Last of the Monster Kids

Last of the Monster Kids
"LAST OF THE MONSTER KIDS" - Available Now on the Amazon Kindle Marketplace!
Showing posts with label classic noir. Show all posts
Showing posts with label classic noir. Show all posts

Saturday, September 27, 2025

Halloween 2025: September 27th

 
If you are a properly well-read film fan, it's a question you have an answer to. What is your favorite Hitchcock? For me, it's “Rear Window,” which I'm of the belief might be a perfect film. While a hundred different critics and scholars and cinephiles are likely to give you a different answer each time, there's one person that you probably wouldn't think to ask. Namely, because he's dead but if he was alive: What was Alfred Hitchcock's favorite film out of all his work? Luckily, people did think to ask the man that during his lifetime. While he would occasionally waffle, usually Hitch said that 1943's “Shadow of a Doubt” was his personal favorite. Perhaps not as influential as “Psycho” or “The Birds” – outside of a Chan-Woo Park homage or a remake or two – it is nevertheless recognized as a masterpiece by this most lauded of directors. 

In the sunny, idyllic town of Santa Rosa, California lives the Newton family. Among Joseph and Emma's three kids, is the teenage Charlotte. She is so-named for Emma's brother, whom she refers to as Uncle Charlie. The same uncle arrives unexpectedly at the family's home. He brings many gifts with him, including an emerald ring for his niece. Shortly afterwards, two mysterious men appear at the home, claiming they are there to document the average American family. They seem very interested in Uncle Charlie, however, and Charlotte correctly deduces that they are detectives. The young girl soon arrives at another conclusion: That her uncle is a notorious serial killer known as the Merry Widow Murderer, who have left a trail of strangled old ladies across the country. Uncle Charlie realizes quickly that his niece has discovered his secret, a tense game of wits unfolding between them. 

When we are first introduced to the Newton family and the town of Santa Rosa, they both seem so delightful as to be out of a classic sitcom. Dad is easy-going, Emma is a devoted stay-at-home mom, Middle child Ann is a perfectly precocious young know-it-all while tiny Roger is a typically adorable little boy. Young Charlie emerges as the purest figure in the home, a bright-eyed young woman whose endless optimism and light-hearted wit is irrepressible. Teresa Wright is so charming and effortless in the role that you completely buy into this idea as well. However, like all innocent ages, it will come to an end. “Shadow of a Doubt” is about a girl realizing that the world can be a dark and deceptive place. Moreover, it's a film about how the people we trust and love the most can be the ones with the most unsettling secrets. A quiet tension emerges throughout “Shadow of a Doubt,” always backing away at the last minute from outright saying if Uncle Charlie is a remorseless serial killer or not. As more evidence seems to pile up, there is some degree of doubt. Surely, the young girl is trying to rationalize, her Uncle Charlie can't be a killer? We have clear answers before the end but the presence of the suggestion, the creditable idea that your personal hero could be a monster, is enough to cast a shadow over the young girl's life. 

The apparent ambiguity in Uncle Charlie's guilt is not ambiguous at all. He's introduced fleeing from detectives. He cuts out the article about the crimes from the family newspaper. He rants about how old widows disgusts him, his hands curling into strangulating claws as he does. After someone else is seemingly identified as the killer, it still does nothing to block the obvious truth: Uncle Charlie is the Merry Widow Murderer. Despite that, young Charlotte cares about him. She wants it to not be true. Perhaps the viewer becomes so invested in the young girl's journey that we want it to be true as well. Or, perhaps, maybe Joseph Cotten is so charming in the role that we like the guy too much to want him to be the killer. Either way, the lingering close-ups on Wright's eyes as she is no longer able to deny the truth is quietly heartbreaking.

All throughout his career, Hitchcock returned to the idea of a likable monster. He delighted in making the audience sympathize with definitely or potentially homicidal mad men. Sometimes via misdirection, as with the apparent Jack the Ripper in “The Lodger.” Sometimes it was by making them pathetic victims of their own psychosis, as with Norman Bates. Sometimes it was because they were simply the most interesting character in the movie, as with “Rope” and “Frenzy.” “Shadow of a Doubt” aligns the audience's perspective with Wright's heroine, which means the viewer finds her uncle as charming as she does. The slow reveal that Charlie is a strangler, with some extremely Freudian hang-ups about the women he targets, makes him another in the Hitchcockian line of charismatic killer perverts. 

Maybe this was Hitchcock working through his own guilt over his shitty behavior towards women. Maybe it was a way to address the latent queerness in many of his films, forcing viewers to think about whether societal outsiders were true “monsters” simply because of the impulses they felt. “Shadow of a Doubt” is not that gay of a movie. Which isn't to say there aren't some perverse sexual desires hiding within. As I've said, the Charlies are close. Maybe closer than a niece and uncle usually are. When the handsome police detective played by Macdonald Carey starts to court Charlie, her uncle perceives it as a threat. Ostensibly because he doesn't want to be caught by the cops. However, the idea that he sees the detective as a romantic rival for his pretty young niece is unavoidable. The camera repeatedly focuses on Uncle Charlie's hands, often as they grasp and squeeze as if choking invisible necks. That his targets are elderly women he seems disgusted with, while exalting his young and virginal niece, feels like the man has some clear Madonna/Whore hang-ups. Which makes his murders, much like Norman Bates' two decades later, a symbolic release of his sexual desires. 

The suspense in “Shadow of a Doubt” largely comes from the question of whether Uncle Charlie will try and murder his beloved niece for knowing the truth. And if sex is death and vice versa for this man, what does that mean for his feelings towards his niece? In the climatic moments of the film, when Uncle Charlie attacks Charlotte, it plays out in the enclosed space of a train car alcove. He pins the girl into a corner. She is panicked, terrified. Repeatedly, the camera draws attention to the man's hands and the closeness of their bodies. In other words, it is a symbolic attempted rape. This sees Hitchcock taking the chemistry between Cotten and Wright, which seems chummier than familial love, and making it into a source of tension. Is Uncle Charlie going to kill his niece? Is she in love with her uncle? And, Jesus, which of those conclusions are worst? 

