Crocodile." While the original Korean cut is lost, the various international versions survive to be enjoyed by trash devotees all over the world.
An earthquake rocks Thailand, resulting in a radioactive explosion of some sort. Or possibly the other way around. Whatever the order of events, the result is an ordinary crocodile is mutated to extraordinary size. It begins to terrorize the area, eating swimmers at a near-by beach, disrupting the water buffalo population, causing water spouts, and destroying entire water-front communities. Among the victims are the wives and daughter of Tony and John, two doctors. They meet up with each other and become determined to seek revenge on the oversized reptile. They are joined in their quest by two men: Eccentric fisherman Tanaka and nosy photographer Peter. By using crocodile pheromones, they lure the creature out into the open ocean, where they hope to destroy it... Unless it destroys them first.
Probably the most immediately noticeable thing about “Crocodile” is the sheer lack of interest in consistently portraying the size and details of things. While this is noticeable during the opening earthquake sequence – stock footage from a film called “Land of Grief” – it is impossible to ignore whenever the crocodile itself is the focus. Footage of an actual, living crocodile gives the impression that it's not that much bigger than a typical specimen. A large prop of its head, sometimes with green or glowing orange eyes, is big enough to bite a crunch on a child or bite a person in half. This is extremely large but within the realm of possibility, as far as recorded crocodilian size goes. Other times, the crocodile is a fuckin' kaiju, crushing boats and devastating entire buildings. This is achieved through putting a real croc alongside miniature reproductions of the locations or using several puppets, all of which look different from each other.
The result is, to say the least, far from convincing. In fact, “Crocodile” is rather hilariously sloppy in all the ways it's put together. The editing is blunt, scenes slamming into each other with little warning. The miniatures and props are often hysterically fake looking, such as the repeated moments when children's dolls are subbed in for human beings. On a narrative level, “Crocodile” is even more chopped up and slapped together. Characters are introduced suddenly. Certain narratives directions, like who this person is or what exactly their link is to each other, are never clarified. The dialogue is utterly inane. The film often plays like an assemblage of random elements that were popular around that time. A little disaster movie here, kaiju movie mayhem, and random scenes of people swimming or on motorcycles are slapped atop a blatant emulation of the last act of “Jaws.” One of the ingredients of the film is a skin flick too. There's two tracking shots of a woman's ass, one of which concludes with her stripping down. A steamy love scene is quickly followed up with a crocodile attack, in which the camera seems to zoom in on the actress' bikini bottom.
If I'm making it sound like I didn't enjoy all of the above, I apologize for giving that impression. Yes, “Crocodile” is a barely coherent mishmash of random scenes and plot, rolling along without any clear purpose and little clarity. It's also full of insane shit that made me laugh out loud. The city attack scenes is sprung on the viewer so suddenly, and is such a wild blur of violence and unconvincing special effects, that it left me speechless. One of the schemes used to try and stop the crocodile involves putting a giant, “Looney Tunes” style bear trap at the bottom of the river. Which the croc then launches through the air, slicing through several trees. The Quint-like character is introduced wearing suspenders over his bare chest, so that his screamin' eagle tattoo can be seen. The film begins with a solemn voice-over about how man has tried to destroy nature, how nature will strike back, and how all these things may happen some day. By the time the monster is blowing up in the last reel, it's merely the cherry atop this sundae of sleazy, hyper-gory, completely senseless, grindhouse chaos.
Among those sleazy elements is a scene in which an actual crocodile is dissected on-screen, because what's a seventies/early eighties overseas exploitation movie without a little casual animal cruelty? I read there was more real crocodile gore in the original cut, one of the elements toned down for the international release. That's a good thing, because a moment of such unfortunate actual violence really puts a damper on the hazy, messy, coked-out, and highly entertaining trash pile that is “Crocodile.” I'm sure the proud film industry of Thailand would not be happy to be represented by such unabashed schlock as this. However, sometimes you need to watch a gloriously vulgar collection of insane bullshit to ground yourself as a long time monster movie fan. In other words, I can in no way recommend “Crocodile” based on any merits aside from the fact that it's incredibly, consistently entertaining. Fast forward through the IRL croc slaughter and watch with a beer and/or bong near-by. [7/10]
An earthquake rocks Thailand, resulting in a radioactive explosion of some sort. Or possibly the other way around. Whatever the order of events, the result is an ordinary crocodile is mutated to extraordinary size. It begins to terrorize the area, eating swimmers at a near-by beach, disrupting the water buffalo population, causing water spouts, and destroying entire water-front communities. Among the victims are the wives and daughter of Tony and John, two doctors. They meet up with each other and become determined to seek revenge on the oversized reptile. They are joined in their quest by two men: Eccentric fisherman Tanaka and nosy photographer Peter. By using crocodile pheromones, they lure the creature out into the open ocean, where they hope to destroy it... Unless it destroys them first.
