Halloween 2015: October 31 - HALLOWEEN

The day of Halloween itself usually doesn’t involve much travel for me. I try not to stray too much from my TV, as not to interrupt the final day of the Halloween Horrorfest Blog-a-thon. But 2015 was a little different. A friend talked me into helping her hand out candy. In my slightly tossed-together Babadook costume, I ran over to help her out. Truthfully, I’m glad I did, as I had a blast. I’m pretty sure I traumatized a few kids. Isn’t that what Halloween is all about? After making it back home, I resumed the final day of the Six Weeks, packing in as much stuff as possible. Considering Day Lights Saving time was giving me an extra hour tonight, I went for it.

Mark of the Vampire (1936)

It’s a well-known story that, after “Freaks,” Tod Browning’s career was in tatters. Though well regarded as a cult classic now, the film was a bit too confrontational for 1932. After that commercial mishap, perhaps Browning was looking for a sure-fire hit. “Mark of the Vampire” was a remake of “London After Midnight,” a notoriously lost silent that was an early hit for Browning. In an attempt to emulate his last big hit, “Dracula,” the film features Bela Lugosi as another vampire count, hanging out in a spooky castle. The film even threw in some additional star power in the form of Lionel Berrymore, who gets top-billing. Tod Browning would make a few more movies, so I guess “Mark of the Vampire” did revive his career to a degree.

In a superstitious, rural part of Europe, a local nobleman has been found dead, his blood drained from his body via pin-pricks on his neck. The locals blame the murders on a vampire. The mysterious Count Mora and his daughter Luna, who inhabit a spooky near-by castle, are immediately picked out as the attackers. Everyone is convinced except for Inspector Neumann, a skeptical police officer. The locals fear that Irena, the murdered man’s daughter, is the vampires' next target. Professor Zelin, an expert in the occult, is brought in to get to the bottom of things.

The most powerful thing about Browning’s “Dracula,” a film I’ve grown to love more and more with age, is its incredible atmosphere. Browning didn’t seem content to merely emulate his biggest hit. Instead, he sets out to top “Dracula,” at least in term of shadowy ambiance. A shot in a graveyard is thick with fog, a rubber bat flying around. The scenes of Count Mora and his eerie daughter walking the castle’s ground are incredible. Emerging out of the shadows, the vampires walk through the dark, fog-drenched lands. Luna, the daughter, is an especially memorable presence. Her long black hair, flowing white gown, angular face, and penetrating eyes makes her perhaps the definitive lady vampire. Once inside the castle, “Mark of the Vampire” gets even better. In an obvious shout-out to “Dracula,” the vamps walk down a staircase, through a massive spider web. Bats hang from the curtains, beetles crawl along the furniture, and a possum lurks around a pillar. One scene has Luna, her arms replaced with bat wings, flapping down through the castle. Holy shit, this stuff is incredible. Just based on the values of the visuals, “Mark of the Vampires” should be a classic.

Disappointingly, “Mark of the Vampire” isn’t just a gothic horror story. Instead, the film is also a mystery. After that incredibly atmospheric first act, the film devotes itself to the story’s machinations. There are long scenes of Professor Zelin telling people what to do about the vampires. You’re likely to get tired of hearing Lionel Berrymore talk about herbs and flowers. (These scenes draw direct parallels between Zelin and Van Helsing.) Lugosi and his ghostly daughter disappear for long stretches of time in the second half. Instead, the movie focuses on the various hypnotized men wandering around the castle, the Lionels Berrymore and Atwill always on their tales. This leads up to a twist ending that’s been pissing off horror fans since the thirties: There are no vampires. Count Mora and his daughter are actors. The entire plot has been a scheme to reveal the true killer. On one level, making a skeptical vampire flick is an interesting idea. On the other hand, the ending flies in the face of everything the movie has been building up to. Not to mention making the title, posters, trailers, and everything else seem very misleading.

At the very least, “Mark of the Vampire” has a pretty interesting cast. Lugosi is actually underutilized. He mostly stands around, glaring, making dramatic hand gestures… Which is fine, since Bela was excellent at all of those things. Similar things could be said about Caroll Borland, whose incredible screen presence makes any acting abilities irrelevant. I like Elizabeth Allen as the victimized daughter, especially when she starts freaking out about her situation. Also good at freaking out: Lionel Atwill! Very good as the straight-laced skeptic, while exploring the spooky castle in the last act, Atwill suddenly gets the willies, afraid to be left alone. Truthfully, of the main characters, only Lionel Berrymore’s professor doesn’t interest me. He’s a little too preoccupied with having all the answers.

I love most everything about “Mark of the Vampire,” except for its actual story. The scenes of dusty, foggy atmosphere are incredible, some of the best in all of classic horror. The movie definitely features some fun performances, amusing moments, and fantastic images. The plot, meanwhile, is a bit lame. Reportedly, about ten minutes of footage was cut from the film upon release, mostly dealing with the Count’s backstory and including suggestions of incest between him and his daughter. Unless that extended footage included a radically different story, it’s hard to imagine it improving “Mark of the Vampire” too much. [7/10]

House of Wax (1954)

Before “House of Wax,” Vincent Price was a character actor, turning in solid parts in classics like “Laura” or “Dragonwyck” without ever breaking through as a leading man. After “House of Wax,” Price would be completely reinvented as a horror icon, a great that stood along side other masters of horror like Karloff or Lugosi. From this point on, even Price’s non-horror parts would tend to recall his work in the genre. All of which is slightly odd, when you consider that “House of Wax” was actually a remake of an earlier film, 1933’s “Mystery of the Wax Museum.” The remake would move the story back in time to the late eighteen-hundreds, emphasize horror over mystery, become an early 3-D hit, and completely overshadow the original.

Henry Jarrod is a wonderfully talented sculptor of wax figures. He is so enamored of his own work that he often talks to his wax models as if they were people. However, his work is noncommercial and the owner of wax museum decides to burn the place down for the insurance money. Jarrod disappears in the fire. Years later, he reappears in New York, his hands and legs ruined in the flames. Jarrod opens a new wax museum, catering to the public’s macabre taste. Around the same time, his old partner dies and bodies begin to vanish from the local morgue. A young woman named Sue notices that one of Jarrod’s hyper-realistic sculptures resembles her dead friend and begins to suspect that something ghoulish is going on.

As a showcase for Vincent Price’s talent, “House of Wax” is excellent. In many ways, Jarrod characterizes the types of characters Price would play throughout his career. The part plays to his talent for eloquence, displaying his sly humor. Jarrod is introduced as an eccentric but entirely reasonable artist. Like all artist, he has an almost spiritual love of his work. When it’s destroyed, he goes into a vengeful fury. Even after he begins to murder people to replace his lost wax models, there’s something sympathetic about Jarrod. His madness is based in an all-too-understandable drive to recapture what was once lost. Naturally, the part also allows Price many opportunities to show off his villainous glee. At the end, when the heroine is at his mercy, he begins to expound ecstatically about the horrors facing her. Like all great movie monsters, the Wax Phantom is both a figure of fear and tragedy.

The remake changing the title from “Mystery of the Wax Museum” to “House of Wax” is significant. There’s less sleuthing, as there’s no equivalent to Glenda Farrell’s reporter character. Aside from an enthusiastic ping-pong guy or fainting ladies, there’s little of the original’s comic relief. Instead, “House of Wax” focuses on the story’s macabre elements. The Wax Phantom’s facial deformities are lingered on more. There are more scenes of the fedora-and-cape clad villain stalking his victims. This includes a stand-out scene where Price follows Phyllis Kirk’s Sue through the foggy New York streets. Even the wax museum itself, with its displays of murder, execution, and torture, is still creepier. “House of Wax” builds up some decent tension towards the end. The reveal of Jarrod’s hideous true face is far more effective then the thirties’ version. As he dangles his female victim under the boiling hot wax, the movie reaches a fever pitch. (The implied nudity is also fairly edgy for the time period.) As a fifties horror show, “House of Wax” is entertaining and successfully spooky.