“Shadow of a Doubt” would be co-written with Thornton Wilder, the lauded playwright whose work often reflected an interest in the contradictions of small town American life. The story itself identifies the Newton family as the average, ideal American nuclear unit. The kids certainly are utterly adorable. The town itself seems calm, peaceful, and content. Despite that, this is the place where a serial killer is hiding. He is, in fact, hiding within that seemingly normal family. With the implied threat of incest – that most common of crimes, of betrayals, of abuses, within the outwardly normal seeming American household – always floating under the surface, that makes “Shadow of a Doubt” an examination of that darkness under the veneer of suburbia. (Or what would become suburbia anyway, as this is not exactly a post-war movie.) Once you start to realize that, the other cracks in the foundation show. The father and his weird friend's creepy fascination with true crime, the weirdness in some of the family interactions. Hitchcock, an Englishman of course, seems to have mostly warm feelings towards the American way of life here. However, the film makes it clear that these prosaic, happy locations are where acts of evil can happen as much as anywhere else. 

That same thematic thread is evident in Joseph Valentine's cinematography, as classical an example of film noir visuals as you're likely to find anywhere. The early scenes, before Charlotte begins to suspect the truth about her uncle, are more brightly lit. The small town setting is bright and warm at first. However, as the story grows darker, so does the look of the film. The sequence where Charlotte arrives in a library, to look at the complete paper containing the story on the strangler, makes it clear that the girl has passed into a more shadowy world by this point. This role of shadows is evident throughout. The symmetrical interiors of the suburban home, peering up and around staircases with slanting angles, are often enhanced with jutting, growing shadows. More than once, Charlie is surrounded by lingering darkness, hinting at his true nature. The bars of stairways or windows become metaphorical prison bars, showing the young heroine trapped in a once familiar and now alien home with a man she can no longer trust. 

Those who contend that there is any sort of meaningful barrier between the horror genre and the so-called “psychological thriller” might argue that “Shadow of a Doubt” is better classified as noir. Maybe. It's certainly a part of that tradition too. The grislier stuff is always kept off-screen. However, any movie that mines as much of a sense of unease and tension from the premise of having a murderer in your midst as this one resides comfortably within the macabre to me. (And this is a Universal Picture too, begging the question of whether I can bullshit Uncle Charlie onto my list of Universal Monsters.) As for Hitchcock himself considering this his personal fave, well, I don't know if I could put it above some of the master's other great films in my own ranking. However, it is a fantastic film, skillfully acted, beautifully shot, tensely assembled, and rich and evocative with deeper ideas. [9/10]




I've noted before that, after a certain point, it becomes tricky to tell if a movie was made with Troma or Criterion in mind as their ideal distributors. Lars Van Tier and Pier Paolo Pasolini movies have penises and bodily excretions flopping around on-screen but they're considered serious artists, status-quo challenging provocateurs. Tom Six and Srdjan Spasojevic do much the same and they are hacks only interested in shock value, whose films are made strictly for the strongest stomach-ed of Fangoria subscribers and nobody less depraved. It is not as if the high or low ends of the brow have an exclusive right to pretensions either, as insisting your video montage of dongs and dookie has some deeper meaning is a justification utilized by both schlock slinger and artsy-fartsy types. Perhaps a cinematic depiction of a ding-a-ling or poo poo is itself a neutral act, the execution determining the value of what's on-screen. Which brings me to tonight's stop on the Horror Around the World 2025 journey: “Taxidermia,” György Pálfi collection of penis jokes, puke, and body horror that was submitted as Hungary's official selection for Best International Picture at the Oscars and is described on Wikipedia as satirical, surrealist, and “a metaphorical socio-political retelling of Hungary's history.” 

“Taxidermia” follows one family through three generations. At a frozen outpost in the middle of World War II, Morosgoványi Vendel is forced to perform humiliating task for his commanding officer. Working next to a bath house, he grows increasingly sexually frustrated and desperate to find a way to relieve his urge. His off-spring, Balatony Kálmán, grows up to become a competitive speed-eater in the Soviet era. He pushes his ability to binge and purge as far as possible for the glory of his nation. At the same time, he shares a rivalry with a fellow speed-eater for both contest titles and the love of the same woman. Decades later, Kálmán has become so morbidly obsessed as to be immobile. He lives with his adult son, Lajoska, out of the back of his taxidermy shop. His father, obsessed with raising the world's heaviest house cat, belittles his son and fixates on his past glories. A horrible accident leads Lajoska to build an elaborate device to help him fulfill his grisly destiny. 

“Taxidermia” is book-ended by an art collector presenting his purchases in an exhibit. This establishes, early on, that the film's images clearly mean something. If any one idea reoccurs throughout “Taxidermia's” segments, it is consumption. In World War II, the protagonist is forced by the military system to degrade himself. His thoughts remain on sex and food, the butchering of animals being a reoccurring feature. During the sixties,  Kálmán and his wife – also a competitive eater – are seen shoveling pork and beans into their mouths out of red star shaped trough. The act of eating itself has become part of the national propaganda machine. In the final third, bodies are hollowed out, put on display, and sold as a product. Presumably because Hungary is now a capitalistic nation in a post-Soviet age? While Pálfi's film is clearly reflecting specifically Hungarian thoughts and feelings, its themes are also universal. We are all at the mercy of elaborate systems of control, all of us subjected to having our substance ground into more feed for this machine we call society.

The method Pálfi mostly uses to convey these ideas is grossing the audience out. Within its opening minutes, “Taxidermia” is depicting a man seemingly lighting his own flatulence on fire. The second episode is absolutely filled to the brim with vomit. We are talking multiple scenes in which people gorged themselves to the point of sickness before puking their guts out over and over again. Such unpleasant moments are often depicted with a clinical, unflinching eye. Such as when  Kálmán induces vomiting with a rotating wheel device. The film brings the same approach to its violence. The climatic disemboweling plays out in intimate close-ups of sliced sinew and unspooling intestines, backed up with no music and slowly displayed. As much as the film is enamored with the body's insides coming out, it's main method of repulsion revolves around simply putting obese people on-screen. “Taxidermia” really fucking hates fat people. A heavy-set, elderly woman's body is shown in the nude as a sick joke. The entire middle sequence relishes in flabby folks consuming millions of calories in short spans of time. That anyone would be attracted to bodies that look like this is repeatedly a punchline. The last part features a character so overwhelmingly rotund that he ceases to be human, becoming a Jabba the Hutt-like monstrosity in both appearance and behavior.

