Director Report Card: Tobe Hooper (1993) Part 2

13. Body Bags  
Co-directed with John Carpenter

I think I’ve told this story before. In fact, I know I have because I already reviewed “Body Bags” back in 2013. During my John Carpenter Director Report Card, I watched the film and reviewed the two segments Carpenter directed, as well as the wrap-around sequences he appeared in. I excluded the one segment Tobe Hooper directed because I knew, some day, that I would cover Hooper’s career. That day has come but there’s no way I’m just going to talk about the one story Hooper directed. That’s not like me. So get ready for Zack’s Review of “Body Bags:” Take Two, in which I once again dissect Showtime’s failed attempt to replicate the success of “Tales from the Crypt.”

There’s no doubt in my mind that “Body Bags” was created by Showtime to cash in on the success HBO had with “Tales from the Crypt.” Lacking the library of grisly EC Comics to draw from, the would-be series instead invented another gimmick. The show attracted top-tier horror talent. John Carpenter would host as the Coroner and directed two parts of the pilot movie. Even though Tobe Hooper’s career defining hits of “Texas Chain Saw Massacre” and “Poltergeist” seemed eons away at this point, he was still a name horror fans knew. The show would also feature well known horror directors in front of the camera. Aside from Carpenter’s main role and Hooper’s cameo, Wes Craven, Sam Raimi, and Roger Corman also had bit parts in the pilot movie. (Years later, “Masters of Horror” would lead a similar concept to slightly more success.) For whatever reason though, Showtime didn’t pick “Body Bags” up for series, leaving this tri-segmented movie as the sole reminder of the potential show’s existence.

The clear debt “Body Bags” owed “Tales from the Crypt” is most obvious in its framing device. Instead of an animatronic Crypt Keeper cracking lame puns and performing goofy skits, we have John Carpenter’s Coroner doing a similar shtick. Instead of drawing his stories from a tome filled with grisly comic book pages, the Coroner relates the cause of death of recent arrivals to the morgue. Each body bag contains a different victim with a different story behind it, guaranteeing that each story will include at least one violent death. That’s a solid premise for an anthology series. Carpenter, though not accustomed to being in front of the camera, happily hams it up as the Coroner. His goofball antics tickle the same part of my brain that finds John Kassir’s Crypt Keeper so amusing. Except for that joke devoted to ogling female corpses, one of which has giant jiggling breasts. That’s kind of uncomfortable.

The first segment in “Body Bags” is directed by Carpenter. “The Gas Station” takes place in a particularly creepy example of the titular location. Anne has recently accepted a job as the night clerk at a filling station. That the cashier is behind bullet proof glass unnerves her slightly, though she doesn’t show it. The stories of grisly murders and a serial killer being out and about unnerves her too. As the night goes on, she has encounters with more creepy customers. It’s all build-up to that serial killer targeting her, littering the filling stations with bodies and chasing after Anne with a machete.

“The Gas Station” is littered with in-jokes. Craven and Raimi’s cameos are only the most obvious. The eponymous business is a few miles outside Haddonfield, Illinois. As in, the setting of “Halloween.” After the story’s serial killer is knocked down, he slowly rises back up in the background of a shot. This, of course, mirrors a similar shot in Carpenter’s most well-known masterpiece. In many ways, “The Gas Station” almost plays like a parody of the slasher movie, the genre Carpenter popularized. The encounters Anna has with spooky customers are so blatantly creepy that it borders on silly. Two peek-a-boo corpses appear in quick succession. As with Dr. Loomis and Laurie, a man arrives at the last minute to save the shrieking woman’s life. Instead of a masked spectre of death, the killer in “The Gas Station” is a grinning, glad-handing store manager. Despite clearly going for laughs, the segment still generates some okay suspense, such as when the killer smashes through a window, the heroine trying to escape.

Despite the silly script, “The Gas Station” features an above average cast. Alex Datcher’s Anna does need a man to save her life. Before that, she’s a reasonably resourceful, amusing horror heroine. It’s clear that the night’s increasing frights undue her composure. Robert Carradine, David’s brother best known for “Revenge of the Nerds,” plays Bill, the murderer. Contrasting Carradine’s unassuming appearance with the character’s murderous antics is a cute visual gag. Carradine proves surprisingly adapt at being a killer too, playing Bill with an ever-lasting psychotic grin. David Naughton is underutilized as the guy who saves Anna, not doing much more then showing up when appropriate. Wes Craven’s cameo, for which he’s credited as “Pasty-Faced Man,” is funny and Carpenter regular George "Buck" Flower appears as a creepy bum.

If “The Gas Station” is partially comedic, Carpenter’s second story goes for full-blown laughs. The unimaginatively entitled “Hair” stars Stacy Keach as Richard, a man going bald. This turn of events upsets him greatly, even though his girlfriend says she doesn’t mind. All his attempts to cure this condition, which include a moldy hair piece and viscous spray-on hair in a can, prove unpopular. A late night TV advertisement leads him to Dr. Lock. Lock and his nurse implant new hair on Richard’s head, a flowing mane that is irresistible to woman. Though overjoyed with this development at first, Richard is startled by the rapid growth of the hair. He develops a sore throat. Soon, he discovers his new hair is actually worm-like creatures, eating his body from the inside out.

“Hair” is an especially ridiculous goof about the fragility of the male ego. Loosing your hair has no effect on your health or age. Richard, however, thinks of it as the end of the world. It’s a sign that he’s getting older, that his masculine vitality is fading, and that’s what really bothers him. Though that’s a premise with potential, “Hair” doesn’t go for deep-cutting gags about macho entitlement. Instead, its jokes are of a rather broad variety. Richard has a quasi-gay hairdresser cut his hair. After having his toupee discarded, we’re treated to a slow motion montage of other people with streaming, flaxen, waxen hair. The eventual reveal that the hair implants are actually worm like monsters is silly. However, the stop-motion effects that create them are fairly charming.

Stacy Keach is not an actor especially well-known for comedy. However, in “Hair,” he acquaints himself with the script’s silliness quite amicably. His exaggerated dismay at his thinning hairline is worth a few laughs. He’s a good sport, such as when he’s covered in strands of long hair. Also appearing in the segment is David Warner as Dr. Lock. Warner brings his usual level of professionalism to the part, even when he’s reduced to delivering flat exposition. Weirdly, pop singers are cast in the female leads. Shenna Easton plays Keach’s girlfriend, doing okay but not convincing us she’s a great actress. Debbie Harry plays Lock’s nurse. Harry mugs it up to entertaining levels, delivering enthusiastic dialogue.

The final story in “Body Bags” is directed by Tobe Hooper, the subject of this report card. The also unimaginatively entitled “Eye” concerns Brent Matthews. A star baseball player, Brent looses his right eye in a car accident. Brent is despondent, convinced that his career is over. However, his doctor tells him surgery is possible, transporting a fresh eye into Brent’s empty socket. His life appears to be looking up, especially after his wife informs him she’s pregnant. However, Brent is haunted by macabre visions of dead bodies. His behavior soon turns moody and violent. He discovers that his eye was taken from an executed serial killer and it appears the dead murderer’s spirit is seizing control of Matthew’s body.