Though technically not the main character, most of “House of Wax” is build around Price’s mad sculptor. When the screen is devoted to other characters, the film is less even. “House of Wax” never truly finds a traditional hero. The investigating police officers are a bit too flippant to be taken serious. They aren’t in many scenes anyway. Paul Picerni’s Scott appears to be the proper hero, as he’s the love interest of the film lead. Yet he proves surprisingly incompetent, dismissing his girlfriend’s concerns, realizing the bad guy’s scheme too late, and loosing a fist fight with the villain’s henchmen. I like Phyllis Kirk as Sue. She mostly screams and panics but occasionally gets a strong moment, like when she investigates the wax house on her own. Truthfully, it’s the bit parts with the most appeal. Carolyn Jones’ wide-eyed beauty and quirky charm, best utilized during her most famous role as Morticia Addams, is very memorable as the gone-too-soon Cathy. As Jarrod’s lackeys, Charles Bronson as the mute but intimating Igor and Nedrick Young as the alcoholic Leon are hugely memorable parts of the movie.

For devotees of Vincent Price, “House of Wax” is essential viewing. It’s the prototype for the many sinister, extravagant villains he would play throughout his long, fantastic career. Much has been written about how the director, Andre De Toth, was blind in one eye and unable to appreciate his own movie’s 3-D effects. Despite that, there’s still lots of silly 3-D shenanigans, with paddle balls, chairs, iron spears, and can-can girls flying at the audience’s eyes. Though it doesn’t break any new ground, and could’ve had some more interesting side characters, “House of Wax” is still lots of fun for classic horror fans. [7/10]

Eyes Without a Face (1960)
Les yeux sans visage

Leave it to the French to take the raw materials for an exploitation movie and make something artful out of it. Story wise, “Eyes Without a Face” doesn’t sound that different from any number of American B-flicks. A mad scientist kills unsuspecting women, in hopes of grafting their faces until his faceless daughter. The man even receives an appropriately ironic fate at the end. The execution changes everything though. Georges Franju lends the story an artistic, dream-like style. By the same accord, the violence in the film was shocking and groundbreaking for the time. The original American distributors maybe recognized the movie’s exploitation roots. They chopped up the film, dubbed it, and re-titled it “The Horror Chamber of Dr. Faustus.” When the original French version emerged, it was hailed as a landmark horror film and remains a classic today.

Some time ago, Dr. Genessier’s daughter Christiane was in an awful car crash. Burned, torn, and chewed on by rats, the collision left Christiane with only a bloody, raw blank for a face. Dr. Genessier previously, successfully completed a full face transplant. Now he’s obsessed with doing the same for Christiane. He lures young girls in, knocks them unconscious, removes their faces, and attempts to attach them to Christiane’s face. Until the surgery is successful, Christiane hides in her room, wearing a blank white mask. Soon, the daughter and the doctor come into conflict.

“Eyes Without a Face” begins with a tracking shot of a car going down a desolate country road. The moment passes like a waking dream, the camera only glancing in on a regular night’s drive. (Of course, the drive is anything but normal.) The music is odd, sounding a bit like a carnival calliope. That music plays throughout the movie, creating a sense of un-reality. That dreaminess inhabits many of the film’s scenes. Christiane wakes before one of the transplants and shows her true face to the other girl. We only see Christiane’s skinless visage during this moment, through the sedated woman’s drowsy eyes. Many scenes focusing on Christiane have a surreal quality. As she walks through the house, the movie slows down, drawing attention to everything odd about the girl. With her face-concealing mask, Christiane is a walking bit of strangness, always slightly out of step with reality. In the final scene, she releases a number of caged birds, symbolizing her own freedom. This moment has that same stillness to it, like a photograph sprung to life. It’s hard to explain but “Eyes Without a Face” successfully captures the visual language of a dream.

That surreal quality contrasts with the blunt violence. In “Eyes Without a Face,” we see a woman’s face slowly, meticulously cut off. Another girl falls from a window, her head bloodily cracking on the concrete. Later, a man is brutally mauled to death by hungry dogs. The gore was certainly extreme for 1960. However, it’s not shot in a sensationalist manner. Previously, Franju made a documentary about a Parisian slaughterhouse. “Eyes Without a Face” has a similar, almost scientific approach to its gore. The face removal scene is slow and drawn-out because real surgeries are like that. For another example, look at the scene where Christiane’s body rejects the skin graft, which includes necrosis and rotting flesh, shown in a photo montage with bland voice-over narration. Dr. Genessier considers himself a scientist, so the scientific approach to the violence makes sense. The deliberate contrast between the two tones – dream-like and coldly violent – displays the two worlds that “Eyes Without a Face” inhabits.

Despite its dueling tones of lyrical and detached, “Eyes Without a Face” doesn’t overlook the human performances at its center. There are essentially three actors central to the story. As the scientist, Pierre Brasseur seems cold and distant. Yet the film makes it clear that this is due to the heartbreak he’s suffered, from a dead wife and a deformed daughter. That’s one of the added tragedies to the film: The doctor was a good man before he became a monster. Alida Valli is Genessier’s faithful servant, whose devotion borders on the romantic. The look of shock on her fate when she is injured is both sad and somewhat funny. Edith Scob is truly unearthly as the faceless girl. Tragic and fragile, she is sympathetic while maintaining an odd, alien quality.

A subplot about a group of detectives is so irrelevant that I wonder if the director isn’t intentionally mocking irrelevant detective subplots. The musical score helps lull the viewer in a trance-like state, making us especially susceptible to its dream logic and shocking violence. “Eyes Without a Face” is both an art film and a horror film, creating a powerful mood all its own while also providing some effective gore. Plus, it inspired a pretty good Billy Idol song which is a fun bonus. [8/10]

Trick or Treat (1986)

Last Halloween, I watched “Trick r’ Treat,” an increasingly popular choice for Halloween viewing, especially among horror fans. That movie should not be confused with “Trick or Treat,” an oddball heavy metal-themed horror/comedy from 1986. This movie was a bargain bin buy for me. I saw a DVD of a cheesy eighties horror movie with Ozzy Osbourne and Gene Simmons on the cover. There’s no way I was turning that down for five bucks! Of course, that DVD cover was hilariously misleading, as Osbourne and Simmons only have cameos in the film. After watching it, seriously unimpressed, the movie was slipped into my collection and basically forgotten. But, hey, it’s Halloween. If there’s any night to give this movie a second chance, it’s this one.

Eddie, who prefers to go by Ragman, is a dork. A metal-head especially obsessed with controversial shock rock singer Sammi Curr, Ragman doesn’t get much respect. He’s bullied at school by a clan of frat-bro jock-head douchebags. The girl he has a crush on thinks he’s creepy. His best friend is the only kid in school that’s a bigger nerd then him. When Curr dies unexpectedly, Eddie is crestfallen. Through his DJ friend, Ragman gets his hand on Sammi’s last record. When played backwards, the record reveals Sammi’s voice, speaking directly to Ragman. Using the record and Eddie’s gullibility, Curr returns for the dead on Halloween night, looking for some heavy metal vengeance against the world that spurned him.

Let’s face it: Teenage boys are assholes. Teenage nerds, even in the days before internet mob mentality, could be especially nasty. I know these things because I was a teenage nerd. Movies are usually too willing to soften the blow and make antisocial nerds merely misunderstood. “Trick or Treat,” in its favor, has no issue portraying Eddie as a creepy weirdo. His devotion to Curr borders on the obsessive. He writes long, loving letters to the guy and has a huge poster of him in his room. While the bullies that torment him are inexcusable, Eddie is an unlikable clod. He’s always dressed in greasy metal shirts and everything he does is off-putting. In its first third, “Trick or Treat” looks like it could be a slightly campy if interesting revenge story. Using the magic powers provided by Curr’s possessed record, Ragman proceeds to turn tables on his tormentors. If it continued down this path, “Trick or Treat” could’ve been a goofier, eighties version of “Carrie” for metal-obsessed boys. A big problem with the script is that the movie has a lot of ideas that it haphazardly tosses together.