I am sure, if pressed on this depiction of large individuals, the makers of “Taxidermia” would insist it was all with a specific purpose in mind. That the clear and evident disgust with overweight bodies that pulsates from nearly the entire movie is about showing the excess of the state or the dehumanization of the self. In execution, however, it amounts to scene after scene of fatty fat-asses being fatly fat. The camera makes sure that the slop they consume is extra sloppy, to better convey its revulsion at these images. I'm not one to throw around terms like “fatphobic” but there's no other way to describe “Taxidermia.” It's a symptom of the movie's biggest problem: A commitment to being grotesque but without any comedic zing or light-sense of absurdity. The first episode almost recognizes an actual human emotion with its hero's sexual frustration, so blue-balled he can't even fuck a hole in the wall in peace. However, that gives way to a suffocating vomitorium – literally – of on-screen nastiness and heavier pretensions. “Taxidermia” is full of gross shit and all of it oh so clearly means something. But at what point does torrents of puke and mounds of latex flab become less symbolic and more self-indulgent? Very quickly, if you ask me.

“Taxidermia” is a technically impressive film. Its cinematography has that sterile artistry to it that seems unavoidable in European genre cinema sometimes. Naturally, the color pallet is mostly icy blues and sickly greens. The make-up effects are exactly as detailed and disgusting as they are intended to be. The climatic sequence, the primary reason for the title and poster, is creatively horrific. At the same time, a motion picture trying so hard to make the viewer queasy, while constantly hitting you over the head with its own metaphorical weight, quickly becomes tedious. If a movie is going to try and make me gag, at least be honest about it. Put gross shit in a movie because it's gross and you want to gross us out. Don't create a ninety minute monologue about how revolting you find fat people before claiming it's actually symbolic, maaaaan. In other words, “Taxidermia” is a film undeniably high on the aroma of its own farts, absolutely compelled by how stomach-churningly foul it can be while rhapsodizing endlessly about the nuances and textures of the pungent scent. I'm good, thanks but no thanks. [5/10]
 

 
Alfred Hitchcock Presents (1986): Beast in View

The only time I think people bring up the eighties revival of “Alfred Hitchcock Presents” is to discuss the couple of episodes directed by notable names. “Beast in View” is not one of those episodes. It was directed by Michael Toshiyuki Uno, who had a mostly undistinguished career of made-for-TV movies. (Though “The Wash,” a rare starring role for Mako, sounds kind of interesting.) But let's give it a try anyway, shall we? The episode concerns Dr. Morgan McGregor, a pop psychologist with a call-in radio show and best-selling books. She has recently married long time boyfriend, Roger. Their honeymoon is disturbed when Roger discovers that Morgan is receiving threatening phone calls. The calls are from a deranged man who promises to kill Morgan for her crime of marrying another man. When pressed, she admits that the calls are from her ex-husband.... Who is dead. Despite that, the stalking and harassment intensifies. When she's attacked in her home, her husband investigates and discovers a startling truth.

Like most of the USA Network's “Alfred Hitchcock Presents” installments, “Beast in View” is a remake of an episode from the original series. In this case, one from the longer “Alfred Hitchcock Hour” season. Both versions are adapted from a novel by Margaret Miller. If adapting a whole novel in a thirty minute program sounds like a tall order, it clearly is. “Beast in View” barely has time to establish Morgan and Roger's relationship before introducing the threat of her stalker. Within a few scenes, she's already been pursued by a strange man at her book-signing. Normally, this would be the half-way point of the story, when the danger has escalated from theoretical to a physical. Instead, the episode heads right into the climax. Maybe that would be less of a problem if “Beast in View” didn't also have a crazy twist ending. One of those wild swerves that barely makes any sense and feels all the more abrupt when shoved in the final seconds of a rushed adaptation such as this.

That “Beast in View” feels unavoidably rushed and abbreviated is disappointing. Otherwise, this is an effective thriller. The cinematography is excellent, establishing a sense of being watched early on. The sequence where Morgan is stalked through her home by the unseen assailant, after ominous footsteps enter, is quite suspenseful. Knowing this script was based on a book by a woman makes it a clear reflection on gendered violence. The cops – special guest star Tom Atkins! – flat-out admits there's nothing they can do to stop the phone calls. The husband starts carrying a pistol, being told that's the best security one can buy. As in real life, having a gun around doesn't actually make anyone safer but instead contributes to the violence. Most of this interesting idea is tossed out in favor of that silly twist, which I'm guessing had more nuance on the page. Still, this is a solid half-hour, with decent lead performances from Janet Eiber and Cliff Potts. [7/10]


The Addams Family: Lurch's Little Helper
 
Here is an episode of “The Addams Family” with a very special guest! “Lurch's Little Helper” begins with Gomez in another spirited round of cultural appropriation, playing samurai with Lurch. This comes around the same time as several other demands on the butler. Morticia begins to worry that they are putting too much pressure on the family butler. Rather than hire more help, Gomez' solution is to build Lurch an assistant. After a day in the basement with Fester, the duo has cooked up a robot named Smiley to help Lurch out. Lurch is told to take it easy for once, which confuses the butler at first. Soon, however, he is delegating all his work to Smiley the robot. The machine is not as talented, however, and the family starts to notice. They cook up a scheme to prove to Lurch how much they need him, by passive-agressively praising the robot and making the butler feel unloved. 

The sixties was a different time, in many ways. This was especially true of television. In today's cynical, thoroughly self-aware world, pro-wrestling and the Muppets remain the sole domains of kayfabe. It is probably best that performers receive the proper credit and all that. At the same time, isn't the world a little more whimsical when we treat a robot like it's an actual actor? “Lurch's Little Helper” was part of a run of special guest appearances across multiple TV shows for Robby the Robot, “Forbidden Planet's” break-out mechanical star. This was after Robby appeared on “The Gale Storm Show,” “The Thin Man,” and in three episodes of “The Twilight Zone.” 1966 was a busy year for the machine, as he also had a memorable guest spot on “Lost in Space” around the same time. Despite his fame, “Smiley” is credited as “himself.” Perhaps this is because Robby notably does not speak with Marin Miller's distinctive voice. 