“Eye” is a fairly unimaginative affair, being more-or-less another variation on the old “Hands of Orlac” story. If you’re looking for Tobe Hooper trademarks, you’ll have to search deep. There’s no detailed production design and little in the way of expressive camera movement. The visions of dead bodies appearing to Brent are stock parts horror stuff. How he discovers his eyeball’s murderous origins is especially ludicrous, being told by a librarian how to look stuff up on a computer.  The script’s preoccupation with Bible verses seems out of place with the rest of the plot. The story’s descent into last act melodrama might speak to Hooper’s kooky side. By the time you’ve got Mark Hamil tying Twiggy to a table leg by her hair and threatening to murder her with scissors, “Eye” has escalated to an amusingly pulpy location. I also like the flashbacks to the killer’s childhood, which is the sole moment of interesting camerawork in the film.

As mentioned above, “Eye” stars the once and future Luke Skywalker. Mark Hamil’s performance could have used some more of that “Midnight Ride”-style manic villainy. As he goes more nuts, “Eye” becomes more entertaining. For most of the story, Hamil sports an unconvincing Southern accent and a truly dad-worthy mustache. Yes, the original supermodel Twiggy plays his wife. She brings an alright motherly warmth to the part even if the script doesn’t ask her to do much. John Agar has a bit role as the doctor who performs Hamil’s surgery. It would’ve been nice to see the genre legend do more then nonchalantly tell Hamil his eye is from a serial killer. That’s still more then Roger Corman, who has a similar cameo, does.

None of the stories in “Body Bags” are mind-blowing or ground-breaking. Yet none of them are terrible either. There all simple horror snacks, satisfying if lacking in meaningful calories. I don’t know if “Body Bags” could’ve worked as a series, as all three of the film’s stories never quite raise to the level of some of the better “Tales from the Crypt” episodes. But would I have watched an on-going “Body Bags?” Almost assuredly, if only to see what morbid puns Carpenter’s Coroner cooked up each week. And, hey, the flick does feature a pretty good theme song, naturally provided by John. I promise I won’t review this movie again. [Grade: B]

Director Report Card: John Carpenter (2010)

21. The Ward

Ten years is a big gap between films. There has been a handful of unrealized announcements over the years: A Nicolas Cage action film. A cop thriller that was going to be both a movie and a video game. None of these came to fruition. For a long time, it seemed like John Carpenter was never going to direct another movie. And then, out of nowhere, “The Ward” was announced. By all accounts, those two “Masters of Horror” episodes got Carpenter interested in movie making again.

Sadly, the general reception for “The Ward” was lukewarm. The J-horror sounding premise and pretty girl cast didn’t exactly excite me from the beginning. So I went into the film with muted expectations. By the time I got around to seeing it, everyone knew this wasn't Carpenter's proud return to cinema. Ultimately, I kind of liked it, with a lot of reservations. Maybe it was just the low expectations. It’s far from the director’s best movie but not without its own charms.

The story is fairly unremarkable, the kind of thing we were seeing a lot of in horror through the last decade. A 1960s mental hospital full of skinny white girls has a dark secret. A vengeful ghost is haunting the titular ward and slowly widdling away at the cast of said skinny white girls. Kristen, the feisty new arrival, is determined to get to the bottom of things and has no problem challenging the sinister hospital staff, who are clearly in on things. It’s a sexy horror version of “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” practically.

More disconcerting then the unremarkable story is the movie’s over reliance on jump scares. There are a lot of them and they are all very loud. Constantly throughout the movie, things jump out of the corner of the screen, always accompanied by a very loud shriek on the soundtrack. It happens over and over again. Carpenter has proven to very skilled at creating a lingering atmosphere of dread. One of his movie’s relying so much on cheap, frankly annoying, jump scares is a bit shameful.

The movie has a general lack of the classic Carpenter style. Few of his trademarks are present. There’s a single tracking shot midway through. Unsurprisingly, it's one of the best scenes in the film, a joyous little dance number that shows the cast coming together in a realistic, unobtrusive way. Carpenter didn't even contribute to the score. Instead, Mark Kilian provides music that is forgettable when it isn't bashing you over the head.

Despite these problems, I found myself liking the characters. Each one of the girls, while potentially a cliché, still proves to be interesting. I’ve never been a fan of Amber Heard before. I usually find her tough girl act to be tiresome, but it works here. The authorities actually do seem to be up to something which gives her reason to struggle. She is quickly position as the strongest of the girls and becomes their protector, giving her a good reason to struggle. Moreover, Heard plays nicely off the other girls. Eventually, a real sense of sisterhood forms among the cast.

Lyndsy Fonseca as the bookish Iris was probably my favorite. She’s definitely the friendliest of the girls, the first one to open up to Heard. However, she can't mask her nerves and anxiety, adding depth to both the character and the performance. I also liked Mamie Gummer as Emily. She’s also a deeply neurotic character but instead covers her insecurities with a stand-off-ish personality. Gummer successfully portrays someone whose defensive traits are just barely concealing a mental breakdown. She’s deeply protective of the other girls and doesn’t want to stick her nose in anything that will stir up problems. Danielle Panabaker as the slutty Sara and Laura-Leigh as the deeply traumatized, infantilized Zoey both have a lot less material to work with. However, both actresses do a good job with what they’re given.

The most notable thing the movie is that each girl manages to be memorable, likeable characters. “The Ward” is an ensemble movie the same way “The Thing” is. Deceit, suspicion, and paranoia threaten to tear the group apart but a strong leader and an outside threat makes them pull together, at least for a little while.

Once the countless jump scares finally stop, the movie manages to create a number of successful horror sequences. When the undead Alice, the vengeful ghost, stops just jumping out at people, and actually gets down to getting things done, the movie comes close to being creepy. When Alice appears, she drags the girls off and uses mental hospital equipment to do them in. The lobotomy probe and an electric shock therapy machine are frequently trotted out in order to disturb or shock the audience. While “The Ward” hardly uses them in new ways, the scenes themselves are at least effectively creepy. The shooting is tight and the editing is concise. Carpenter can still stitch together a decent horror moment, when he actually tries.

Honestly, the mixture of likable characters and some effective atmosphere got me to like the movie. As the film builds to its climax, as Kristen eventually finds herself the last girl standing, the movie builds up a decent pitch. The ghost is closing in and our heroine has to fight alone. This is classic stuff, right out of "Halloween." Nothing new or exciting, sure, but I was enjoying myself.

And then… The movie hits a brick wall in the form of an obvious, obnoxious twist ending. I’m beginning to wish that a movie could tell a tale about psychosis and multiple personality without delving to any cheap narrative trickery. Honestly, even then, I was giving this flick a lot of rope. I kept thinking, “Okay, movie, I’ll let you have your more-then-a-little-dumb twist ending, as long as you just go quietly and settle on a calm, emotional conclusion.” Nope. Here’s one more really, really stupid jump scare and: Credits. Sigh.

I’m not a Carpenter apologist. I don’t consider myself one anyway. “The Ward” legitimately charmed me in many ways. I don’t consider it a failure, even with obnoxious jump scares, a bombastic musical score, and a bad twist ending. Can a film have all of those things and still be enjoyable for the majority of its run time? I don’t know if this is the triumphant return to the screen we had hoped for from John Carpenter, but it’s not a bad return. Let’s hope his next film meshes better. [Grade: B-]

We had hoped "The Ward" would break the trend of John Carpenter getting attached to a project and then nothing coming of it. Nope. "Fangland," another vampire novel adaptation, was suppose to roll right after "The Ward." It didn't. "Darkchylde," an adaptation of some crappy nineties comic book nobody remembers or cares about, looked ready to go at one point and then... Nothing. Most recently, he's talked about wanting to turn the video game "Dead Space" into a movie. I'm not holding my breath.