The eighties moral hysteria over heavy metal is decent ground upon which to build a horror movie. “Trick or Treat” even throws in the backmasking controversy, which is a nice touch. However, the movie seems really uncertain how to feel about its subject. At first, the film seems on Eddie’s side, with his obvious admiration of Curr. An early scene, mirroring Dee Snider’s appearance at the obscenity hearings, has Sammi in Washington, shooting back against the moral guardians who seek to censor him. The movie’s soundtrack is also packed full of metal, though B-listers Fastway don't pack as much punch as they think. On the other hand, “Trick or Treat” plays the hysteria totally straight. Curr is a devil worshiper who kills himself and his band mates to achieve eternal life. When he successfully resurrects himself with satanic magic, he goes on an indiscriminate killing spree for no clearly defined reason. Maybe it’s all tongue-in-cheek, especially since Ozzy Osbourne has a cameo as an evangelical pastor preaching about the evils of rock music. Yet to what purpose? Are you pro- or anti- metal, “Trick or Treat?” The movie can’t decide.

Instead of making a statement about censorship, moral hysteria, pop culture obsession, or rock music, the movie occupies itself with a bunch of dumb horror/comedy shenanigans. The story totally shifts gears once Curr is resurrected. The demonic rock star suddenly has electricity-based superpowers, able to appear through any device that can play his music. The movie builds many goofy gags around this. He yanks an old woman out of a TV, reducing her to asses. While appearing at the high school Halloween dance, Sammi rocks so hard he shoots lightening bolts from his guitar. Later, he sticks his finger in a socket, exploding one of the jock’s heads. Afterwards, he stumbles into a toilet, water becoming his weakness. Curr shocks a cop with a way-ahead-of-its-time taser gun and makes a station wagon drive around the block backwards. None of this connects with the heavy metal theme of the first half. The part of Curr was written for Blackie Lawless, whom the character resembles, but was instead played by former "Solid Gold" dancer Tony Fields. His preening and goofy dancing makes it clear that the actor was more disco then metal.

If thrills were the filmmakers’ goal, “Trick or Treat” is way too goofy to be scary. If comedy was what it was after, it’s too dumb to be amusing. The film doesn’t even utilize its Halloween setting that much, outside the Halloween dance and some flaming pumpkins. I suspect fans of cheesy – not necessary good cheesy either – eighties metal might get a kick out of it. Or if you wanted to see what the other kid from “Family Ties” got up to. Ozzy’s cameo, brief as it is, is probably the film’s high light. Oh, and that cool lizard monster on the poster? He's in one scene. Too self-aware and unfocused, the five dollar dump bin is definitely were “Trick or Treat” belongs. Maybe I should watch “Trick or Treats” next Halloween? [5/10]

Tales of Halloween (2015)

Over the last few years, the anthology film has become the favored format in the horror scene. Usually, a few directors with a notable flick or two to their name are invited to make a short, fitting some sort of theme. I go to bat for the “V/H/S” films, or at least the first two, though they are understandably divisive. “The ABCs of Death” series is hugely uneven, too often gross or weird for its own sake. When “Tales of Halloween” was announced, it fit this established mold: Ten directors, each with a movie horror fans are likely to recognized, made a segment based around Halloween. Two attached names really caught my attention. Everyone knows I love Lucky McKee and Neil Marshall is pretty great too. The rest of the list? Needed some work. Yet then “Tales of Halloween” started getting better reviews then any of the previous indie horror anthologies in recent memory. Obviously, I had watch this on the 31st.

On Halloween night, the spirits rise from their graves and weirdos and freaks of all sorts come out to play. One small town is especially hit by horrific, wild events. Zombies eat candy. Demons make mischief and take revenge, which is sometimes mischievous too. Slashers and aliens collide. Ghosts prowl the streets. Witches prey on children. Vigilantes attack evil-doers. Pumpkins go on rampages. Guiding all of this madness is the local DJ, narrating the events as they happen.

Like all anthologies, “Tales of Halloween” is uneven. Truthfully, some of the film’s earliest segments are its worst. “The Night Billy Raised Hell” comes second. Directed by Darren Lynn Bousman, it features many of the director’s obnoxious visual quirks. Expected fluorescent colors and jittery camera work. Worst though, Bousman is going for humor which just comes off as excessively mean-spirited. The third short, “Trick” is by the asshole who made the “Night of the Demons” remake. The story is similar to the other night’s “Hellions.” While the violence has impact, the short is vulgar and balances uncomfortably between funny and mean. It wraps up on an especially stupid twist. Coming in fourth is “The Weak and the Wicked,” from “Grace’s” Paul Solet. It takes far too long to get to its point, is focused on cruel violence, and dissolves into shaky-cam direction before it’s over. Placing the weakest stories so early in the film gets it started on a down note.

Then there are stories that are more middle of the road. Lucky McKee still hasn’t found his groove, post-“The Woman.” “Ding Dong” has a nice starring role for Pollyanna Macintosh as a manic witch. Marc Senter is equally good as her put-upon husband. However, the visual design of the short, with its red faces, twisting limbs, and rising flames, is way over-the-top. Furthermore, it’s too off-putting to be funny but still too silly to be creepy. McKee’s visual sense remains strong, if nothing else. “Sweet Tooth” and “Grim Grinning Ghost” are unambitious if well executed takes on traditional stories. “Sweet Tooth” is an EC Comics style moral about eating too much candy. “Grim Grinning Ghost” is a simple ghost story with a fun, last minute stinger. Both are entertaining but neither break much new ground.

As “Tales of Halloween” goes on, it actually gets better. The best segment is “This Means War.” On one side of the street, a guy sets up quint, kid-friendly Halloween decorations. On the other side, another group sets up a gory, death metal-style display. Soon, the two men are fighting to the death. The short escalates nicely, in comic absurdity, while also showing the different things this great holiday can mean to different people. “Friday the 31st” has a slasher meeting his match, thanks to an adorable stop motion alien. This short starts out like a decent slasher pic before becoming a very silly, very funny monster show-down. “The Kidnapping of Rusty Rex” is a horror variation on O. Henry’s “Ransom of Red Chief.” It’s easy to see where it’s going but the trip is so much fun, as the clueless kidnappers suffer more ridiculous punishment. The final segment, “Bad Seed” from Neil Marshall, gives the world the killer pumpkin movie we’ve always needed. The mayhem is serious but the execution is with a wink. The story also throws in amusing parodies of cop movie troupes. It ends the movie in a nice way.

Maybe front-loading with the weaker shorts was a smart decision. You start out thinking “Tales of Halloween” is going to be another lame, indie anthology. By the end, it becomes a lot of fun, ending with a series of delightful segments. Unlike other Halloween-themed flicks I’ve watched this Six Weeks, “Tales of Halloween” actually utilizes the troupes of the holiday nicely. I doubt it’ll become a yearly tradition but its way better then either “ABCs of Death” flicks. Would I be down for a “Tales of Halloween 2?” Perhaps, if the line-up of directors is as good. [7/10]

Ash vs. Evil Dead: El Jefe

This has been a long time coming. How long have fans asked for a new “Evil Dead” adventure starring Bruce Campbell’s Ash? After so many false starts, promised beginnings, and one subpar remake, we finally got what we’re where asking for… But as a TV show, instead of a movie. The first episode of “Ash vs. Evil Dead” sees Ash as a washed-up guy who hasn’t fought evil in decades. He uses his stories of heroism to pick up girls in bars and still gets bossed around at a his crappy job. The evil he fought so long ago has finally tracked him down. Now, Ash has to team up with some younger sidekicks, strap on the chainsaw, and pick up the boomstick once more.