Now, what about the episode itself? There are some ups and downs here. Ted Kennedy gets some amusing moments to himself, when Lurch is feeling suddenly self-conscious about his lack of activities around the house. As delightful as Robby the Robot's mere presence is, “Lurch's Little Helper' does get into a repetitive pattern too quickly. Someone in the family will ask the butler to do something. He'll then summon the machine to do it for him, the robot doing a less subtle and more painful job. This continues until the show returns to another premise it has been revisiting far too often. Namely, the family feeling the need to trick somebody into behaving a certain way, instead of simply talking it out. Ya know, actually watching this show made me realize that the original Addams Family were a little dysfunctional? That aside, I did laugh a few times, mostly at the silly little side gags. Such as Gomez and Thing playing tug-of-war or an unexpected sing-along session. Also was it just me or did Jackie Coogan sound a little hoarse here? Did Uncle Fester have a cold? [6/10]


Saturday, September 7, 2024

Halloween 2024: September 7th



Probably helped out by being the son of Norman Bates, Oz Perkins has quickly established a specific brand for himself as a genre filmmaker. "The Blackcoat's Daughter" and "I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House" were high on eerie ambiance, isolation, and precise set design. Perkins finally combined that with a compelling narrative and characters with interior lives in "Gretel & Hansel," the first of his films I actually loved. This got me excited for his next feature, "Longlegs," especially once I read that it starred Nicolas Cage as a serial killer. Largely thanks to an effectively creepy marketing campaign, distributor NEON built up a good degree of hype for the film this past July and made it a surprise hit. This is atop some hyperbolic reviews that called the film the scariest to appear in quite a while. Now that the dust has settled, what's my takeaway on this one? 

FBI agent Lee Harker displays ambiguous clairvoyant powers during a manhunt. This causes Supervisor Carter to assign her to the bureau's most baffling case. Since the sixties, there have been a string of incidents where a father would massacre his family before killing himself. At the scene of the crime, an encoded letter signed by "Longlegs" is left, despite no signs of forced entry. Lee studies the evidence and quickly connects the cases, each murder occurring near the 9th birthday of each family's daughter. Further investigation reveals occult symbolism in this pattern, with Harker and Carter uncovering a strange doll patterned after the family's daughter at one of the crime scenes. The deeper into the case Lee goes, the closer she comes to encountering the strange man behind the killings, his otherworldly motivations, and the personal connection she has to these events. 

From a technical perspective, there's a lot to admire about "Longlegs." Once again, Perkins engineers an unsettling atmosphere of quiet dread from the opening frame onward. This is largely accomplished by a sound design full of slowly mounting discordant noise, that constantly leaves the audience on-edge. That's actually a plot point, as a mysterious silver orb that generates ominous whispering appears in several scenes. This is paired with a visual perspective that emphasizes stillness, distance, and isolation. Characters often appear as obscured figures in painting-like landscapes, surrounded by shadows, snow, or stray streaks of light. (Frequently via eye-like windows, symmetrically placed as if on a face.) Flashbacks are always framed in tight, Academy ratio, making them appear even more like broadcast from nightmares. That constant stillness is often broken up by assaultive bursts. This may be through sudden acts of graphic violence, a reveal of a grotesque rotting corpse, or red-tinged visions flashing on-screen.

In other words, many of the ingredients for a successfully distressing horror film are present here. And "Longlegs" certainly is creepy, often overwhelming the viewer into a state of discomfort through its visual and aural suggestions. However, as a narrative experience and piece of cinematic art, I found the film to be frustrating. Like Perkins' first two features, the movie takes a vague approach to its own story. We don't learn Longlegs' modus operandi until twenty minutes or so before the end. The mechanics of how the killer operates are fairly simple, by the standard of fictional occult serial killers/black magicians. The script takes a needlessly roundabout way to revealing this, bogging its story down in ritualistic symbols, algorithms, and codes that the protagonist must unravel. Certain elements are left largely vague – such as the nature of Lee's apparent psychic powers – while other parts are explained via lengthy expositonary scenes. All of this combines with glacial pacing, heavy on long silences and meaningful glares. "Longlegs" is paced like a nightmare, it's true. This means it is unsettling and that it is composed of two hours that feel like four.

The film approaching its own material in such a deliberately  evasive manner makes it difficult for the viewer to get a grip on its intentions. The witchcraft element, of Longlegs being an unrepentant Satanist, never quite gels with me. Considering the movie is also set during the nineties – established via that old trick of prominently placing a photo of the then-president in as many shots as possible – it feels like an unironic invoking of the Satanic Panic that never once stops to consider the cultural baggage of that phenomenon. Giving the killer the Zodiac-like gimmick of leaving encoded messages at the crime scene adds a puzzle-like structure, frustrated by the murderer's identity being flatly revealed when he gives himself up to the FBI without a fight. He builds creepy dolls but the movie isn't about creepy dolls, that element merely being more unsettling set dressing on a fairly straightforward story. The specific patterns and rituals of Longlegs' actions suggest he's trying to achieve some ultimate goal, furthered by the cryptic things he says, but that's never revealed. And why does he call himself Longlegs anyway? What the fuck does that mean? Perhaps making us ask "why" is exactly the point but piling your movie up with symbols that never seem to have a meaning results in meaningless symbols. 

A snippet from an interview where Perkins admits that the film was inspired by his own mother – Tony's longtime beard Berry Berenson, who died in the September 11th attacks – is the closest Rosetta Stone I can find to unravelling "Longlegs." The birthdays of daughters is the reoccurring thread that connects all of the killer's victims. The glimpses we get of Lee's mother, which increase throughout the film, hint at a smothering, emotionally manipulative relationship. When one of the family slaughters occur on-screen in the last act, it feels all the world like a domestic incident performed by an abusive, short-tempered dad. Despite his outwardly effeminate features, Longlegs himself operates as something like a twisted absentee father figure to Lee, as this distant image from her past that sends her letters every once in a while. I guess that means his chosen nickname is short for Daddy Longlegs? As if there's any doubt of this persistent subtext, the killer's favorite music seems to be seventies glam rock, a very Dad-ish genre. None of these ideas seem to convalesce into a coherent meaning to me, acting instead as undercurrents that operate as part of the film's dream logic, connecting some of its twists and turns. 

For Nicolas Cage fans, the film is certainly worth seeing. Cage, glimpsed only in quick flashes or from a distance for the first half, wears a disturbing make-up that makes him look like the cross between a porcelain doll, Tiny Tim, and a plastic surgery addict. He shrieks, winces, twitches, dances, and babbles in a falsetto in a way that only Cage could do and make equally unnerving and hilarious. Maika Monroe, as Lee, is charmingly weird as a woman so hyper-focused on her obsessions and socially awkward that she reads as on-the-spectrum. I would've liked to have gotten more peeks at her inner life. Blair Underwood makes a compelling straight man to the story's weird events, as her supervisor. Alicia Witt, as Lee's mother, probably does the best job of giving her character a complicated inner life, as we learn more about her past.