And maybe that's for the best. I like the guy and, perhaps, I've given some of his later films a wider berth then most. But it's clear at this point that Carpenter is unlikely to produce another masterpiece, hope though we might. Maybe graceful retirement is a viable option after all.

That took a lot longer then expected. Why did it take me three months to finish up one report card? If you hadn't figured it out, it's because I started this before having all the reviews written. Turns out, that's not a great way to drive up my creativity. No more of that stupidity in the future. I won't start posting a Director's Report Card until I'm ready. Despite this, I do have some stuff in the bag. You'll see me again soon. I promise.

Director Report Card: John Carpenter (2001)

20. Ghosts of Mars

“Ghosts of Mars” is the only John Carpenter movie I had never seen before starting work on this report card. This is because, by all accounts, it’s wretched and widely considered the filmmaker’s worst work. However, as a fair and balanced critic, I never let any preconceived notions affect my aesthetic judgement. It was time to give “Ghosts of Mars” a fair chance.

The movie has a lot to get out of the way to set up its plot. Set in the 22nd century, on Mars, in a society ruled by women… Wait a minute, isn’t that alone more then enough to build a movie on? Yes. Yes, it is. A science fiction film about a future were women are in control of society would be fascinating. So would a movie about colonizing Mars. But that’s not what “Ghosts of Mars” is about. Instead, it's a sci-fi semi-remake of “Assault on Precinct 13.” A squad of Mars police officers head to a remote mining post to pick up a notorious criminal. Upon reaching the location, they find lots of dead bodies, a handful of locked-up crooks, and, most dangerously, a supernatural Martian ghost virus that possesses people and turn them into raging, murderous, self-mutilating zombies.

Aside from skimming over probably the most interesting parts of the story with some brief on-screen titles, the main issue with “Ghosts of Mars” is that it’s cast is far too large. We start out with five or six officers, bringing in Ice Cube’s awkwardly nick-named “Desolation” Williams. There are a few other surviving prisoners present, an exposition-dropping doctor shows up, before the rest of Desolation’s criminal crew wanders into the story. This is an action movie, so I would never expect a cast that large to get any extended developments. However, many of the characters getting absolutely no development is unacceptable. Who are the additional three prisoners in the mine? Who is the secondary male police officer? What’s the story behind Ice Cube’s buddies? The film provides no answers.

Even the main characters aren’t necessarily developed well. Natasha Henstridge’s Lt. Ballard, the protagonist, is introduced early with a drug problem, some sort of future pill that causes disorientation. This is strictly a Chekov’s Drug Addiction. The topic comes up once more and only to provide a bizarre out for a later plot development. Jason Statham, the Second-Coming of Cheesy Action Flick Stars, plays the second-in-command. Statham’s innate likability is undermined by him constantly hitting on Henstridge in skeevy ways. Whither or not this kind of attitude would develop at all in a matriarchal society is a question probably outside of a sci-fi/horror/action hybrid’s scope. The movie’s inability to make this plot development seem natural or plausible is another thing. When the movie actually tries to force these two into a romance, right in the middle of the crisis, it is truly eye-rolling.

Some of the smaller supporting characters are cartoonish. Joanna Cassidy is hopelessly miscast as Dr. Whitlock. Cassidy drops awful dialogue, never making it believable. The character wields some exposition, eventually providing an explanation for the demonic-alien-zombie plague. She disappears for large portions of the film. The trio of criminals that show up nearly an hour in are terrible. Duane Davis’ Uno has the most laughably silly lines in the movie and Davis almost seems to be intentionally playing his goofy dialogue for comedy. Rodney A. Grant’s Tres is another drug addict, which isn’t expanded on, accidently cuts his own thumb of, and gets killed not long after. Lobo Sebastian’s Dos isn’t even given that much personality.

And speaking of killing people off… There are some talented characters actresses in the supporting cast, such as personal favorite Clea DuVall and the original bad-ass babe Pam Grier. Grier dies quickly and, while DuVall sticks around for a while, she’s only given a smidge of a personality. In the last act, the movie starts slashing through the supporting cast. Characters that were important throughout most of the run-time are murdered with abandon. The survivors don’t comment on this at all and the film’s treats their deaths with as little weight. It gives you the impression that the filmmaker’s really didn’t care about these characters at all.

Henstridge actually does a decent job in the part. She’s likable and convincing. The movie mostly avoids oogling the lovely actress, which makes the extraneous underwear scene especially gratuitous. (Though not entirely unappreciated.) A scene were she beats down a zombie bare-handed gives the impression that she probably could have been a decent female action star, if the movie hadn’t have bombed so bad. That’s more then you can say for Ice Cube. He bluntly spits out most of his lines and sleepwalks through the role. He’s not believable as an action star either, blandly running around, shooting people.

How does “Ghosts of Mars” function as an action movie? Some of the fight scenes are decent, like a close-quarters shoot-out with the hordes of crazies. Others, like the gang running through the village, guns blazing and grenades blasting, come off as weirdly off-balanced. Carpenter seems unusually preoccupied with characters getting tossed into the air by explosions. The action is never incoherent but occasionally falls into the “guns go off, people fall down” style I frequently criticize.

How does “Ghosts of Mars” function as a horror movie? There are a handful of jump scares, none of which are memorable. The mutilated zombies are the main horrific elements. It’s actually a semi-interesting concept and one that was previous explored in “Return of the Living Dead 3” and would be better exploited in “Firefly” and “Serenity” later on. The make-up for most of the homicidal nutcases is fine. The script provides the baddies with a clear leader, a big guy in shoulder-pads with long hair and Alice Cooper face-paint. He’s goofier looking and given the most screen-time. The zombie make-up is better then the gore make-up, some of which is embarrassingly shoddy. I’m talking Kool-Aid clear blood and heads popping off like corks. The film’s CGI is similarly weak. A balloon crash is awkwardly matted. Red smoke clouds and exploding trains haven’t aged well, if they ever looked good to begin with.

The script stumbles. Henstridge is narrating the story to a judge. Despite this, there are several scenes were her character isn’t present, raising the question of how she knows what happened. (Not to mention the flashbacks within flashbacks.) The rules regarding the rage-creating ghost-demons aren’t well explained and sometimes vary from scene to scene. A scene giving us a glimpse at the Martians in their natural form is bizarre. The ending, with Henstridge and Cube walking off, loading guns, quipping one-liners back and forth, seems to set-up a sequel that was never going to happen.

The most disappointing thing about the film for me is how clumsy Carpenter’s direction is. There are POV shots a plenty. However, they are shaky and washed in red coloration. Instead of creating atmosphere or suspense, they come off as distracting and hokey. Dissolve transitions between scenes is repeatedly use, in a baffling decision. Even more baffling are the swipe-pan transitions used a few times at well. I don’t know what John or his editor was thinking with that one. I’m not a fan of the score, a collaboration between Carpenter and a number of heavy metal guitarist. The main theme is solidly electronic but the thrash-metal elements are generic and rob the action scenes of any tension. In the latter half, the movie’s pace really slows to a crawl, even if characters are gunning and dying on-screen.