As far as premieres go, this one kicks a lot of ass. Sam Raimi directs. Despite his years in blockbuster land, he still has a grasp on that “Evil Dead” style. We have shots from the perspective of the evil force. A showdown with a twitchy demon recalls the scarier moments of “Evil Dead 2” and easily feels similar. Bruce Campbell remains shameless about getting a laugh. Ash is as much of a bragget as always and may be an even bigger loser then last we saw him. As in the films, the show delights in tormenting him. One especially goofy sequence has him fighting an evil doll. Yet Ash can still be a bad ass, as seen in the final show-down in his trailer. It features plenty of shotgun action and chainsaw swinging. The dialogue is pack full of funny one-liners. The two young kids along for the ride, Dana DeLorenzo’s Kelly and Ray Santiago’s Pablo, get some amusing lines of their own. I’m not sure where the show is going with the storyline involving Jill Marie Jones’ detective and Lucy Lawless’ mysterious character. The first episode of “Ash vs. Evil Dead” is a lot of fun. Can the series keep it up? Who knows. But it pleased this fan. [8/10]

The Frankenstein Wedding Reception

This has probably been the most organized Halloween Horrorfest Blog-a-thon I’ve ever had. Not a single day did I ever wander. I watched at least two movies every day this year. On one level, I’m proud of achieving that. On the other hand, I wonder if perhaps the Six Weeks was too structured? I missed that spontaneity, the chaos the season can bring.

Still, I can’t say I didn’t have a boat load of fun. I went to a horror con. I visited a corn maze. I dressed up and handed out candy. I watched 95 movies, crossing many styles and time period. I watched 55 TV episodes, finishing up “So Weird.” I even sneaked in 10 short films. Total number?: 158. Not my best number but not bad either. The book is closing on October. November looms. Did I face the Six Weeks of Halloween head-on and live the season as hard as I could? You know I did. I have honored the spirits of Halloween. It is time for bed. Let us bid fair well to the season. Goodnight, Halloween 2015. I had fun. Thank you. And thank you, readers. The trip wouldn’t mean as much without you.

Halloween 2015: October 30

Madman (1982)

Last Halloween, I watched “The Burning,” one of the best retro-slashers the early eighties ever produced. That film took its inspiration from the campfire urban legend of the Cropsey Maniac. Yet there was another film from the same time inspired by the same legend. Like “The Burning” and many other films that would follow “Friday the 13th,” “Madman” is about a summer camp beset by a murderous maniac. Also like “The Burning,” the film actively engages with the campfire story concept. It’s hard to call anything ‘definitive,’ especially when dealing with a topic as wide-ranging as eighties slashers. However, “Madman” successfully combines many of the aspects I love about the genre and the time period.

A summer camp is closing for the season, the warmth of summer giving way to the browning leaves of fall. Around the camp fire that night, camp owner Max regales the kids and councilors with the legend of Madman Marz. A disagreeable brute of a man, one day Marz snapped and murdered his wife and children. A lynch mob strung him up but the body was gone by the next morning. Now, the legend goes, Marz is still out there and can be summoned simply by saying his name above a whisper. Naturally, one of the kids does just that. After tucking in the youths, the councilors settle in for a night of partying. Unlucky for them, the legend lives. Madman Marz is real and sets about stalking the camp, killing all he encounters.

The “Friday the 13th” films and “The Burning” were both slightly post-modern in regards to their campfire legend origins. Both basically showed the “true” events behind a popular legend. “Madman,” meanwhile, plays out exactly like a campfire story. Whether or not Madman Marz is just a hard-to-kill bastard or a genuine ghost is up for debate. His inhuman behavior and monstrous appearance certainly supports the ghost theory. His massive size, mane of white hair, and deformed face leaves Marz resembling a fairy tale ogre. Another differentiating factor in “Madman’s” favor is that the story is set entirely at night. This can lend the film a surprising moodiness at times. The early scenes, showing Marz slowly walking through his empty home, provide a nice creepiness. Scenes of the kids just walking through the woods get a considerable boost just from the pretty, eerie black-blue photography. For a low budget, down-and-dirty slasher flick, “Madman” can look surprisingly good at times.

Like a proper slasher film is suppose to, “Madman” doles out the mayhem in sporadic bursts. When the killings comes, they can be way more intense then you’d expect. Marz stalks as much as he slashes. He takes his time zeroing in on a victim. Frequently, the monster is seen lurking in the background before he strikes. When he does, the action ramps up. He appears suddenly out of a dark room, slashing a victim’s throat. He ties a noose around another’s neck, dragging him through the woods before stringing him up from a tree. The audible “crack!” of the snapping spine makes that kill especially effective. Another decapitation takes quite a while to build up. My favorite sequences involves a stalling vehicle, the killer not coming until the victim pokes her head under the hood. Another great moment involves hiding in a refrigerator and more extended sequences of stalking, before the killing blow comes quickly and suddenly. “Madman” is surprisingly willing to slowly build suspense.

Don’t get the wrong impression. “Madman” isn’t classy in the least. The acting is frequently terrible. Tony Fish is hysterically cock-sure as a character bizarrely named TP! Gaylen Ross, of “Dawn of the Dead” fame, plays final girl Betsy. Ross was apparently so ashamed of her participation in this film that she goes under the pseudonym Alexis Dubin. Despite proving herself a strong actress before, Ross is amazingly tone-deaf in the part. Look no further then the unbelievable scene where she drives a bus away from an attacking Madman. Betsy doesn’t fit the virginal part of the final girl archetype. She and TP share a love scene in a hot tub. The sex scene is mostly in slow motion and set to one of the most ridiculously maudlin love songs I’ve ever heard. Most of the performances are indistinct and cheesy, like the one counselor with the porn ‘stache. The only actor in the movie that isn’t awful is Frederick Neumann, going under the alias of Carl Fredericks, as camp owner Max. Neumann acts like he’s in a stage play, which is totally inappropriate for the material, but at least you can tell he’s a real actor. Apparently, that part was written for Vincent Price which would’ve been something… Though I can’t imagine horror’s gentleman in a flick this dirty and dumb.

That cheesiness is part of the charm. Any one who loves eighties slasher will tell you that. Yes, “Madman” is really dumb at times. It’s also slightly tedious, as you wait for the killer to appear. Yet “Madman” also has a lot going for it. It’s really well-shot. The director showed the basic skills necessary for suspense and mood. I even like the super-corny electronic score. Madman Marz is a genuinely intimidating killer with an unforgettable, monstrous appearance. The villain seemed tailor-made for a franchise. Despite some efforts over the years, and the continued enthusiasm of actor Paul Ehlers, “Madman II: Marz Needs Women” never rolled into production. Let’s sing the theme song together! The leeeegeeeend lives! Beware the Madman Marz! [7/10]

The Picture of Dorian Gray (1945)

As a ten year old, I started reading grown-up books. My fascination with classic monster movies already intact, I turned my eye towards reading the original “Frankenstein” and “Dracula” novels. Among the books of gothic horror I collected, I found Oscar Wilde’s “The Picture of Dorian Gray.” Like all the others, I read it. Unlike the others, I didn’t totally grasp the meaning of its themes or ideas until I was older. It’s no surprise that studios, after adapting those other horror classics, would come to Wilde’s book.  However, Wilde’s story is as much Victorian morality tale as it is horror tale. Back in 1945, this adaptation was even classy enough to win an Academy Award! Maybe for these reasons and more, I’m only now getting around to watching it.

Dorian Gray is a virtuous, young gentleman and the model for Basil Hallward’s latest painting. While visiting Basil, Dorian makes the acquaintance of Lord Henry Wotton. A hedonist, Wotton imposes on Dorian his idea that youth is a man’s greatest gift. After thinking about this, Gray wishes that his portrait would age instead of him. And so it happens. Dorian remains young and untouched on the outside, his heart and soul tarnished by his increasingly immoral actions. As the decades wind on, Dorian hides the increasingly ugly portrait in his attic, observing the hideous rot of his own soul.