I guess the kind of emotional coldness that Perkins specializes in is hard for me to jive with. The film's standout sequences of gory special effects are effective. The swallowing atmosphere of dread engineered throughout is impressive. The cast, cinematographer, sound designer, and production artists all do excellent work. However, "Longlegs" so intentionally denying us any insight into its characters, their motives, or the events that starts these dominos falling makes it hard for me to truly connect with the movie. Maybe Perkins' next gig, a mainstream Stephen King adaptation, will work better for me. Maybe this is a filmmaker who needs to place his ideas within a recognizable story structure, like a fairy tale or a Kingian ghost story, for me to link to his work. Because I came away from "Longlegs" admiring it more as a technical achievement than as a piece of storytelling. [7/10]




Vincent Price never set out to become best known for playing villains, much less primarily associated with the horror genre. If you look at his early parts, it's mostly handsome leading man roles and supporting characters in various noirs. That all changed with "Shock," a little, noir-tinged psycho thriller that turned a modest profit for Fox in 1946. This proved that audiences most liked to see the actor playing sinister ne'er-do-wells, setting him on the road towards horror stardom. Price never had much positive to say about the movie. In Victoria Price's biography on her dad, she said he derisively referred to the movie as "Schlock." Yet I had never seen it before and decided now was the time to check it out.

While awaiting her prisoner-of-war husband's return home, Janet nervously sits in a hotel room. From the window, she sees a man bludgeon his wife to death with a candle stick. The shock of this sight leaves Janet in a catatonic state. Her husband calls for the doctor staying in the hotel, Dr. Cross... Who happens to be the murderous man Janet saw. Quickly figuring out what happened, Cross has Janet committed to his clinic. Conspiring with his nurse, who is also his mistress, Cross tries to get Janet to forget what she saw. When she starts to directly accuse the doctor of murder, Cross plots to get rid of the sole witness to his crime for good. 

"Shock" is another entry in the long line of films about duplicitous men trying to convince women they are crazy, in order to cover up their own crimes. Considering it came out only two years after George Cukor's "Gaslight," "Shock" was probably directly inspired by it. That term has since passed into common usage, to describe any time a man tries to make a woman doubt her own perception. The film ups the manipulation level by having the gaslighting man be the woman's doctor, giving him even more power over her. Unfortunately, and strangely, "Shock" downplays Janet's role in the story that should have been her's. Anabel Shaw – doe-eyed, good at panicking, fourth billed – spends most of the movie laying in bed, half unconscious. Instead of focusing on the fear and doubt she must feel, trying to convince everyone that she didn't imagine seeing a murder, "Shock" devotes far more scenes to Dr. Cross and Elaine plotting and working to throw doubt on their own role in the murder. This is frustrating, when a more compelling story is right there within the movie, waiting to be explored. 

Instead, this really is Price's movie. Unlike the campy bad guy roles he'd later become famous for, Vincent mostly underplays it here. There's a moment when someone suggests that Dr. Cross might have had some role in what Janet saw and you can see the sense of panic briefly crosses Price's face. His great talent for saying one thing but clearly feeling another is apparent during a tense meeting with a detective. Despite being a murderer, "Shock" weirdly plays Cross as a sympathetic character. He talks about coming clean multiple times, clearly feeling conflicted about his actions. It's Lynn Bari as Elaine, the scheming Lady MacBeth/femme fatale, that continuously pushes him towards more wicked actions. This points towards "Shock's" less-than-stellar politics, that repeatedly center the men in a story about a woman's plight. That marks this film as truly a product of 1946. As a fan of Vincent Price, seeing a more nuanced, layered take on the type of murdering, bitter husbands he would play many other times is quite interesting. 

If it isn't obvious by now, "Shock" definitely resides more on the noir side of the horror/noir divide. However, there are some moments here to interest fans of the macabre, outside of Price's presence. Early on, Janet has an eerie, misty nightmare where she runs towards a door that keeps bigger and further away. There's a key sequence where a thunderstorm rages outside the mental institution. A disturbed patient escapes, sneaks downstairs, and attacks Elaine in Janet's room. It's definitely the most stylishly directed episode in the film, with some extremely good use of shadows and clever shot composition. In general, "Shock" gets a little more macabre and hysterical as it goes on, even if it never nudges into full-on horror. Director Alfred L. Werk also made "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" and "A-Haunting We Will Go," so he had some experience with horror-adjacent projects.  

"Shock" is in the public domain, so many low quality copies of the film circulate around all over the place. (Often paired with that other Price-starring public domain favorite, "House on Haunted Hill.") Luckily, a nice restored edition was put out on disc as part of Fox's Classic Noir Collection, so you can find a decent looking print of the movie with minimal effort. By no means a classic – and barely qualifying for a marathon of creepy movies – "Shock" is definitely still worth seeking out for Vincent Price fans. You can see the beginning of his style as an actor formulating here while losing out on none of the star presence that made him such an irresistible presence in so many films. Add in some nifty cinematography and it gets a recommendation from me. [7/10]




It seems “Creepshow,” or maybe Greg Nicotero specifically, has to pay homage to its forefathers at least once a season. The required referential episode arrives with “George Romero in 3D.” Sarah's brick-and-motor book store is failing, amid pressure from their asshole landlord. That's when her horror nerd son, Martin, discovers a crate containing unpublished comic books written by George Romero. Such priceless collectables could save the business but Martin has to put on the 3-D glasses contained within the comics... Which causes the zombies from within the pages to leap into reality. And they're only visible with the glasses on. Luckily, the pages also contain a facsimile of George Romero himself, who is willing to help the kid.

As far as “Creepshow's” overly meta episodes go, “George Romero in 3D” is less suffocatingly smug than “Skeletons in the Closet” and stands alone better than “Night of the Living Late Show.” The monster kid hero, played by Graham Verchere, is mildly likable and resists dropping a movie title every five minutes. (Though his name, Martin, is one of several obvious Romero homages here.) The central gimmick, the zombies being invisible unless you look at them through the 3D glasses, leads to some interesting gore sequences. The zombies themselves are, like classical Romero ghouls, more intelligent than your average shambler too, allowing the threat level to increase as the episode goes along. Sebastian Kroon plays Romero, as an avuncular but humble figure that peppers his sentence with outdated slang. I also like the “Take On Me” style animation placed over top him. It is kind of weird that they chose comics as the medium here, which Romero didn't work in until much later in his career. What if the kids had found the script for “Diamond Dead” instead? 