So is “Ghosts of Mars” as bad as its reputation? Not quite. Oh, it’s bad, an embarrassment to the director’s career. It is, pretty much without question, John’s worse film. However, it’s less of a massive boondoggle and more of a mediocre bore. The critical, fan, and box office dismissal of the movie would put Carpenter off feature filmmaking for nearly a decade, not to mention all-but ending Natasha Henstridge and Ice Cube’s careers. [Grade: D+]

Director Report Card: John Carpenter (1998)

19. Vampires

We are currently flushed with vampire-related media but, truthfully, the creatures have always been an evergreen part of the horror genre. Though the recent wave favors the sparkly variety, think back to the late nineties. The twin success of “From Dust til Dawn” and “Blade” sparked an interest in hard-R, bloody action movies as much about the vampire hunters as about the creatures themselves. Though that wave more or less ended with “Vampires,” and eventually curdled into the rancid “Underground” franchise, the film is an entertaining potboiler in the sometimes disappointing latter half of the filmmaker’s career.

Loosely based on a novel by John Steakley, the film presents a blue-collar approach to vampire hunting. Jack Crow and his team of Vatican-sponsored vampire hunters seem to function like highly specialized exterminators. They travel the country cleaning out infested houses, treating the vampires much like common, though highly dangerous, pests. The first sequence sets up the rules of vamp hunting but also the casualness of it. Of course, a movie about the 24/7 work-a-day lives of vampire slayers probably wouldn’t be very interesting, so Jack’s team is slaughtered by a Big Bad, the first of all vampires, and our hero sets out on a quest to prevent the impending vampire apocalypse.

Carpenter has long expressed his desire to make a Western and, in a lot of ways, “Vampires” fits the bill. The camera frequently lingers over the wide desert vistas of the South-West setting. The red clay buildings and monks in brown robes seem to be from another, older era. Carpenter focuses on his leading men’s faces, most notably during a slow pan into James Wood’s face in the opening scene. This recalls Sergio Leone, as does the occasional Morricone-esque horns on the soundtrack. Before most of the cast is killed, it’s easy to imagine the movie going in the direction of a men-on-a-mission flick, a horror-fied version of “The Magnificent Seven” or “The Wild Bunch.” Scenes like one of the heroic rogues hijacking a car wouldn’t be entirely out of place in a spaghetti western either, if you substitute “horse” for “car.”

But the movie is far more indebted to a more recent trend: Eighties action movies. “Vampires” is invested in tough guy heroes gunning through hordes of mooks. Machine guns blast vampires full of bloody holes. James Woods wields an awesome crossbow in several scenes. Bite wounds are cauterized on blazing gun barrels. In one of the film’s most suspenseful sequences, vampires burst through walls and elevators at the protagonists. The heroes stand strong, blasting the monsters point-blank in the face, even while being dragged across the floor. The film even practices some of the genre’s goofier clichés. Crow doesn’t look at an explosion as he walks away from it. Cheesy one-liners are tossed around, some of them really groan-inducing like “How do you like your stake?” or “Suck this!”

Another element of eighties action flicks is deeply ingrained in the story: Dudesweat and machismo. “Vampires” has more homoerotic subtext then it does blood and bullets. The movie is, covertly, about the romance between James Wood’s Jack Crow and Daniel Baldwin’s Montoya. Baldwin is introduced urinating next to Woods, demonstrating their bro-dom. This happy couple is split up by Sheryl Lee’s Katrina. Though Montoya is resentful of the girl at first, swearing at her and smacking her around, the two develop an unconvincing romance. From a plot angle, sure, Jack is just suspicious of the girl because she’s becoming a vampire. But why does Woods play his reaction less as righteous anger and more like petty jealousy? His contempt is violent and obvious. Jack is right about the bitch too, since she bites into Montoya’s throat like a Doritos Locos Taco. This isn’t even enough to pull the two apart. When Jack is strung up on a cross, looking like a sweaty leather daddy, Montoya is there to save him. Despite his hatred for vampires, Jack lets his former partner go, saying goodbye with a manly embrace.

When Baldwin breaks Jack’s heart but falling for that slutty, vampire whore, Tim Guinee’s Father Guiteau, a young Catholic priest and a total fan boy for Jack, is there to pick up the pieces, filling the hole in Woods’ heart. Jack displays this blossoming affection by kicking him in the ass, knocking him to the floor, ordering him around, and cutting him with a knife. But Jack’s romantic interest is made obvious, especially when he flat-out asks the young priest if he gives him an erection. It takes the rest of the movie for him to come around but, when asked the question again at the film’s end, Guinee responds positively.

Further proof of the movie’s macho streak comes in its treatment of female characters. All the women in the movie are either hookers or vampires. Woods is barely interested in the cascade of female flesh on display at the motel. His teammates, all of them enjoying the prostitutes, are punished for conforming to heterosexual norms by being slashed to bits by the deeply straight-to-the-point-asexuality vampire villain. One of the most graphic death scenes in the movie is reversed for a random female vampire, who is graphically staked, dragged into the sunlight, and explodes in a lingered-on, massive fireball. All of this is so obvious that I can only conclude that Carpenter, the writers, and the cast were intentionally in on the joke.

So there isn’t much of a focus on scares here. An early investigation of a dusty, old house features some shadows and a jump scare or two, but that’s about it. Instead, the horror elements come through in the heaps of gore. Bite marks are bloody and explicit. A stake is slammed straight into a vamp’s head, for no reason other then that it looks cool. The movie’s crowning moment of gore comes when master vampire Valek splits a guy in half right down the middle. As somebody who appreciates practical effects and good ol’ fashion American violence, I say that’s awesome. Hands are stabbed through chest, brains are splattered with shotguns, throats are torn out, we have decapitations with claws and axes, and the movie even squeezes in a fountain of blood. When exposed to sunlight, the vampires burst into flames, jets of fire shooting out of their arms, reduced to smoldering skeletons. It’s not subtle but it is fun.

James Woods has a ball in the lead. Jack Crow is practically Mel Gibson-ian in his attitude. He’s tough, actively misanthropic, snarling, swearing, sweating, and clad in a leather jacket. He has a tragic back-story but it’s barely focused on. Instead, he’s an angry, mean guy who just wants to kill as many vampires as possible. Woods drops blatant exposition as smoothly as possible. Sometimes it’s awkward, such as when he’s berating Baldwin on the side of the road. Sometimes, it’s a little cooler, like when dismissing traditional vampire beliefs. Either way, Woods hams it up, given the rare chance to play a macho bad-ass action hero.

Thomas Ian Griffin’s Valek is a classical evil vampire. Tall, pale, with long black hair, he conveys a threatening air with little more then a glance or nod. The traditional cape and collar are traded out for a long black trench coat. Though Griffin perhaps doesn’t do more then snarl, adsorb bullets with arms outstretch, and kill lots of people, he has something the best actors aren’t always gifted with: Screen presence. He’s a perfectly memorable villain.