“The Picture of Dorian Gray” is a philosophical horror movie. Instead of being about mortal lives endangered by supernatural threats or madmen, it details the destruction of a man’s soul by his own actions. Many of the early scenes are devoted to philosophical conversations about morality, hedonism, love, pleasure, and age. Interestingly, the film doesn’t judge Gray’s action by the usual moral standards. His sex life doesn’t come up, for one. Instead, his wrong-doings are against other people. He cruelly rejects a woman who loves him dearly on a whim, leading to her suicide. Other people he leaves in his wake take their own lives as well, Dorian’s wickedness crushing the spirits of people near him. His ultimate rotten act comes when he murders his only true friend. The sequence is shot dramatically, Gray playing with the knife before stabbing the man. When he does so, he bumps the overhead lamp. The light sways through the room, casting the act and its aftermath in light and darkness. Four times, the black-and-white film flashes into vivid Technicolor. Each time, it’s a reveal of Gray’s portrait. When we see his hideous, deformed, latter-day portrait, in burning color, it definitely makes an impression on the viewer.

It’s hard to resist Oscar Wilde’s opulent, sarcastic prose. The makers of “The Picture of Dorian Gray” obviously couldn’t. All too often, the film relies on voice-over narration, much of it taken directly from Wilde’s book. As Dorian studies his portrait, the narrator talks. After he commits murder, the narrator endlessly talks. Many of these scenes would have been better, moodier and more concentrated, without the voice-over guy constantly yapping about the character’s mental state. Half-way through the film, the story leaps ahead by twenty or so years. Instead of seeing Dorian, ageless, living through the changing years, all his friends and family growing old around him, we simply skip to the end. It’s easy to imagine a lot of interesting, juicy details were glossed over by doing this. Even with the censorship standards of the forties, there’s more we could’ve seen.

Saving the film from many of these problems is its fantastic cast. George Sanders, Shere Khan to me and many other generations, is perfectly suited to Lord Henry. Sanders effortlessly prattles through the pages of baroque dialogue he’s given, making all of it sound cool as hell. Sanders’ dominance of the film is obvious when you notice he gets top-billing, despite playing a supporting role. At first, Hurd Hatfield seems too dry as Gray. Yet, as the story progresses, his coldness begins to work for the character. Angela Lansbury would be nominated for an Oscar as Sibyl, the first victim Gray claims. Indeed, her performance is heart-breaking. When Gray plays his cruel games with the character, you really feel her pain. Despite exiting the story early on, Lansbury cast a long shadow over the rest of the film. To the point where the perfectly capable Donna Reed, as Gray’s secondary love interest, doesn’t make anywhere as much of an impression.

Beautifully shot with some fantastically expressionistic miniature sets, “The Picture of Dorian Gray” is an interesting, well-made movie. The performances are excellent, the strength of Wilde’s dialogue transcends the screen, and there are a few memorable, shocking moments. Still, I can’t help but wonder if this story could’ve been told better. I wonder if the sleazy-sounding Italian version from the seventies handles that aspect better? [7/10]

Hellions (2015)

I generally keep an eye on the film festival scene because it’s always where the best horror films premiere. As has long been the case for over a decade at this point, the indie scene is where it’s at when it comes to horror. Anyway, last year I started hearing some buzz about “Hellions.” Despite being the spookiest holiday by far, there aren’t nearly as many Halloween-set horror films as there should be. So here comes a film about malevolent trick-or-treaters? And it’s directed by the guy who made “Pontypool,” an odd but fascinating Canadian variation on the zombie concept from a few years back? Sign me up! As sometimes happened, the review started to roll in and they were fairly mixed. Still, there was no way I wasn’t going to get to “Hellions” during this year’s Six Weeks.

Dora is a seventeen year old who enjoys skipping class and smoking pot with her boyfriend. On Halloween morning, she gets some unpleasant news from her doctor: She’s pregnant. Uncertain of what to do, she stays home that night while her boyfriend is at a party and her mom and little brother go trick or treating. Before the sun goes down, a trio of sinister trick-or-treaters knock on her door. Soon, it becomes apparent that the kids aren’t what they appear. They are otherworldly invaders with nasty plans for Dora and her unborn baby.

“Hellions” runs a brisk eighty minute long. The film is able to throw together some attractively spooky set pieces during that run time. The true intentions of the hellions is revealed one at a time, more kids appearing every time Dora opens the door. Like many good horror films, “Hellions" successfully plays up the tension of being alone in a house, intruders trying to force their way in. At one point, Dora and her doctor are in her basement. The sinister kids are up-stairs and slowly working their way into the room. This is probably “Hellions'” most intense moment. The film definitely has some stand-out scares like that. The image of one of the kids crawling across the ceiling is creepy but not overdone. Robert Patrick’s late appearance is cut short when he’s suddenly yanked into an attic crawlspace. When down to Earth, “Hellions” is a solid home-invasion horror/thriller.

Disappointingly, the movie goes off on many weird tangents. At some point, the demonic kids yank Dora’s home into some sort of hellish dreamscape. There’s a pinkish-red coloration to the film from this point on. While hiding in a shed, Dora begins to hear voices, the monsters demanding they give her the baby. They begin chanting "Blood for baby!" This leads to much bizarre birthing imagery. One nightmare has Robert Patrick handing the girl a creepy, deformed fetus. There’s a long sequence where she wanders through billowing white sheets. While looking in a mirror, the girl’s reflection begins to talk to her. There are many odd scenes that go on but add little to the plot. Though capable of scares, “Hellions” is too willing to just get weird instead.

Another disappointment is that “Hellions’ isn’t Halloween-y enough. The early scenes, before the evil trick-or-treaters show up, have some nice atmosphere. The small town setting features lots of cool looking Jack O’Lanterns. At some point in the weird nether-verse, Dora is runs through a field of huge, exploding pumpkins. The exact purpose of the Hellions isn’t expounded on, which is fine. Mostly, I want to know why the demons choose Halloween as their night to cut loose. The film makes no attempt to tie in Celtic or Satanic Panic-style mythology to the monsters. Why set the film on Halloween then? On the plus side, Chloe Rose is likable enough as the heroine, managing to carry the whole movie without too much trouble. Robert Patrick is cool too, when he shows up.

I was hoping for more from “Hellions.” Director Bruce McDonald definitely has the skills for horror flicks. When focusing on straight-up thrills, this one works quite well. However, the director quickly looses focus, taking the story to these odd-ball, bizarre places. Of all the non-franchise Halloween horror flicks, “Hellions” is unlikely to rank very highly even if it has some interesting ideas. [6/10]

Halloween 2015: October 29

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1992)

Once again, I begin a review with a childhood anecdote. As a youngster, our VHS copy of “Buff the Vampire Slayer” frequently found its way into my VCR. I was such a fan that when Joss Whedon’s critically acclaimed and cultishly beloved TV series premiered, I was generally dismissive of it. Judging by the commercials, the show seemed to lack the humor of the movie. It took years for me to warm up to the show. Of course, Sarah Michelle Gellar’s Buffy is the one most people love, the one upon which a cult following is built around. Joss Whedon, and accordingly some of his fans, are dismissive of the original movie. I’m taking a bold stance, you guys: It’s okay to like both and, some days, I even prefer this version.

Buffy is a L.A. teenager, a cheerleader, whose favorite hobby is wasting time at the mall with her equally vaporous friends. She’s seemingly unaware of the strange murders happening around the city. When an older man named Merrick appears to her, referring to her as the chosen one, all of that changes. Buffy soon discovers that she is the Slayer, a girl chosen by fate to slay vampires. Her destiny puts her on a collision course with Lothos, an especially powerful and evil vampire. Merrick endeavors to train her in time while Buffy struggles to balance monster fighting with a normal high school life.