“Baby Teeth” begins with teenager Shelby getting her wisdom teeth pulled, the latest in a long line of signifiers that she's growing up. This greatly upsets her clinging, needy mother, Miranda. Miranda demands to keep the extracted teeth in a special box with all of Shelby's baby teeth, part of a life-long belief in the Tooth Fairy. In fact, Miranda's whole house is filled with superstitious iconography: Iron nails sewn into clothes, horse shoes over doorways. Miranda has been a believer in the fair folk her whole life, convinced her mother was taken away by fairies when she was a girl. As part of her teenage rebellion, Shelby rejects these beliefs and smashes the box holding her teeth. This unleashes the spirits her mother has been trying to keep at bay her whole life.

“Baby Teeth” is based in an anxiety most anyone can relate to. Every kid grows up and comes into conflict with their parents. Every parent has to accept that their offspring isn't their little baby anymore. Miranda, played by a nicely neurotic Rochelle Greenwood, is sympathetic as it becomes clear how much of her anxious personality has been molded by a life of loss and abandonment. Her obsessive clinginess is also rightfully off-putting. This makes us feel bad for Shelby, allowing her bratty, rebellious teenager shenanigans to be more tolerable. The way the script slowly reveals the folkloric aspect of its premise are well done. A folk horror spin on the Tooth Fairy is one I'm surprise I haven't seen before. The episode also features probably the gooiest, grossest monster of “Creepshow's” fourth season. Like too many of this season's episodes, it fumbles the ending. This is another “Creepshow” installment that proves John Harrison is probably this series' most consistent director. [George Romero in 3-D: 6/10 / Baby Teeth: 7/10]



Chucky: Panic Room

Having ripped President Collins' eyes out and stolen his access card, “Panic Room” sees Chucky going after the big ones: Nuclear weapons. Warren Pryce replaces the President with a double, as part of a massive cover-up that deeply disturbs the First Lady. (Who is still seeing ghost around the White House.) The fake president and Henry are soon being held at gunpoint by an aging, homicidal doll. On the same day, Lexy manages to talk Grant into letting her, Devon, and Jake come to the White House. They reveal the truth about why they are there, Lexy determined to find out where her sister is before Charles Lee Ray shuffles off this mortal coil forever. It all ends with a tense confrontation in the Situation Room. 

Earlier, I said I hoped season three of “Chucky” would take the White House cover-up angle in increasingly wacky directions. I'm glad to say this has come to pass. When Pryce brings in a look-a-like to play the now deceased President, he reveals that this is not an altogether uncommon experience. That intelligence agencies perform all sorts of operations to insure the government remains running smoothly. Yes, this show is arguing for the existence of the Deep State. (Pryce also says supernatural events are discreetly handled by the government all the time too, so it's also arguing for the existence of the X-Files.) But “Chucky” being a smart-ass comedy, it quickly reveals the presidential doppelganger to be a nerdy, socially awkward actor type just happy to have this chance. That allows Devon Sawa to get some of the biggest laughs he's had over his three years on this show. 

When it was announced that “Chucky: Season Three” would head to Washington, my first thought is that the doll would eventually try and get his tiny, plastic hands on some nukes. “Panic Room” runs with this idea, devoting its second half to Chucky trying to spend his last hours alive starting World War III and becoming the most prolific serial killer in history. I suppose it's natural that the tight, metallic interior of the Situation Room would lead to a rise in tension. As NORAD prepares to launch WMDs, the episode actually gets suspenseful. Knowing how crazy “Chucky” is willing to get, I truly wondered how far they'd take things. Amusingly, the smart-ass doll picks an unexpected third target... I won't spoil things but it leads to easily the best punchline this season has given us yet.

Needless to say: Decrepit, dying Chucky is all out of fucks to give. While this could've seen Brad Dourif take the character in a more nihilistic direction, he remains a sarcastic little bastard up until the end. Watching this pint-sized rubber psycho threaten people and makes quips about pizza cutters, gun safety, and his mother remains delightful to me. No matter how goofy Chucky's one-liners get, the show never undersells what a threat he remains. As he slams a pen into a secret service agent's skull, describing what parts of the brain he is severing, it's a testament to the amount of genuinely sinister energy this absurd character have been gifted over the years. Around the time this episode aired, it was announced that Brad Dourif was retiring from acting. That retirement doesn't extend to any future “Chucky” projects, “Panic Room” still feels like a tribute to the great actor. 

While this episode features plenty of great killer doll action, it does spend a lot of time on the subplots. God help me, I think I'm actually invested in these characters now. Charlotte being increasingly freaked-out by the paranormal activity in the Oval Office allows Lara Jean Chorostecki to do some fine acting. She's got an excellent pair of crazy eyes, I'm now noticing. While Grant is probably the least exciting new character this season, there's a scene here between him and Lexy – where they sit at a piano and sing “Don't Fear the Reaper” – that is genuinely adorable. I think I might actually be rooting for those two now? That “Chucky” wraps up its biggest plot thread with two episodes left to go does suggest season three isn't done making some big swings. I'm looking forward to where this is all going next. [8/10]


Wednesday, October 5, 2022

Halloween 2022: October 5th



As the forties came to a close, Alfred Hitchcock was already a master of the cinematic arts. He kicked off the decade with his "Rebecca" winning Best Picture at the Oscars and spent the next several years making classic after classic. Yet Hitchcock was always experimenting with the form and function of movies. "Spellbound" featured a lengthy sequence of surrealism. "Lifeboat" confined itself to the titular location. In 1948, the director would form his own production company, Transatlantic Pictures. The first film made for it would be "Rope." It was Hitch's color debut, made use of groundbreaking long takes, told its story in real time, and was also contained within a single location. It was not well received at the time but has gathered the reputation of a classic in the decades since. 