Probably the most immediately noticeable thing about “Crocodile” is the sheer lack of interest in consistently portraying the size and details of things. While this is noticeable during the opening earthquake sequence – stock footage from a film called “Land of Grief” – it is impossible to ignore whenever the crocodile itself is the focus. Footage of an actual, living crocodile gives the impression that it's not that much bigger than a typical specimen. A large prop of its head, sometimes with green or glowing orange eyes, is big enough to bite a crunch on a child or bite a person in half. This is extremely large but within the realm of possibility, as far as recorded crocodilian size goes. Other times, the crocodile is a fuckin' kaiju, crushing boats and devastating entire buildings. This is achieved through putting a real croc alongside miniature reproductions of the locations or using several puppets, all of which look different from each other.
The result is, to say the least, far from convincing. In fact, “Crocodile” is rather hilariously sloppy in all the ways it's put together. The editing is blunt, scenes slamming into each other with little warning. The miniatures and props are often hysterically fake looking, such as the repeated moments when children's dolls are subbed in for human beings. On a narrative level, “Crocodile” is even more chopped up and slapped together. Characters are introduced suddenly. Certain narratives directions, like who this person is or what exactly their link is to each other, are never clarified. The dialogue is utterly inane. The film often plays like an assemblage of random elements that were popular around that time. A little disaster movie here, kaiju movie mayhem, and random scenes of people swimming or on motorcycles are slapped atop a blatant emulation of the last act of “Jaws.” One of the ingredients of the film is a skin flick too. There's two tracking shots of a woman's ass, one of which concludes with her stripping down. A steamy love scene is quickly followed up with a crocodile attack, in which the camera seems to zoom in on the actress' bikini bottom.
If I'm making it sound like I didn't enjoy all of the above, I apologize for giving that impression. Yes, “Crocodile” is a barely coherent mishmash of random scenes and plot, rolling along without any clear purpose and little clarity. It's also full of insane shit that made me laugh out loud. The city attack scenes is sprung on the viewer so suddenly, and is such a wild blur of violence and unconvincing special effects, that it left me speechless. One of the schemes used to try and stop the crocodile involves putting a giant, “Looney Tunes” style bear trap at the bottom of the river. Which the croc then launches through the air, slicing through several trees. The Quint-like character is introduced wearing suspenders over his bare chest, so that his screamin' eagle tattoo can be seen. The film begins with a solemn voice-over about how man has tried to destroy nature, how nature will strike back, and how all these things may happen some day. By the time the monster is blowing up in the last reel, it's merely the cherry atop this sundae of sleazy, hyper-gory, completely senseless, grindhouse chaos.
Among those sleazy elements is a scene in which an actual crocodile is dissected on-screen, because what's a seventies/early eighties overseas exploitation movie without a little casual animal cruelty? I read there was more real crocodile gore in the original cut, one of the elements toned down for the international release. That's a good thing, because a moment of such unfortunate actual violence really puts a damper on the hazy, messy, coked-out, and highly entertaining trash pile that is “Crocodile.” I'm sure the proud film industry of Thailand would not be happy to be represented by such unabashed schlock as this. However, sometimes you need to watch a gloriously vulgar collection of insane bullshit to ground yourself as a long time monster movie fan. In other words, I can in no way recommend “Crocodile” based on any merits aside from the fact that it's incredibly, consistently entertaining. Fast forward through the IRL croc slaughter and watch with a beer and/or bong near-by. [7/10]
I've already mentioned this year that anthology programs used to be an institution on British television, every network having several of their own at any given time. Programs presenting stand alone stories were not only popular with the adults either. A number of children-targeted shows of this type aired in the U.K. through the seventies and eighties. "Dramarama" was made for ITV, though each episode was a production of a regional arm of the corporation. It began life in 1983 as "Spooky," telling primarily kid-friendly horror tales, before an inclusion of more whimsical or sci-fi stories prompted a title change in the second series. "Dramarama" still presented a ghost story from time to time though. A notable example is "Snap," from the fifth and final season, which has recently drawn attention from scholars of the currently trendy folk horror classification.