After the TV version of “Buffy” found success and popularity, creator Joss Whedon would occasionally say not-so-nice things about this movie. About how his script was heavily rewritten and the finished film doesn’t represent his original vision. Okay, maybe. Yet the most memorable thing about 1992’s “Buffy” is its sarcastic, frequently hilarious dialogue. Like “Heathers” before it, the film creates intentionally exaggerated, silly and trendy slang for the teens, giving them their own language. Conversations about the environment or hairy old moles greatly amuse. The interaction between flighty, girlish Buffy and her grave, serious Watcher Merrick provides plenty of laughs. People make fun of the training montage but it’s another stand-out moment, the sequence quickly making it clear that Buffy still has a lot to learn about vampire slaying. Buffy’s smart-ass response to the master vampire’s threat is another favorite of mine. Even the high school principal gets plenty of big laughs, especially during his rambling monologue about dropping acid. The point is “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” is a very funny movie and remains funny throughout its run time.

Which I suppose runs counter to the movie’s goal as a horror film. As a horror movie, “Buffy” never quite gets scare. Occasionally, it develops an eerie feeling. Buffy has reoccurring nightmares about Lothos, one of which has the vampire appearing in her bed. A later scene has the same vampire floating above a potential victim. A scene set in a parade float warehouse also features a creepy, giant squirrel. However, the vampires are never frightening, if they were even meant to be. As an action flick, “Buffy” is more successful. Yes, it’s very obvious when Kristy Swanson is traded out for her stunt-double. Yet the action scenes are usually pretty likable. Buffy flipping, kicking, or staking vampires has a nice appeal to her. Her final fight with the main villain is especially satisfying, as it features a big ass sword and creative use of a flag pole. As far as horror or action goes, “Buffy” doesn’t blow you away but it scratches a certain itch.

Most of the above wouldn’t have worked without the film’s phenomenal cast. Kristy Swanson has the perfect mixture of funny and brave. Her Buffy starts out as very flippant but soon develops a nonchalant heroic side that I like. She has phenomenal chemistry with Donald Sutherland as Merrick. An exchange about the Watcher’s eternal life is both hilarious and touching. Rutger Hauer can do slow-boiling malevolence and manic evil easily. What I really like about his performance is the off-hand humor he reveals. Truthfully, the M.V.P. of “Buffy” is a near-unrecognizable Paul Reubens as Lothos’ lackey. His pervy attitude works well when confronting the heroine in a hallway or bemoaning his torn jacket. Truthfully, his prolonged, improvised death scene is the comedic high-light of the movie. Even Luke Perry, hardly the most versatile performer, comes off pretty well. After all, Perry gets to deliver immortal lines like “Dude, you’re floating!” and “Now, you’re a coat rack.”

So that’s that. I really like the original “Buffy” movie. Obviously, it lacks the dramatic depth and rich characterization the television show would strive for. It also lacks the contrived melodrama that would sometimes make the series a chore to watch. Maybe it’s nostalgia talking but I find the film to be really funny and entertaining. Don’t let the Whedon faithful crowd turn you off it. Give 1992’s “Buffy” a shot and you may like it! [7/10]

The Sect (1991)
La setta

After watching “The Church," it only makes sense to continue on to Michele Soavi’s next film, “The Sect.” The two films have more in common then just their director. Both are religious-themed horror films. “The Church” is about a cursed church. “The Sect” is about a satanic sect. Both films share a co-writing credit with Dario Argento. In Japan, “The Sect” was even released as the fourth film in the “Demons” series, just as “The Church” was released as “Demons 3.” However, there’s one big difference. While “The Church” is well-regarded as a cult classic of Italian horror, “The Sect” has never caught on to the same degree. This may be because the film has never received a proper DVD release in the States.

In the seventies, a satanic cult led by a man named Damon murdered and sacrifice a family of hippy youths in the American desert. More then twenty years later, a school teacher named Miriam moves into a new home in the woods of Germany. After nearly hitting an old man with her car, she invites him back to her home. He uncovers a hidden room in her basement, containing a deep well of blue water. The old man dies but not before leaving a present for the woman. Soon, she begins to see and experience some very strange things. Unwillingly, Miriam has found herself at the center of an occult conspiracy.

About the only problem I had with “The Church,” a movie I otherwise liked a lot, was that it could never bring its various subplots together into a coherent whole. “The Sect” has a similar issue but in a different way. Unlike “The Church,” which had no clear protagonist, “The Sect” is clearly about Miriam. The film follows her closely and she’s in nearly every scene. However, “The Sect” still suffers from a lack of focus. Occasionally, the story rambles off to side characters, none of which have a clear connection to the main plot. Weird or creepy things happen to Miriam for little rhyme or reason. Some characters even return from the dead in ways that aren’t clearly defined. “The Sect” concentrates into a stable story in its last half-hour, after over an hour of the audience being confused. It’s a bit too little, too late. Listen, I don’t mind some dream logic or lack of coherence in my horror movies, especially Italian ones. Reading that “The Sect” was written by three different people with ideas totally at odds with each other explains a lot. The film feels like an unfocused jumble of disconnected ideas.

Despite that, powerful images still emerge from time to time. This is still a Michele Soavi film so, naturally, it’s frequently beautiful. The director employs his trade-mark tracking shots fantastically. One instant has the camera tracking plumping inside the house all the way out to a sink faucet. Another scene follows a bug as it crawls inside someone’s body. There’s an especially effective dreams sequence. Miriam awakes in a green field, wanders towards a tree where a Christ-like person hangs, before falling backwards. Her dress suddenly stretches on endlessly, black cords crawling up it towards her body. Soavi doesn’t back away from visceral horror either. A death shroud springs to life, wrapping itself around someone’s face, strangling the life out of them. Later, a dead body leaps up, suddenly, violently attacking someone. An attacker does not let go of a moving vehicle, stabbing at the driver even as he’s dragged along. Probably the most disturbing moment in “The Sect” involves hooks meticulously being inserted into a victim’s face, climaxing with her skin being torn away. Soavi shoots all of it expertly, lending the carnage a certain art. Each sequence is calculated to be as unnerving as possible.

In his next film, “Cemetery Man,” Soavi would create a film full of symbols with complex, layered meanings. In this sense, “The Sect” could be considered a predecessor. Miriam has a pet rabbit, a symbol of both child-like innocence and pagan fertility. (One amusingly bizarre scene has the rabbits flicking through TV channels with a remote.) The satanic cult, meanwhile, is associated with beetles that crawl inside people’s heads, laying worms in their brain. Miriam’s water turns blue after the cult messes with it, gross slime floating inside it. In the movie’s weirdest turn, a hook-billed crane symbolizes the devil. This builds towards a scene where – I’m not kidding here – Miriam is raped by the bird. Some of these symbols have more easily understood meanings then others. That Soavi was willing to pack a story that wasn’t much more then a “Rosemary’s Baby” rip-off with such symbols speaks positively of him. What it all means exactly is another story entirely.

The performances are quite good. Even while dubbed, it’s clear that Kelly Curtis and Herbert Lom are solid actors. The film has no shortage of memorable sequences, it’s well shot, and the music is good. Despite everything it has going for it, “The Sect” never collects into a fully satisfying whole. This is most apparent in its baffling, non-sequitur ending. For his next movie, Soavi would stop collaborating with Dario Argento. In retrospect, maybe he should’ve ended the partnership sooner. [6/10]

The Queen of Spades (1949)

The horror genre can lead in all sorts of unexpected directions. This late in October, I wouldn’t expect to be watching a movie based off the works of Alexander Pushkin, the most respected of Russian poets. But here we are. Many critics list ‘The Queen of Spades” as a notable, landmark ghost story. The story’s literary roots are evident in its other adaptations. There have been three Russian adaptations and the story has inspired two operas. Yet the 1949 film version is regarded as the best.

In the eighteen hundreds, the card game of Faro has become very popular among soldiers in the Russian army. Herman Suvorin is very serious about his gambling and hopes to make it rich playing cards. In a book of occult writing, he reads about an old countess who sold her soul to the devil in exchange for never loosing at cards. Locating the old woman, Herman devises a plan to seduce the countess’ ward, in order to get close to the old woman and learn her secret.