Brandon, who often talks of being the superior man, convinces his friend, Philip, to murder their roommate, David. They strangle him to death with a rope and, afterwards, Brandon decides to stash the body in a chest. A party is arriving to the apartment immediately afterwards and Brandon covers the chest with a tablecloth, candles, and food. Philip is extremely nervous to have evidence of the murder so out in the open but Brandon is convinced he's pulled off the perfect crime. To further test this theory, among the party guest is Rupert Cadell, their former professor with a brilliant mind. As the party goes on, Philip growing more uncertain and Brandon getting more conceited, Rupert begins to suspect the ghastly truth. 

"Rope" is based on a 1929 stage play and that's fairly obvious. Not just in its adherence to a single location but more so in its catty dialogue. The characters in "Rope" talk in an erudite, stylized fashion. They spend much of the first half trading bon mots and verbally sniping at each other. There's a playfulness to the dialogue, as Rupert and Brandon subtly mock a party guest who can never remember the name of anything. Brandon delights in teasing out David's true fate, to his often unaware guests. There's a lengthy, high-minded conversation about the nature of murder. At times, "Rope" threatens to become as stuck-up and pretentious as its villain protagonist, utterly impressed with its own brilliance. 

This is avoided by several smart decisions. First off, the script – which features a story credit by beloved character actor Hume Cronyn – is genuinely funny and smart. Mostly, though, it's Hitchcock's brilliant camerawork that makes the movie as visually stunning as the script is witty. The long take gimmick is boldly cinematic, never letting the single-setting location hold back the visual potential. The cinematography teases the viewer as much as the villains tease their guests. At one point, the chest containing the dead body is in the foreground of a shot, in the corner, while our attention is directed to the far end of the apartment. This visualizes the idea that the evidence of Brandon and Philip's crime is always there, always reminding us of its presence. The camera constantly moving in and out of the actors further creates a voyeuristic feeling, as if we are an invitee to this get-together as well, watching and unraveling the events as much as Rupert is. The long takes lull us into such a hypnotized state that the handful of traditional cuts in the film are like an exclamation point. When combined with an expressive use of color during the sunset region of the story, and an intentionally artificial backdrop outside the window, "Rope" has a playful and inventive visual atmosphere that proves utterly captivating. 

"Rope" is, of course, based on the sensationalistic crimes of Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb. Like the real life Leopald, Brandon is obsessed with the idea of being a superior man. He sees himself as an Nietzschean ubermensch, who can do as he pleases to the inferior common man. Nietzsche is mentioned by name in the script, as is his supposed popularity among Nazis. Rupert speaks flippantly of similar theories, forced to confront at the end that his sarcastic words influenced the boys to murder. Yet, for all of his rhetoric, it's increasingly clear through the film that Brandon murdered David because he wanted to. Because it gave him a thrill, to prove he could get away with it, to rub everyone's faces in his brilliance. Thus, "Rope" refutes the philosophies it discusses and instead argues for a common empathy. Don't be a smarmy little bastard like Brandon or Nathan Leopold. You won't get away with it. 

While I'm sure countless term papers have been written about the philosophical ramifications of "Rope," that's not what interest me the most about the film. After the titles, we cut to the pulled curtain of the apartment and hear David's dying scream. It's almost orgasmic in its pitch. Brandon and Philip's jittery appearances immediately after the crime is both nervous and exuberance. They've gotten away with something forbidden, a visceral and physical act that involved themselves and another boy's body. That's both thrilling and terrifying. The sexual undertones of the crime are apparent throughout. To embarrass Philip, Brandon mentions his childhood habit of choking chickens to death. This meant all very literal but it also reads as a reference to masturbation, which explains Philip's stymied reaction. 

Afterwards, Philip attempts to play piano during a tense conversation with Rupert. In between the boy's nervousness, the professor's incisive and probing questions, and the passionate, mechanical beat of the metronome, it all reads as a failed seduction of sorts. It seems fitting to play Rupert as a heroic homosexual, even getting the beloved and all-American Jimmy Stewart to play him, to dismiss any notions of deviant sexuality. Rupert is queer, an outsider like the boys who has thoughts considered offensive to polite society. But he wouldn't kill anybody. In fact, his outsiderdom makes him brilliant enough to uncover the killing. "Rope" argues how essential a queer outlook is to society while also capturing the twisted sexual thrill its killers so clearly got from their crime. 

"Rope" did poorly in theaters in 1948. In the years afterwards, both Hitchcock and Stewart would dismiss it as largely a technical exercise that failed on any other level. Rights issues kept it out of theaters until the eighties. Yet it's clear now that "Rope" is a brilliant and bold piece of cinema. Its script is sharp and witty yet full of deeper angles to consider and discuss. Its visual construction is captivating and eye-grabbing, while supporting the strengths of the story. Its performances are perfectly pitched and it's efficiently paced, running all of eighty minutes long. Ya know, I think this Alfred Hitchcock guy might've known what he was doing. [9/10]




I don't know how far in advance the “Paranormal Activity” series was planned. Most horror franchises make it up as they go along. Clearly, from early on, Blumhouse and company thought Oren Peli's tiny little film had franchise potential. By the time the second movie came out, they were clearly laying more clues for possible future entries to build on. When a third movie came about, with the directors of “Catfish” behind the cameras, it was a prequel. Katie and Kristi mentioned their troubled childhood in the second movie but I don't know if going in this direction was a carefully considered plan... Or if the producers looked around at the scraps of story they had and decided “Let's go with that.” Either way, “Paranormal Activity 3” came out reliably in theaters a year after the second one.

Beginning shortly before the events of part two, we see that Katie and Kristi had extensive VHS recordings from their childhood, which was stolen during the break-in. Part three shows that footage of Katie and Kristi's childhood days, as documented by Dennis, their wedding photographer step-dad. As Kristi begins to talk to an imaginary friend called Toby, her mother and stepfather begin to notice unusual events around the house. As the haunting increases in intensity, all of it captured by Dennis' cameras, it's clear that “Toby” isn't just a figment of Kristi's imagination. That something very real, with connections to the occult and the family, is happening here.

Only three – or four, if you count the Japanese one – films into the “Paranormal Activity” series and a formula has already been established. There's going to be stationary nighttime shots of people sleeping. Objects will mysteriously move around until people are flying across the room. A lady will be possessed by a demon before the end. Part three features all these hallmarks of the series. However, Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman do find a couple of clever riffs on the expected events. The 1988 setting doesn't effect things much. However, Dennis creating a camera rig out of an oscillating fan is a nice, low-tech technique that produces one wonderfully creepy scene. The scenes of Kristi playing with “Toby” at night, while her family sleeps, produces at least one stand-out moment. When she seemingly leaps off a banister. More probably could've been done with it but I like the Bloody Mary legend being incorporated into the story.