The story concerns Peter, a young lad given the school assignment of hiking across Romney Marsh Swamp and snapping photographs as he goes. He argues with his dad on the drive down before spotting a mysterious, hooded hitchhiker alongside the road. After getting dropped off, he begins his march, taking photos as he goes... Without noticing that the same hooded hitchhiker is never far behind him. After stopping in an old church being renovated and having some lunch inside an abandoned train car, Peter's distinctive yellow slicker and Instamatic have been stolen. The thief has left behind their saggy, wet robe instead. Peter takes chase after the intruder, beginning a frightening night.
It's difficult to imagine any modern school encouraging a child to wander across a frequently empty stretch of land, much less assigning it. It's also difficult to imagine a modern children's program airing a presentation as intentionally vague and creepy as "Snap." The episode tells us little about the boy. His interest in photography and inability to connect with his practical, trucker dad suggests he's the sensitive, artistic type. He certainly seems to be in a world of his own a bit, unaware that his presence is bothering the team working on the old church building. Similarly, the nature of whatever supernatural incident he's stumbled into is never elaborated on. Once the ghostly hitchhiker swaps their jackets, I began to pick up on the suggestion that this is some sort of changeling situation. The threat is an otherworldly doppelganger, taking the boy's place and leaving him stranded in some limbo state. But “Snap” doesn't elaborate on any of that. Closest we get to an answer is the ghostly double imploring Peter to “let him in,” the meaning of which is uncertain.
These are not complaints. I actually enjoy how much of “Snap” suggests, rather than explains. In only twenty-four minutes, the episode manages to capture a rather creepy ambiance by existing largely in the realm of the implied. More than a few scenes feel like a dream. Such as when he finds the ghostly boy in the slicker, swinging a billhook threateningly by a fireplace. Peter's snapshots appear on-screen, another artsy touch. At least once, the obscure figure appears in these photos, the kind of creepy tactics filmmakers are still using to this day. This pairs with the typically desolate English landscape. When paired with the scarecrow that shows up a few times – surely a shout-out to Dr. Syn, Alias the Scarecrow? – and an uncredited Tom Baker reading a bit from “Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner” at the beginning and end, the conclusion that this is another story about modern life accidentally encountering ancient worlds is unavoidable. Only a somewhat distracting musical score and the copy on Youtube being almost unwatchably dark at times sapped my enjoyment of “Snap,' which is so good that I can hardly believe it was made for the eight-to-twelve crowd. [8/10]
The story concerns Peter, a young lad given the school assignment of hiking across Romney Marsh Swamp and snapping photographs as he goes. He argues with his dad on the drive down before spotting a mysterious, hooded hitchhiker alongside the road. After getting dropped off, he begins his march, taking photos as he goes... Without noticing that the same hooded hitchhiker is never far behind him. After stopping in an old church being renovated and having some lunch inside an abandoned train car, Peter's distinctive yellow slicker and Instamatic have been stolen. The thief has left behind their saggy, wet robe instead. Peter takes chase after the intruder, beginning a frightening night.
It's difficult to imagine any modern school encouraging a child to wander across a frequently empty stretch of land, much less assigning it. It's also difficult to imagine a modern children's program airing a presentation as intentionally vague and creepy as "Snap." The episode tells us little about the boy. His interest in photography and inability to connect with his practical, trucker dad suggests he's the sensitive, artistic type. He certainly seems to be in a world of his own a bit, unaware that his presence is bothering the team working on the old church building. Similarly, the nature of whatever supernatural incident he's stumbled into is never elaborated on. Once the ghostly hitchhiker swaps their jackets, I began to pick up on the suggestion that this is some sort of changeling situation. The threat is an otherworldly doppelganger, taking the boy's place and leaving him stranded in some limbo state. But “Snap” doesn't elaborate on any of that. Closest we get to an answer is the ghostly double imploring Peter to “let him in,” the meaning of which is uncertain.