The supporting cast isn’t quite so solid. What about Baldwin? His cockiness works well enough, especially when badgering a hotel clerk for little to no reason. His reaction with Sheryl Lee is hardly romantic, more gruff and sexist, and their eventual romance comes out of nowhere. Dialogue that is supposes to be romantic comes off as boorish and stiff. Lee is mostly there for eye-candy. She’s a plot device, connecting our hero to the villain. Guinee is a nice foil to Woods’ swagger. Maximilian Schell’s extended cameo works better in the third act, after a villainous turn. Despite the presence of great character actors like Mark Boone Junior and Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa, they get killed before making any sort of impression.

Carpenter’s direction makes a strong comeback. The opening pan across the desert recalls shots in some of his best films. There are plenty of POV shots, most of them from the vampires as they are dragged out of a house or cut through innocent people. Montages are deployed during the motel slaughter, which is a little awkward. Woods cleaning up the same location the next morning is far more effective.

His country-fried score is another strong factor. The main theme is rollicking, setting up the ass-kicking tone. Bluesy riffs frequently kick in on the soundtrack, as the weary characters march down an empty road. Guitars jangle and rattle during various montages. It’s a strong rock n’ roll score, connecting deeply with the film’s themes and aesthetic.

“Vampires” is simplistic, rolling along at a decent pace, story elements connecting easily. It’s not great art at all and, perhaps, represents Carpenter’s further degradation as a filmmaker. The film is swift, effortlessly entertaining, and goes by quickly enough that you don’t have time to question any of its flaws. It’s become something of a cult favorite among gore aficionados and cheesy action movie fans, spawning a series of lousy direct-to-video sequels. [Grade: B+]  

Director Report Card: John Carpenter (1996)

18. Escape from L.A

20 years later sequels are a mixed proposition. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. Even though “Escape from New York” was a sizable international hit, it wasn’t swept up in the eighties’ wave of action movie sequels. In 1996, John Carpenter and Kurt Russell saw fit to rectify that, bringing Snake back for another adventure. It’s hard to say how much of this was audience demand, how much was Carpenter’s desire to revisit a previous hit, or how much Russell wanted to play a legit bad ass again. Considering Kurt co-wrote and co-produce, you can’t help but wonder if “Escape from L.A.” was greenlit partially to serve the star’s ego.

The film is frequently criticized for being a partial remake of the first film. The base outline is the same. Snake is summoned by the U.S. government to go into a crime-infested metropolis, in order to rescue a MacGuffin. The setting, object of rescue, and surrounding details are different but the story is largely recycled.

However, this honestly doesn’t bother me much. “Escape from L.A.” is a lot goofier then it’s predecessor, which winds up making it more fun. Los Angeles has a lot more color then New York, the sequel has a much bigger budget, and the film seems to delight in decimating famous L.A. landmarks. The Hollywood sign is set ablaze, the Capitol Records building is collapsed, and even Disneyland has been reduced to a post-apocalyptic wasteland. The city is populated with colorful characters played by a great cast of actors. The film is packed with action, much of it straining the line between campy and genuinely bad ass. While I understand why some fans of the first film were disappointed, as somebody who is lukewarm on the original, I found a lot to like here.

The film’s best attribute is its world-building. America has changed a lot in-between part one’s 1998 and part two’s 2013. A massive earthquake has turned Los Angeles into an island. A religious fanatic president has turned America into a true dystopia, enforcing draconian laws and executing/exiling “undesirables” to the island. The world is on the brink of war, with several countries very close to invading the U.S. Carpenter is employing a similar brand of satire he used in “They Live.” Once again, politicians are in his sights, particularly taking target at the religious right. I maintain that J.C. predicted George W. Bush with this film, as Cliff Robertson’s unnamed President seems to resemble our 43rd, in beliefs, personality, and appearance.

That stuff is awesome. What I take issue with is the sloppy screenplay. The first movie was focused, with Snake after a clear goal, acquiring allies and enemies along the way. The sequel seems to be satisfied with having him wander around L.A., encountering a bunch of different people. Most of them end up having nothing but the most superficial effect on the story. Sometimes it seems to be a deliberate subversion. Snake rescues a girl, has a romantic dialogue with her, seeming to set up her up as his primary love interest. She dies in the next scene. However, a lot of it is just sloppy writing. In order to squeeze as many wacky characters in as possible, we have a hero just marching from set-piece and encounter. After a strong start, the pacing drags in the middle before a decent ending supplies some much-needed momentum.

Even if they aren't well used, the supporting cast is awesome. Steve Buscemi is the most memorable, as a Hollywood conman, just looking to make a buck. He switches alliances with ease and somehow avoids getting killed. He’s like an evil version of Ernest Borgnine’s Cabbie from the first film. Buscemi is having a ball and is massively entertaining. Cliff Robertson is both hilarious and disgusting as the vile president. Pam Grier has the odd distinction of playing a trans-gender man here. Pam is tough, convincing, and kicks some butt. Peter Fonda, naturally, plays a burnt-out hippy surfer dude. While the character is one of the most absurd things in the movie, Fonda is fun to watch, having a ball parodying his own public persona.

The biggest sin the film commits is wasting Bruce Campbell in a bit part. While the Surgeon General of Beverly Hills certainly appears to be an interesting character and Bruce seems to be having a good time hamming it up as a psychotic mad doctor, he has so little screen time that you can't tell for sure. I’m not real crazy about Georges Corraface as the villainous Cuevro Jones. Corraface isn’t bad, even has a moment or two, but is mostly just bland. The film seems to intentionally compare him to the Duke of New York, but with a disco ball on his car instead of chandeliers. Corraface is no Isaac Hayes, is what I’m saying.

But what about Snake? Kurt inhabits the part as naturally as before. Only this time, the movie works towards making him a more likable character. Snake isn’t just in it for himself, this time. The world has gotten crazier and now an amoral crook like Snake seems far more heroic. He seems a little more inclined to rescue the innocents around him this time and a little more interested in fighting evil. Maybe the oft-referenced, off-screen Cleveland incident has changed him for the better.

The movie goes a long way to building up Snake as a bad-ass. Some of these decisions work better then others. Snake in a trench-coat? Sure. Snake on a motorcycle? Absolutely. These are natural. Snake hang gliding? Movie, you’re pushing it and it doesn’t help that the green screen effects are a little awkward. Snake on a surfboard? Okay, now that’s silly. The character picking up a skill like that while fighting a cold really pushes believability. Worse yet, the movie’s incredibly choppy CGI effects are most evident here. (This is also noticeable during the submarine and helicopter sequences. Computer effects have come a long way.) By the time Snake is shooting hoops in a life-or-death basketball game, it becomes clear that Kurt was just sticking stuff in the screenplay that he wanted to do. For the record, the basketball scene, though largely a repeat of the wrestling match from the first movie, actually creates some decent suspense, silly as it is.

The ending is pitch-perfect and makes up for a lot of the film’s problems. Snake presses a button, plunges the world into darkness, which is the right thing to do. Kurt is is at his most convincingly awesome in that moment. Carpenter seems focused on the frequently choppy special effects, though his direction is far from bad. I’d say his score, co-composed with Shirley Walker, is better then “New York’s,” though it looses points for forcing so many pop songs on to the soundtrack. I get why “Escape from L.A.” received a mixed reaction from fans and the general public. It’s a goofy-ass movie and not the most smoothly constructed. Still, I find myself enjoying it more every time I watch it. Snake is pretty cool, after all. [Grade: B]

Director Report Card: John Carpenter (1995)

17. Village of the Damned

I’ve always suspected that Carpenter was hoping to recreate the same sort of magic he had on “The Thing” with the 1995 remake of “Village of the Damned.” Both were sci-fi horror classics of the cold war era. However, comparing the two films is ill advised. Firstly because “Village of the Damned” is much more of a direct remake then “The Thing” was. Secondly, it’s nowhere near as good.

