Director Report Card: Stuart Gordon (2007)

15. Stuck

You may recall hearing about it. In 2001, a Texas woman struck a homeless man with her car. He became lodged in the windshield. Instead of going to a hospital or calling an ambulance, she went home. She left the man stuck in her windshield, in her garage, where he slowly bled to death. It was one of those salacious, horrifying news stories that showed the depth of human ignorance and cruelty. When the story was new, it was passed through in-boxes and around water coolers. The story clearly struck a chord with Stuart Gordon. In 2007, he would transform the shocking true story into a movie, putting his own twist on the event. “Stuck” would win Gordon some of the best reviews of his career.

Thomas Bardo is having a very bad day. Recently let go from his job, he's been struggling to find work. His landlord suddenly kicked him out this morning. He wasted all day waiting for an appointment at the welfare office. Now, he's been removed from the park he's sleeping in. Brandi Boski, meanwhile, is having a pretty good day. She's up for a promotion at her nursing home job. She's been out all night with her drug dealer boyfriend, taking ecstasy at a dance club. While driving home from the club, Brandi strikes Thomas with her car. Frightened about how this will affect her job, she leaves the homeless man lodged in her car windshield, sitting inside her garage. Now Bardo has to fight to survive while his unwilling captor plots to finish him for good.

With his most recent film, Gordon continues to freely mix genre. “Stuck” is another unlikely crossover. The film is a mixture between a grim, facts-based thriller and an absurdist comedy. The film depict the true events without much exaggeration, playing up the casual cruelty of those involved. Gordon shows the stomach-churning violence of the situation, brutally revealing what a speeding car can do to a human body. However, perhaps to save our collective sanity, Gordon approaches the material with a detached sense of gallows humor. The people responsible for this crime are so stupid, that it becomes funny. The scenario is so horrifying callous, that it becomes absurd. The approach is widely successful. “Stuck” is an extremely dark comedy, exposing the sickening insensitivity people are capable of.

In fact, cruel indifference is the primary theme of the film. Throughout the film, Bardo faces a number of indignities from people simply too petty to give a shit. Even before being hit by a car, he puts up with a lot of bullshit. His landlord kicks him and insists he can't take his clothes with him. The guy at the job office is deeply condescending to a man who has been waiting all day, forcing him to fill out paperwork he's already done. A police officer removes him from a park bench, more concerned with upholding laws then protecting another human's well-being. This continues after he's struck by Brandi. While on a walk, a man's dog sneaks into the garage and licks Tom's wounds. When the dogwalker sees the blood, he's only concerned about the pooch's health. Later, after the son hears Bardo's screams, a Mexican family nearly calls the police. The father, however, insists they stay quiet over fears of being deported. “Stuck's” point isn't that people are cruel to other people. It's that they are so casual about it.

There's also an element of class distinction in “Stuck.” Tom Bardo is homeless, unemployed, and totally penniless. He's also a dignified man who works hard. He's simply fallen on a streak of bad luck. Bardi Boski, meanwhile, is gainfully employed, owns a house, and has enough spending money to buy drugs and go to clubs on the weekend. She's also a vulgar idiot with zero consideration for the people around her. The contrast is deliberate. From a screenwriting perspective, this is simply to mark the homeless man as the story's hero and the driver as its villain. However, these themes serve another purpose. Success is random and the universe is as wantonly cruel as the people who populate it.

An aspect of the true story that fascinated Gordon was the woman having the job of caregiver. The focus on that central irony appears in the film. Yes, Brandi is a nurse. She's apparently a pretty good one too. One elderly patient requests her by name all the time. She impresses her supervisor enough to be offered a leadership position. There's definitely some dramatic irony in a person capable of such casual cruelty literally taking care of people for her job. What makes Brandi a truly awful person is her inability to take responsibility for anything. Throughout the film, she repeatedly blames Tom for what happened. When he refuses to die, she plans to murder him, strictly to save her own skin. She might be a nurse but she's mostly a person incapable of owning up to her mistakes.

Most of “Stuck's” humor comes from the trashy antics Brandi and her drug-dealer boyfriend, Rashid, get up to. Rashid claims to be a tough guy gangster, saying he's disposed of a body before. As the story progresses, it becomes clear that this is an act. He's a buffoon and Brandi is either too enamored or too shallow to notice. This humorous streak peaks during a scene where Brandi arrives at Rashid's apartment, unannounced. She discovers her boyfriend with another woman. Instead of doing the reasonable thing – both women confronting the man about his infidelity – Brandi attackers the other woman. She drags her out of bed, nude, and smacks her face with an iron skillet, before tossing her out the door. It's a moment of “Jerry Springer” shenanigans, inserted into a grim story. This moment draws attention to Brandi's nonchalant cruelty and stupidity. it's also deliriously funny.