These are not complaints. I actually enjoy how much of “Snap” suggests, rather than explains. In only twenty-four minutes, the episode manages to capture a rather creepy ambiance by existing largely in the realm of the implied. More than a few scenes feel like a dream. Such as when he finds the ghostly boy in the slicker, swinging a billhook threateningly by a fireplace. Peter's snapshots appear on-screen, another artsy touch. At least once, the obscure figure appears in these photos, the kind of creepy tactics filmmakers are still using to this day. This pairs with the typically desolate English landscape. When paired with the scarecrow that shows up a few times – surely a shout-out to Dr. Syn, Alias the Scarecrow? – and an uncredited Tom Baker reading a bit from “Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner” at the beginning and end, the conclusion that this is another story about modern life accidentally encountering ancient worlds is unavoidable. Only a somewhat distracting musical score and the copy on Youtube being almost unwatchably dark at times sapped my enjoyment of “Snap,' which is so good that I can hardly believe it was made for the eight-to-twelve crowd. [8/10]
Friday the 13th: The Series: The Quilt of Hator: The Awakening
Here's another reason for me to resent the highly serialized nature of modern television: Kids today no longer know the simple joys of the two-parter, when a regular installment ended on a cliffhanger and a premise ran longer than a mere hour. Frank Mancuso Jr. must have paid a lot for that custom quilt because “The Quilt of Hathor” was a story too big for one episode. (Which also resulted in that hilarious awkward naming format above. How many colons can you squeeze into one title?) “The Awakening” picks up with Ryan, still insisting that he's a Pentitite solely in the hopes he can get into Laura Granges' linen prairie dress. After a member of the community informs him that Effie Stokes is still in possession of the cursed quilt, that Micki left town with a copy, the old lady mysteriously dies. Reverend Grange is under pressure to find himself a wife and, finally putting things together, secretly marries Effie... Not because he wants to lock the evil quilt up but because he hopes to use it against his own enemies. Naturally, he pins the in-coming murders on Ryan, the outsider making goo-goo eyes at his daughter.
My main takeaway from this episode? Scott Paulin plays Reverend Grange. He's a character actor who has been in a bunch of stuff, ranging from the asshole in “Teen Wolf” to the Red Skull in the supposedly secretly great Albert Pyun “Captain America” movie. With the mutton chops, beard, and simple black clothes in this episode, he looks like an insane Abraham Lincoln. He bulges his eyes out in indignation when one of the community elders suggest he find himself a wife already, as if he hasn't become a widower twice over in the last two weeks. Once he gets the power of the evil quilt – now that's a funny sentence, isn't it – his performance goes further over the type. By the time of the finale, the character has graduated fully to scheming super-villain. This is the pride that goeth before the literal fall. By which I mean Reverend Granges suffers a very silly final fate. That moment is a capper on a rather silly episode, which also includes someone clownishly threatened with a barbecue fork.
That moment occurs before a rather graphic eye gouging, which I guess speaks to the weird back-and-forth in this show. Generally, it's hard to take the stakes here too seriously. Not because an evil quilt is silly. That's no sillier than any of the other Artifacts of Doom. It's more that we don't believe for a minute that Ryan is actually going to abandon his main mission for some random lady. I don't think deciding to become Amish in your thirties is a thing that happens very often. The crux of the episode's most dramatic moment, when the Reverend's deception is revealed before a crowd, also comes from this minor guest star and not one of the main cast members. Makes that less powerful, you know? I do like the sight of Ryan strung-up and about to be burned at the stake. That was a fun image. Also, who decided to name the evil murder quilt after the Egyptian cow goddess of motherhood and fertility? [6/10]
