“The Queen of Spades” is one of the best looking films from the forties that I’ve ever seen. It is gorgeously shot. The film is bathed in shadows. Characters peer around corners in darkened rooms, the actors shot from stylized angles. The direction is way more dynamic then you’d expect from this time period. The pans are smooth, the camera moving in a poetic fashion around the scenes. “Queen of Spades” is shot like a noir, expressive in its darkness. It’s a dark story of greed and manipulation and the film itself follows that thought. Befitting a period film, “Queen of Spades” has opulent production values, full of beautiful costumes, rooms, and parties. In short, this is one good looking movie, both in terms of style and production designs.

To call “Queen of Spades” a horror movie is slightly misleading. For most of its run time, the film is about a very bad man manipulating a perfectly innocent woman for totally selfish reasons. Yes, there is a love triangle. While Herman courts Lizaveta solely to get close to the countess, his friend Andrei actually has genuine feelings for her. (This subplot also features some on-the-nose symbolism about a caged bird.) However, “Queen of Spades” doesn’t lack spooky moments. While reading about the Countess’ deal with the devil, we see images of an old, cobweb-strewn building where a man assembles creepy dolls. Later, as the old woman attempts to go to sleep, Herman approaches her. Though not outright sinister, the sequence is shot in a creepy fashion, the black and white contrast being extremely high. This builds towards a hugely impressive sequence of mounting dread. After the Countess’ death, Herman sits alone in his room. Suddenly, the area is quiet. Footsteps are heard down the hall. Wind blows and windows creak. It’s classic horror stuff but pulled off in astonishing fashion. Though the movie is as much costume drama as ghost story, this one hugely impressive sequence solidifies “Queen of Spades’” reputation as a horror classic.

The acting is theatrical but involving. Anton Walbrook is powerful as Herman, a man so gripped by greed that he is willing to break any moral ground if it’ll make him richer. Walbrook’s performance is extremely controlled, the character’s every movement calculated. I also like Yvonne Mitchell as the poor girl strung along by his scheme. There’s a powerful sequence where, after the Countess’ death, Herman confesses his ploy. While Lizaveta cries out in disbelief, he is still struck by the Countess dying before he could learn her secret. “Queen of Spades” builds towards a moral about the price of avarice. Like an extremely classy “Tales from the Crypt” issue, “Queen of Spades” ends with the asshole getting his just desserts. However, the story stops of anything more explicit. There are no ghastly ghosts back from the grave for revenge. Greed makes humans monstrous on their own.

I have no idea if “The Queen of Spades’ will appeal to most horror fans. It’s a slower story and its supernatural elements take a while to reveal themselves. However, I loved it. The film is beautifully shot, a pleasure to watch just based on its visual. The acting is wonderfully entertaining, if you’re on the right wavelength. As Halloween mood setting, “Queen of Spades’ is hugely successful, a series of spooky imagery building in intensity. The crossover between fans of horror and Russian literature is probably pretty small but everyone else in that Venn diagram loves “Queen of Spades” a bunch too, I bet! [9/10]

Halloween 2015: October 28

The Church (1989)

I’m a big fan of “StageFright,” the first proper horror film Michele Soavi made, and an even bigger fan of “Cemetery Man,” his last credit before working exclusively in Italian televison. Weirdly, I’ve never seen the two religious horror films Soavi made in-between those features. The Six Weeks of Halloween is for correcting oversights like this. “The Church” was the first time Soavi collaborated on a screenplay with Dario Argento, the filmmaker he had acted or assistant directed under many times before. “The Church” would prove to be Soavi’s break-out hit, marking him as the proper heir to Argento’s throne as the Italian master of visually innovative, poetic, and viscerally gruesome horror. Conceived as the third film in the “Demons” series – one of at least three movies claiming that title – the film was released as a stand-alone story at least in Italy and the States. I probably should’ve seen it way before now.

In the center of a modern German city stands a massive, ancient, elaborate cathedral. Hundreds of years ago, the church was built upon a mass grave of innocent people murdered as witches. The church’s new librarian looks into the building’s history, when not pursuing a romance with the female archaeologist excavating the place. He uncovers a strange crypt in the church’s basement. When he breaks the seal, he is overcome by a demonic force. Soon, the same Satanic influence begins to affect everyone inside the church. When the sacristan brutally kills himself, his blood activates an old mechanism which locks the place’s only exit. Now, a group of normal people are trapped inside the church with very old and very evil forces.

The reason Soavi was the logical successor to Argento’s title is that both filmmakers share a unique visual sense. “The Church” is full of moments that are equally poetic, kinetic, or gruesome. After the extended opening, the camera rushes up from the underground cross, through the floors of the church, onto its main floor. When Evan is overcome by the demonic force, he pulls his own heart out, holding it above a blood red sky. The camera then speeds through the city’s streets, coming to the girlfriend’s home. The film’s deft touch for gory spectacle manifests when an old woman bangs her husband’s decapitated head against a bell. Or a man impales himself on a jack hammer, an extended and brutal scene. Or a priest falls from a balcony, landing on a pointed spire below. Or a woman has her head smashed against a speeding train. Mostly, “The Church” is full of creepy, unsettling imagery. A demonic goat appears outside a widow. Later, the same monster slowly makes love with a hypnotized woman. A biker’s girlfriend appears nude, wrapped in the arms of a winged demon. Piles of muddy, bloody bodies emerge from the cathedrals’ bowels. These unnerving images lend “The Church” a strange, creeping sense of unease. The movie is genuinely spooky for most of its run time.

This is despite a script that can best be described as scatterbrained. “The Church’s” story barely makes any sense. It basically boils down to the bad juju in the church making all sorts of weird, creepy shit happen. A major problem with the movie is that there’s no defined protagonist. At first, Evan the new librarian seems to be the main character. The movie even devotes time to his romance with Lisa. On the other hand, Evan is the first person to become possessed and disappears for the rest of the movie. Hugh Quarshie’s heroic priest gets top billing and resolves the story. However, he doesn’t do much besides that. The sacristan’s daughter may be the main character. We follow her for most of the run time. Asia Argento, even at only fourteen years old, is still the most captivating actor in the movie. Yet she never drives the plot, merely reacting to it. In the second half, there’s over a dozen people in the church. There’s a biker, his girlfriend, a bride and her wedding party, a teacher, her students, an elderly couple, the priests, and probably a few others. Time is split between each of them, leading to a lack of focus just when “The Church” is truly ramping up.

Italy is, obviously, the most Catholic country in the world. Weirdly, you don’t see more Italian horror films commenting on Catholicism. “The Church,” however, breaks this trend. The movie begins with a clan of Christian knights massacring an entire village of people with little reasoning. The cruelties and indignities of the Catholic Church inform the backbone of the film. Many people have been tortured and persecuted in the name of God. The exact source of the evil in “The Church” is never outright stated. However, it’s implied that the demonic forces come not from the supposed witches but instead from the cruelty inflicted on them by the church. “The Church” seems more then willing to use classic Catholic imagery in an effort to unnerve. The demons and monsters seem inspired by bizarre, medieval frescoes of demons and the devil. Hooded men, standing around and chanting, take on a sinister quality even before the weird shit starts happening. “The Church” acknowledges that Catholicism is kind of weird and then twists the religion into startling, strange, unnerving directions.

Despite some plotting problems, “The Church” is hugely successful as a creepy, visual horror show. Soavi inflicts some truly strange and eerie imagery on the audience. The film cultivates an unnerving atmosphere that never truly lets up. It’s also full of inventive slaughter and sleazy nudity, if those are the things you’re looking for. Truthfully, the only horror fans likely to be disappointed in “The Church” are those that demand constant coherence and logic from their movies. And if you’re an Italian horror fan, you probably aren’t too invested in those things, anyway. [8/10]

The Monster of Piedras Blancas (1959)

When I was reading Fangoria as a teenager, they had this thing called the Chainsaw Awards. Basically, the fans would vote for what they considered the best horror films from the past year. (It was an inspiration for own silly genre award show, the Phantom Awards.) Apparently, horror fans have always felt the need to give fake awards to movies they like. Back in 1959, Famous Monsters magazine – the prototype for all horror mags – awarded “The Monster of Piedras Blancas” the Shock Award. The makers of the film were so proud of this achievement that they slapped the award right there on the poster. Though obscure even by monster kid standards, “The Monster of Piedras Blancas” does have a minor cult following.