The open pan over the coast, an ominous whisper on the soundtrack, attempts to create a mood of dread. Midwich, moved from Britain to the California coast, is introduced as a cozy, friendly town, the sort of place were a cookout at the school is an event for everyone. How cozy is Midwich? Cozy enough that two of our main characters are introduced snuggling in bed with their spouses. As in the original, soon the entire village falls unconscious under mysterious circumstances, every woman in the town waking up pregnant. Unlike in the original, government agents descend on the town, studying the strange, ivory-haired children that are born. It doesn’t take long for the creepy kids to show off their psychic powers and make their malevolent plot known.

The biggest problem with John Carpenter’s “Village of the Damned?” The kids aren’t scary. Their eyes glow and flash, they glare menacingly, and people around them self-mutilate in ostensibly horrifying ways. Yet none of it registers as creepy or unnerving. The glowing eyes are overdone. In one sequence, the camera places so much importance on a baby’s eyes lighting up to a bright green that it comes off as flashy, instead of frightening. In another sequence, the eyes flash like headlights. Finally, during the big finale, the kids’ whole heads light up like a burning jack-o’lantern. While the original treated this aspect relatively subtly, the remake overdoes it. As for the silver hair? Bad wigs.

The hypnotizing children’s effects on the people around them are even more heavy handed. Their birth is preceded by a dopey nightmare sequence. A mother places her hands in boiling water, wailing melodramatically. The mother later tosses herself off a cliff, the suicide filmed in a startlingly uninteresting way. Any shock is totally sapped by the baby’s smiling face being overlaid over the moment. An eye doctor shakes her hands and contorts her face, dripping acid into her eyes, in a sequence almost comically overwrought. One of the more contrived sequences involves a janitor dropping himself off a roof onto his broom. While "Buck" Flower’s performance is amusingly sloshy, the method of dispatchment is incredibly awkward and borderline ridiculous, negating any attempts to build tension. The unintentional hilarity peaks when a truck goes crashing through a gate, mysteriously flying through the air despite the lack of a ramp, slams into a gas tank, and produces an improbably enormous explosion. The acts of violence are so badly mishandled and hysterically pitched; I can’t help but wonder if Carpenter was intentionally going for camp. Even potentially workable moments, like Kristie Alley dissecting herself with a scalpel, come off as lifeless. All the violence in the last act is.

Perhaps the biggest issue with the kids are their performances. None of the child actors has a grasp on the material. Lindsay Haun as Mara, the leader of the tribe, goes for coldly calculated and sinister. There’s nothing convincing about her acting and her line-readings usually just come off as flat. This is especially noticeable during her monologue, were her orders of servitude sound like a little kid reading off her mom’s grocery list. Thomas Dekker as David isn’t much better. The character, an emotion-less alien-child learning to feel, probably has the richest arc in the film. Once again, there’s no conviction in Dekker’s delivery. He comes off as flat, confused, and hopelessly out of his element. I know these are child actors I’m talking about but, if an entire film is going to revolve around young people, make sure to cast kid actors that can pick up the slack. The rest of the children receive no personality.

The adult cast is much more mixed. Upon release, the film was overshadowed by Christopher Reeve’s debilitating equestrian accident. Reeves is fine in the role. He’s good while screaming at the kids about emotion or bonding with one in a graveyard. However, even he seems a little disinterested at times and it never registers that the evil leader is his daughter. Linda Kozlowski as David’s suffering mother does better, panicking nicely, but the sudden romantic subplot forged between the characters at the last minute is really awkward.

The supporting cast is filled with interesting character actors. Michael Pare gets third billing despite dying in the first ten minutes. Mark Hamill, well into the character actor portion of his career, is highly entertaining as the town priest. He’s immediately aware of the children’s true intentions, stresses, sweats, and freaks-out over it to great effect.

But one performance practically cripples the whole film. Kristie Alley is woefully, dreadfully miscasted. Her sassiness works fine when trading sarcastic barbs but it’s impossible to take her seriously as a tough as nails FBI agent. Some of the dialogue sounds awful coming out of her mouth. She says “It’s a stillborn” like a punch line and her plea to the FBI board for more funding plays like an out-of-place seduction scene. Some performances can switch between drama and comedy with ease. Alley isn’t one of them. Another flat, off-paced performance is Karen Kahn as Reeves’ ill-fated wife.

If the presentation is listless and the cast asleep, the story is route. The government actively being involved in the children’s rearing had potential but doesn’t go anywhere. The movie harps on the theme of “emotions are what make us human!” repeatedly, without illustrating it in any sort of subtle or meaningful way. One of my biggest grips with the film is fairly petty. In the original film, the origin of the children was kept fairly ambiguous. Though it’s obvious some sort of force was responsible for impregnating the entire town, the exact details were never revealed. It could have been alien, demonic, extra-dimensional, who knows what. That was part of what made it scary. The remake is up front: It’s aliens. There’s nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but it certainly removes part of what made the story interesting.

Carpenter’s direction is mostly as lifeless as every else about the film. The final confrontation between Reeves and the kids, though swiped almost wholesale from the original, manages to build some tension. What follows is a decent ending and the film’s sole exciting moment. (Also, the final shot might be a reference to Cronenberg’s “The Brood.”) Carpenter and Dave Davies’ score is usually overbearing but the use of a children’s choir is spooky and appropriate. For the most part, so much about “Village of the Damned” is mediocre. It shows a sharp decline in quality for the filmmaker and was, in many ways, the beginning of the end. [Graded: C-]       

Director Report Card: John Carpenter (1994)

16. In the Mouth of Madness

John Carpenter’s Apocalypse Trilogy follows a natural progression. “The Thing” shows an apocalypse beginning, the origins of the end of the world. “Prince of Darkness” is an apocalypse in evolution, one shut down just before breaking loose and even then, only being prevented. “In the Mouth of Madness” is the pay-off to that build-up, a movie that promises Armageddon and delivers. This is how the world ends. And it’s awesome.

“Prince of Darkness” wore its influences on its sleeve. “In the Mouth of Madness” continues this pattern. Lovecraftian elements bled through each chapter of the trilogy but this film takes them much further then any of the others. A good portion of the film is set in a sinister New England town called Hobb’s End, a place that is clearly just a short drive from Arkham, Dunwich, or Innsmouth. Like Innsmouth, the town’s citizens become involved in occult rituals before becoming something other then human. The old woman who runs the local hotel is Mrs. Pickman. Moreover, the film is awash in Lovecraftian visuals. Squamous, eldritch horrors squirm with tentacles and rows of gnashing fangs, just outside the frame of our reality. A painting in the hotel, one of the creepiest elements in the film, progressively grows more disturbing. The happy couple develops the Innsmouth Look, something appearing in the water. Next we see the painting, the man and woman have changed into crawling, octopus-headed monsters, a black church rising from the waters, the appendages of something big in the sky. Most blatantly, the Old Ones themselves are named dropped.