Overall though, I found “Paranormal Activity 3” relies far too much on obnoxious jump scares. The first half features something even worst: Fake jump scares. Dennis' wife leaps out of a closet to scare him, Kristi is suddenly in front of the camera, a slamming door has mundane origins. Once the  jump scares turn supernatural, they are often underwhelming. Too frequently, a loud sound simply blares in our ears. Everything in the kitchen falling from the ceiling feels too overdone. The finale piles on the loud and shrieking scare sequences, with the nadir clearly being a little girl's face twisting into a CGI demon expression. You'd think this series would've realized by now that such contortions are dreadfully silly, not frightening.

Then again, you'd think the “Paranormal Activity” producers would've also figured out that nobody gives a crap about why all this spooky shit is happening. Instead of just letting ghostly motivations be vague, the franchise continues to double-down on the demonic mythology discussed in part two. In fact, part three goes even further. A definite motivation, revolving around daughters and firstborn sons, is provided for the demonic antagonist. Who now has the unassuming, childish name “Toby.” If an invisible spectre with a commonplace name isn't creepy enough for you, part three also introduces a coven of witches, who bring an instantly recognizable occult symbol with them. Because, ya know, explaining why a ghost or demon does something always makes it scarier, right? 

For what you'd expect from the third entry in a low budget horror franchise, “Paranormal Activity 3” actually got great reviews upon release in 2012. I remember the press was especially impressed with the oscillating fan scene. To this day, a lot of people consider this among the best of the franchise. Yet, for me, this is when the wheels started to come off the “Paranormal Activity” train. The series slides into the doldrums of formula, seemingly checking off  a list of required elements, while also building far too much of its shock value around predictable jump scares. It also over-invests in a lore that couldn't be more tedious. And, seriously, if you're going to pretend your movie is set in 1988 and filmed on VHS, you should do a better job of replicating the look and feel of an old tape. [5/10]



Shadows: After School

There's a great reoccurring feature on Bloody Disgusting called Series of Frights, highlighting individual episodes from different genre anthology shows. Writer Paul Lé digs deep too, into obscure programs from all over the world. That's how I learned about “Shadows,” a spooky anthology series designed for young viewers that aired on British television from 1975 to 1978. The second episode is “After School” and was highlighted in Lé's article. Set in a Welsh mining community, it follows two schoolboys accidentally locked up in their school after a displeasing encounter with their P.E. teacher. The boys try to pass the time by taking career aptitude tests. They find their answers strangely synced while noticing increasingly poltergeist activity in the school. Soon, they descend down into the school's basement, in search of answers.

Much like the “Leap in the Dark” episode from yesterday, the production values here are limited, the pacing is slow, and the accents are often thick. Examples of the first point is evident when one of the boys describes something that's happening to him off-screen, instead of it being shown. Most of the half-hour is confined to the single room too. As for the accents, you just have to get used to them. Despite these setbacks, “After School” does create a suitably creepy atmosphere. The room is dark and the slow escalation of ghostly events, beginning with a pencil rolling off a table and rising to doors and windows slamming, is well done. Both boys are likable leads and you enjoy watching them unravel this mystery. The ending gets a bit didactic, in the way kids show sometimes can, but this one still left me with a nice creepy feeling. 

What I most liked about “After School” is the way it captures the pressures of living in a dead end town, especially when you're young. Neither boy wants to grow up to be miners but signs all around them seem to suggest it'll be their fates. (Including a literal sign advertising work in the mines.) The answers to the tests synching up turn out to be a message from the ghostly presence. Yet it also suggests a world where, no matter what you want, your future is decided. The roof threatens to cave-in on the boys and the poltergeist activity includes a thumping, mechanical noise like an incoming steamer. Both of these suggest the mines. The ending is hopeful, as the boys at least help the ghost find peace. I don't know how the rest of “Shadows” stands up but this episode is pretty strong, especially for something intended for a young audience. [7/10]




Another reason to prefer “The Munsters” over “The Addams Family” is that the Addams were rich while the Munsters are working class. In “Herman's Rival,” Lily discovers Herman is overdrawn at the bank, after giving her swindler brother Lester a loan. She decides to get a job as a palm reader to help support the household, keeping it a secret to save her husband's pride. Grandpa and Herman quickly misunderstand what's happening, fearing Lily is having an affair. In “Grandpa's Call of the Wild,” Eddie complains that his parents have never taken him fishing. This prompts the entire Munsters brood to go on a camping trip. Being out in the wilderness prompts Grandpa to turn into a wolf and he's soon captured by the fish and game department, forcing Herman to rescue him. 

“Herman's Rival” has a great set-up. Once again, the audience knows the perfectly reasonable explanation for everything but we get to watch the characters stumble through these misunderstandings. There's the big physical gags you expect here. Such as Herman's frustration with a stoplight or the titular rival (Lily's employer) fainting at the sight of him. Yet there's some good old fashion puns too. Lily's job interview is hilarious, strictly because Yvonne De Carlo is so dead-pan with her vampire-related responses. Sometimes these two approaches combine, such as Fred Gwynne's perfectly casual reaction when Grandpa drops Herman through the floor. The performers really seal this show for me, as Gwynne's reaction when Ramon faints is golden. And for all the people who have joked about why a Frankenstein and a vampire's son is a werewolf, the show itself answered that question here: Lester is a wolfman, suggesting lycanthropy is a recessive gene on Lily's side of the family. He looks more like “The Werewolf” than Lon Chaney Jr. and sounds like Groucho Marx. 

Those silly sight gags take precedence in “Grandpa's Call of the Wild.” Herman's attempt at fishing grab a fish frying in someone's pan. There's an extended bit about Herman hammering stakes into the ground for a tent or moving a tree around. Once Grandpa gets stuck in his wolf form, this results in a number of silly moments. The best of which is probably how the family smuggles him out of the park. (An adorable husky plays the Count in his wolf form.) The dog provides some solid laughs, when Herman translates his barks and howls back to English. Probably the comedic highlight of the episode is when Lily attempts to explain the situation to the baffled park ranger. [Herman's Rival: 7/10 / Grandpa's Call of the Wild: 6/10]