Piedras Blancas is a real place, a seaside outpost near the California town of San Simeon. The location is most famous for its light house. In “The Monster of Piedras Blancas,” the town is a sleepy location full of normal people, going about their lives. Like lighthouse keeper Sturges or his comely daughter Lucy. However, the town is shocked when headless bodies are discovered along the coast. It turns out the caves around Piedras Blancas are home to an inhuman, reptilian monster. Now, the creature has developed a hobby of collecting people’s heads. How is the lonely lighthouse keeper connected to the deadly beast?

“The Monster of Piedras Blancas” was a low budget independent monster movie, made primarily by craftsman and workers recently laid off by Universal Studios. Accordingly, the movie resembles many late period Universal sci-fi or monster movies. Like “The Monolith Monsters,” the small town setting proves charming. Piedras Blancas is a place where everyone shops at the same small store. The only place to go at nights is the local bar and the neighborhood priest is on a first name basis with everyone. Moreover, the movie cooks up a cute mythology for its titular critter. Like the Gill-man, the monster is said to be a remnant survivor of a long since extinct species. Real diplovertebrons were crocodile-like amphibians, while the movie’s monster is a pig-faced monster man. All throughout the film, legends of the monster are traded. Nobody believes them at first but, naturally, the creature soon proves itself real. Silly quasi-science and hokey small town settings might put some viewers off. I find them fun.

Like a lot of indie horror flicks of the time, “The Monster of Piedras Blancas” features some oddball characters. Most notable is Kochek, the eccentric storekeeper. He keeps talking about the monster, annoying everyone with the lore, until the monster finally comes for him. (Kochek sounds a lot like Kolchak and his constant talk of monsters amused me.) John Harmon plays the lonely lighthouse keeper, whose only friend in the world is his dog and his daughter. Harmon is somewhat gruff but secretly has a compassionate heart. I also like Forrest Lewis as the town’s constable, who is more confused then disturbed by the monster’s grisly murders. He’s also tough enough to survive an up-close encounter with the beast. There’s even a little dark humor, like when a funeral for two of the monster’s victims is interrupted by news of the monster’s latest murder. Not all the performances are fun. Les Tremayne is a snore as the boring scientist hero. Jeanne Carmen, as screaming damsel Lucy, was likely cast more for her looks then her acting abilities.

The setting is comfy and the performances are mostly neat. Yet the monster obviously steals the show. The creature suit was designed by Jack Kevan, who worked on many Universal B-flicks of the time. Apparently, “The Monster of Piedras Blancas” utilized left-over pieces from “This Island Earth” and “The Mole People!” Yet it’s an appealing design, with his hog-like snout, canine-esque jaws, and barely visible devil horns. The monster is even slightly sympathetic, as we learn it is killing only because its regular food supply was cut off. Notably, the film is far gorier then you’d expect from 1959. Decapitation is the Monster’s preferred method of killing and bloody, severed heads put in multiple appearances. The whole thing ends with a shoot-out at that famous lighthouse.

It doesn’t break any new ground. Truthfully, the film is proudly derivative of older, better movies. Monster fans don’t necessarily demand a lot. The creature looks cool, cool enough to warrant many model kits over the years. The black-and-white photography is nicely atmospheric. The setting is appealing. It’s unambitious but, watched late at night with a handful of popcorn, it certainly satisfies. [7/10]

Little Monsters (1989)

Kids do not have the most discriminating taste. They basically watch anything as long as it tickles some sort of primal pleasure center, usually via bright colors, loud comedy, or repetitive fantasy violence. If something does this especially well, kids will watch it over and over again. As a child, I had a dark, washed-out copy of “Little Monsters,” recorded from a rental tape. I watched the movie many times until the tape worn out. Weirdly, after a certain age, I didn’t return to “Little Monsters” much. Revisiting the flick as a grown-up, it’s the first time I’ve thought – much less watched – the movie in years.

Brian is a kid in the seven-to-ten range. He lives with his little brother Eric and his mom and dad. Eric is oblivious but Brian can see that his parents’ marriage is starting to crack apart. Not helping matters is someone getting up to mischief at night. Brian’s bike is wrecked and someone left ice cream in the pantry. Soon, Brian realizes that he has a monster living under his bed. The monster, named Maurice, is actually quite friendly. He introduces Brian to the underground world of monsters, where there are no bed times, kids can do whatever they want, and lots of manic fun can always be had. Of course, this comes with a price. Brian soon discovers not every monster is as friendly as Maurice.

Like I said, kids are easy to amuse. “Little Monsters” is definitely a kid’s movie. When Maurice first appears, he starts shouting and yelling rapidly, leaping around the room. The character stays in this mode throughout most of the film, Howie Mandel pushing his shtick to its extreme. When he pulls Brian into the monster world, yet more goofy, hyper shenanigans occur. “Little Monsters” is also fairly crass for a PG flick. There are fart jokes and multiple references to boogers and ear wax. One scene even has Maurice peeing in a bottle. There’s also a bit more profanity then you might expect. Like a kid’s movie, “Little Monsters” features the easily defined roles of the genre. Brian is the lazy-but-brilliant hero, there’s his tom girl love interest, nerdy friend, and the obnoxious bully. Still, “Little Monsters” is an eighties kid’s flick. That’s significant. The subplot about the parents breaking up informs most of the story. Eventually, a moral about growing up arises. I’m not saying it rises above its genre. The film is actually entirely typical of its time and place.

Watching as an adult, what I most liked about “Little Monsters” is its production design. The world of the monsters is mostly composed of rickety staircases, run down and damaged. The closer the characters get to the villain’s lair, the more surreal the place becomes. There’s even some “Caligari’-esque jagged landscapes. There’s a weird, desolate, and crowded look to the place. The entire dimension is shot through a reddish-brown color filter, creating an interestingly subterranean feeling. The monsters themselves are memorably weird. Maurice, just for one, dresses like a New Wave/Punk kid. Most of the monsters have blue skin, curving horns, or spots all over their bodies. One minor character has a head like a rotted pumpkin. Another appears to be an over-sized cockroach. None of the make-up will blow your mind but the creature designs have their own odd charm.

“Little Monsters” is loosely plotted. There’s not much drive to the story. The film mostly concern itself with Brian and Maurice getting into nasty fun. To show you how lackadaisical the plotting is, the villain Snik isn’t introduced until an hour into the movie. At some point, Brian doubts his monster friend’s habits and fears he may be turning into a monster himself. This plot point is mostly dropped by the end. In the last act, “Little Monsters” shows a surprising willingness to get weird and creepy. The villainous monsters kidnap Brian’s little brother. He goes and confronts the main baddie. The character is named Boy and dresses in a prep school uniform. At first, he appears relatively human but a closer inspection reveals gory flesh raising through his skin. Later, he tears his face off, revealing a monstrous visage underneath. His room is full of toys that spring to life and attack the kids. Not quickly though. Instead, the wicked teddy bears or toy tanks slowly move into place. Obviously meant to be a symbol of arrested development, Boy is definitely one of the weirdest and creepiest bad guys in eighties kid’s fiction.

Of course, the bad guys are vanquished and the heroes prevail. There’s a lot of goofy kid movie antics in the last act of “Little Monsters,” contrasting weirdly with the movie’s creepiness. The film is too long, at 101 minutes. This could have been solved easily is the overly long epilogue had been clipped down. I’m not sure if “Little Monsters” is a good movie. The script is sloppy, the characters are simplistic, the tone is inconsistent, and the performances are broad. I can see why it appealed to my younger self though, with its obnoxious humor and odd creature designs. Adult me doesn’t like it anywhere near as much but I do appreciate certain aspects of it. [6/10]