The Lovecraft element goes deeper then just cribbing the author’s style and aesthetic. The film addresses the author’s favorite theme of madness. Violent insanity takes over the entire world in this film. While Lovecraft always stopped just short of showing society totally ripped apart by madnes,. Carpenter dives right in. Moreover, the movie explores the relationship between author and reader, reality and fiction. Millions of people reading the same story make it true, whither they believe in it or not. That belief drags the author’s world out of his own head and into our reality. From a subtext level, “In the Mouth of Madness” is one of Carpenter’s richest films.

At the beginning, “In the Mouth of Madness” almost seems like it will play out like a detective story. Sam Neil’s insurance investigator is presented almost like a hard-boiled P.I., cynical about the world, always getting his man. This is shown in a wonderful scene where Neil breaks down an arson-fraudster with ease. He is hired by a publishing house to track down Sutter Cane, a writer of cosmic horror stories and the best selling author in the world. He’s gone missing and Neil’s quest to find the man soon brings him to Hobb’s End, a town that seemingly only exist in Cane’s head. After that, the line between fiction and reality begin to blur, bleed into and over each other. Neil remains skeptical until he comes face-to-face with the otherworldly horrors, which is probably the reason why he’s resistant to the mind-shattering insanity virus for so long. The same virus that eventually destroys the world. By the end, the film’s meta elements come full circle. The viewer is left to wonder just how much of this fiction is fiction within the fiction.

All this talk of creeping dread and the end of the world wouldn’t matter much unless the film was actually scary. Luckily, the movie is chock full of horror of all different sorts. The creature effects are comparable to “The Thing.” The slimy, slithering monsters are only ever seen in quick glimpses, briskly edited montages of creepy images. The combined effect is unnerving. This is employed several times, each time the horrors growing closer. My favorite moments involves Neil catching a glimpse of Mrs. Pickman in her basement, now more monster then human, a bloodied axe swinging through the air. The film’s main theme is visually illustrated when an author pulls himself apart, pages of a book tearing apart, tearing the walls of reality apart too.

Aside from Lovecraft, Carpenter pays due to the other masters of horror. The careening camera angles in the opening asylum sequences remind me of Argento, as do the close-ups of thrashing blades. Stephen King is referenced by name and Sutter Cane himself seems at least partially based on King. (The Lovecraft elements and meta devices are things King would probably do, too.) The scene of Neil’s love interest twisting herself into a four-legged monstrosity, bones cracking, creaking around, wouldn’t be out of place in a David Cronenberg film. If it wasn’t made three years before, I’d say the close-ups of yellow road lines passing through the headlights is a reference to David Lynch’s “Lost Highway.” Either way, parts of the film drip with surreal, Lynchian atmosphere. The long sequence of a boy/old man on a bicycle is there for no reason beyond it’s freaky. “In the Mouth of Madness” captures Lovecraftian creepiness the best since “Possession,” which it seems to wink at a few times. Aside from both films starring Sam Neil, both share a shot of a monster in a person suit standing behind a glass door, an evil force pushing through from one side to another.

The movie indulges in some traditional horror elements from time to time. Neil seeing a cop beating a man in an alley-way is creepy. When it’s repeated in a nightmare, it’s creepy if a little overdone. When Neil wakes up in a nightmare within a nightmare, it gets a little silly. Luckily, the film’s further use of jump scares are a little better. The only horror element that doesn’t work is the Hobb’s End townsfolk being consumed by the evil forces. The make-up is great and, as long as the shots of deformed people are confined to quick edits, they work. However, kids with creepy voices and messed up faces lack the subtle creepiness the rest of the film employs. It might not sound like it but “In the Mouth of Madness” has a darkly comic vein running through. A muzak version of the Carpenters is well-used and a long held shot of an axe wielding maniac walking towards our protagonist is both creepy and oddly funny.

Sam Neil does a great job in the lead, running the gamut of emotions. He maintains an oddly funny edge throughout while never undermining the horror of the situation. Jurgen Prochnow is very creepy as Sutter Cane, doing a lot with just a malicious glance or grin. Julie Carmen is probably the weakest of the leads but she has the tricky goal of playing someone being manipulated by other forces. This considered, I suppose she does an okay job. Charlton Heston, David Warner, and John Glover all stop by for amusing cameos, each one playing the kind of part you’d expect. And a bit of praise must go out to Frances Bay, probably better known as Happy Gilmore’s Grandma, as Mrs. Pickman. She’s the nastiest old lady you’re likely to see in any horror movie and she does it without ever raising her voice.

Powered by one of my favorite Carpenter scores, “In the Mouth of Madness” is the director’s last masterpiece. Genuinely creepy, packed full of plenty of content to chew over, darkly funny, and deeply clever, it’s an underrated and underseen chiller from one of the weakest decades for horror. [Grade: A-]

Director Report Card: John Carpenter (1993)

15. Body Bags (with Tobe Hooper)

In the early nineties, HBO’s “Tales from the Crypt” made horror anthologies kind of a big thing. It’s not surprising that Showtime, one of HBO’s pay-cable rivals, would conceptualize their own horror anthology series. In perhaps a bid to rival the big name talent of Robert Zemeckis and Walter Hill that the Crypt Keeper had in his corner, Showtime reeled in John Carpenter and Tobe Hooper, two of the most influential names in modern horror.

Comparing “Body Bags” to “Tales from the Crypt” is apt in several ways. Both featured a cheeky, pun-spewing horror host. While in “Tales,” the episodes are framed around stories in a book, “Body Bags” frames each of their stories around a morgue locker. One way you can’t compare the two is that “Tales from the Crypt” went on for seven seasons, three movies, a Saturday morning cartoon show, a kid's game show, and remains a well-remembered bit of nineties pop culture. “Body Bags” spawned a single pilot movie that isn’t even available on DVD anymore.

The movie isn’t all that well liked but fans with low expectations might find some enjoyment here. John Carpenter fans have an interesting reason to check it out. On a rare occasion, the director himself steps in front of the camera. Carpenter hams it up as the unnamed Coroner, an undead ghoul who regales the audience with the stories of how each body ended up in the proverbial bag. I’ve always found the horror host atmosphere kind of cozy, just out of the nature of a character speaking directly to the audience. Carpenter, who has always kept a low profile as far as on-screen appearances go, really chews the scenery. Even if John’s lack of classical acting training is fairly evident, the framing devices are still fun. If you enjoy the brutal punning of the Crypt Keeper, you’ll probably get some laughs or groans out of the dead body related wisecrack delivered here. However, it’s hard to imagine Carpenter’s enthusiasm sustaining itself for a series run. Especially considering the way the framing device ends, it’s a little hard to see a continuing show. Was the Coroner going to be dissected at the end of every episode? (I’m fairly certain the morgue sequences were directed by an uncredited Larry Sulkis.)

Carpenter directed the first two sequences, which I’ll talk about here. I’ll save the third Tobe Hooper directed sequence for that director’s inevitable report card.

The first sequence, “The Gas Station,” is easily the best. Carpenter seems to be spoofing his own “Halloween” a little bit here and it’s notable that this is the director’s only return to the slasher sub-genre after that seminal film. The story resembles an urban legend, which might explain how much I liked it. A young girl works her first night as the night shift attendant at a spooky, out of the way gas station. Despite being a young woman in an isolated location, she ignores the warning of a serial killer being on the loose. Throughout the night, she has a series of increasingly disquieting run-ins before the threat reveals itself from a some-what unexpected place.

Considering the half-hour runtime and abundance of horror clichés, “The Gas Station” raises a surprising amount of tension. Carpenter uses the isolated location well, filling the limited space with blue and grey shadows. Seems like every guy who knocks on the glass is creepy, a surprisingly effective tactic. The segment has no fear of jump-scares, deploying them regularly. This just adds to the disquieting mood. When the killer is revealed, the show actually creates some tension. It gets good mileage out of the tried and true tactic of the girl stumbling away from the killer as he slowly moves in on her. The sudden story development that ends up saving her life is easy to anticipate but I can’t help but find the killer’s dispatchment to be especially nasty and amusing. There’s a darkly comedic tone running under the whole thing.

I wonder, if “Body Bags” had been picked up for series, if it would have been “Masters of Horror” a decade earlier. Aside from Carpenter directing, he sneaks in cameos from Wes Craven and Sam Raimi. (Both well cast as a dirty old man and a dead body, respectively.) Genre favorites like David Naughton and “Buck” Flowers have roles, while Alex Datcher makes a decent final girl. Robert Carradine ends up playing against type and is both amusing and kind of legitimately threatening. The in-jokey tone really becomes evident with the several shout-outs to “Halloween.” The entire story is set just outside of Haddonfield and Carpenter recreates the killer raising up from the ground shot. It’s not horror prime rib but “The Gas Station” does make for a decent horror fast food hamburger.

The second Carpenter lensed story, “Hair,” is a lot less successful. The premise is hokey in the highest degree. While the idea of a man’s insecurity about loosing his hair has some ripe opportunity to commit on aging, the show instead goes for easy gags. This is meant to be a comedy but the laughs rarely come. The set-up is long-winded and the lead character’s obsession with his lack of hair just seems overly exaggerated. The montage of waxing, flaxing, long hair blowing in the wind set to Crosby, Still, and Nash really goes on too long. The sci-fi/horror elements come with a thud. Stanley Keach does okay in the lead but seems strangulated by the material. David Warner and Debby Harry have little to do in their small roles. It seems odd that talented, known names like them would be cast in roles that don’t amount to much. The ending is inconclusive and lifeless. The only thing I really liked about “Hair” were the little stop-motion hair monsters. The movie even overdoes that. The first time we see the cut hairs slithering off on their own, it’s clever. The amusement factor goes down with each additional shot.

I probably would have watched and enjoyed a full run of “Body Bags.” The first story is quite good, the second is super lame, and the third is about half-and-half. As far as horror anthology records out, one-and-a-half out of three isn’t too bad. “Body Bags” is probably a little better then it’s reputation suggests.  
[The Gas Station: B] [Hair: C-] [Film overall: B-]

Director Report Card: John Carpenter (1992)

14. Memoirs of an Invisible Man

John Carpenter’s career is spotted with a few work-for-hire jobs, impersonal films relatively lacking in his stylistic trademarks and quirks. “Starman,” “Elvis,” “Christine” for a better example. But no work-for-hire job is more work-for-hire-er then “Memoirs of an Invisible Man.” While he’s not totally inexperienced in the genre, a slapstick Chevy Chase comedy is far from the first thing you associate with the director. His lack of interest is so obvious, you can see it right there in the poster. “Memoirs of an Invisible Man” is the only John Carpenter film without his name over the title.

The movie starts off on a semi-decent note. Chevy Chase plays a stock broker, one who is, har har, rather transparent in his personal life and philosophies. His life is devoid of meaning until he meets Alice, played by Daryl Hannah during the peak of her loveliness, and immediately falls in love with her. Shame for him that the next day he gets caught in a lab accident at a nuclear research facility and turned invisible. Soon, he’s on the run from government agents. The movie gets some decent comedic mileage in these early going scenes from Chase’s typical sarcastic wit, in particular his dismissal of his co-workers. There’s a number of laughs and sight gags in the early going. A particularly amusing sequence involves the invisible Chevy manipulating a unconscious drunk in a taxi cab. There’s some small, funny gags, like Chase nonchalantly grabbing a purse back away from a purse-snatcher.

Considering Chase’s other comedic trademark is his slapstick antics, you’d think being invisible for the majority of the film would be a hindrance. That’s right and the movie gets around this in a pretty lame way. A lot of the film is shown from Chase’s perspective, showing him as visible in many scenes. The only time he’s actually invisible is when the movie needs to show off some special effects, showing objects floating in the air, manipulated by invisible hands. Granted, the special effects, most of them accomplished with blue screen methods, actually hold very well. Pencils, phones, and even a faceful of make-up float seamlessly in the air. The only time the effects show their age is the shot of a floating head running down the street. All of this is neat but I feel like a memoir featuring a largely visible man is kind of cheating. Perhaps this was a concession to Chase’s notorious ego?

While the movie’s first half-hour is amusing enough, around the half-hour mark it settles into a somewhat dragging rut. Chase goes off the grid, hiding in a co-worker’s vacation home. Following the rules of dramatic screenwriting, Hannah and a few other friends show up. The comic highlight in these scenes involves a naked Chevy and a premature ejaculation joke. After that, Chase and Hannah go on the run together and the movie starts to focus on the romance. The two have decent chemistry but the laughs stop cold during this segment. At this point, “Memoirs of an Invisible Man” looses me. There’s a definite tonal shift here and it’s widely unsuccessful.

Another weird aspect to the film is the subplot involving the government agents. Sam Neill plays the villainous Agent Jenkins. Neill is actually legitimately sinister in this part, creating a lot of malevolent intent with just a glare. Moreover, the way he makes a fairly convincing case for his goals makes him an oddly rounded villain. This is best illustrated in a brief moment where Hannah looks up into a train door, seeing Neill’s face reflected on the other side of the glass. The movie is overall light-hearted and Neill’s most villainous act is an off-screen murder, which really isn’t followed up on or given much weight. So this makes the character’s ultimate fate seem overly mean-spirited, not to mention casting Chase in an unpleasant light.

There’s ultimately little here to interest Carpenter fans. As far as his stylistic trademarks go, there’s one brief tracking shot and a POV shot, from Chase’ perspective as he floats over the edge of some water. Beyond that, there are some classic horror references. The invisible man, naturally, gets in a bathrobe, bandages, and goggles at one point. Neill mentions the possibility of invisible agents in World War II. The movie keeps a few accurate aspects from H.G. Welles’ original novel, such as digesting food in the invisible man’s stomach being visible until fully adsorbed into the body or the invisible man having difficulty sleeping do to a lack of eyelids. (It doesn’t address dirt collecting under fingernails or going blind from invisible corneas.) Carpenter, being a blatant Hitchcock fan, can’t resist throwing in a brief shout-out to Bodega Bay.

“Memoirs of an Invisible Man” is a fairly forgettable Chevy Chase vehicle, another in a long string of box office bombs for the actor at the time. The film wastes Michael McKean and Stephen Tobolowsky in small supporting roles, while not doing much with Darryl Hannah besides getting her in some tight, skimpy outfits. Aside from standout special effects, there’s not much to recommend. Carpenter fans can easily skip this one. He didn’t even score it. [Grade: C]