“Stuck” isn't quite a horror film, by any traditional metric. However, it features the kind of sickening gore that wouldn't have been out of place in Gordon's earlier films. Few details concerning Tom's situation are spared. During a queasy scene, he pulls himself from the shattered window, the glass cutting him further. Quickly, he realizes that he's been impaled by a windshield wiper. The film focuses on his agony as he pulls the wiper from his gut. Later, while laying on the garage floor, we see the broken bones protruding from his skin. Later, a dog licks at the raw fracture, another nauseating moment. Perhaps the gore in “Stuck” is even more effective because its all totally plausible. The movie's reality-based roots makes its violence – violence that might've actually happened – extra upsetting.

The actor playing Tom Bardo faced some unique challenge. Starring in “stuck” meant squirming inside an uncomfortably tight spot for weeks. Luckily, Gordon found someone up to that feat. Stephen Rea, an underappreciated character actor, plays the part. Rea's performance is grueling. He spends most of the movie screaming, grunting, or moaning in agony. Yet, no matter how extreme the situation gets, Rea maintains the character's dignity. No matter how bad things gets, Rea continues to focus on the part's humanity. Rea's strong acting characterizes Bardo as a survivor, above all else.

As the other main character, Mena Suvari has a different sort of challenge. She's playing someone with few redeeming features. Suvari makes sure the audience understands that Brandi, at least, thinks what she's doing is justified. Suvari brings an effectively desperate quality to the part. All she can think about is loosing her job. As things get worst, her composure cracks up more and more. By the end, she's screaming and crying. All the while, she defers blame to others. It's a good bit of acting and Suvari makes this character seem real, if not sympathetic. (There was some minor controversy around Suvari's casting. In real life, the driver was black. Gordon dismissed any apparent whitewashing as strictly a budgetary choice. They couldn't get the movie funded with a black actress in the lead.)

“Stuck” pulls together a solid supporting cast too. Russell Hornsby is hilarious as Rashid. He's a scumbag, selling drugs primarily as a way to manipulate women into sleeping with him. Despite this, Hornsby makes the guy oddly likable. He's such a clueless idiot, running on a macho bravado that he doesn't seem to entirely believe, that you end up feeling a little sorry for him. Rukiya Bernard appears as Tanya, Brandi's co-worker. She's pivotal to an amusing scene. Brandi and Rashid have to explain where all the blood and gore have come from, leading to some funny awkward planning. Stuart Gordon also finds a role for his wife, naturally. Once again, Caroline Purdy-Gordon appears as a strict female authority figure. This time, she's nurse supervisor Petersen and is enjoyably bitchy.

In real life, this story had a tragic ending. The homeless man died after suffering for several hours, even though basic medical attention would've saved his life. The woman got away with it for a few months, before bragging about the crime at a party. She's currently serving out a fifty year prison sentence. But cinema gives us a chance to give real life happier endings. In “Stuck,” Bardo escapes the car. When his captors attempt to kill him, he strikes back. He stabs Rashid in the eye with a pen. He strikes Brandi with her own car. The woman then ignites gasoline that she spread around the garage in an attempt to disguise the murder. Tom walks away, brutalized but alive. The first time I saw “Stuck,” aware of how the real incident ended, this ending surprised me. Justice is served, at least in fiction.

When paired with “King of the Ants” and “Edmond,” “Stuck” seems to form a thematic trilogy of sorts. Call it Stuart Gordon's Nihilism Trilogy. Each one of the three films deals with man's inhumanity to man, building towards a point about people being rotten. Ultimately, “Stuck” may be the most optimistic of the three movies. At the story's end, Tom is free, alive, and gets to keep his humanity. “Stuck” would be a critical success, considered one of the year's best film by some. Most surprisingly, “Stuck” even received a remake in India. It's all a clear indicator of how good this darkly hilarious and sickly insightful film is. [Grade: A-]

It seemed the critical praise Gordon's most recent films received was setting his career up for a new chapter. Instead, ten years have passed without a new Stuart Gordon movie coming out. It would seem that it's difficult to get the kind of weird-ass movies he likes to make funded these days. Gordon attempted to Kickstart a film version of "Nevermore," a one-man play about Edgar Allan Poe starring Jeffrey Combs. That sounded amazing but, alas, the campaign was unsuccessful. Since than, Gordon has returned to the theater, directing a musical version of "Re-Animator." I certainly hope Gordon gets to make another movie some day, though "Stuck" would be a hell of a note to end things on. After watching all his films, I truly do believe he's one of our more underrated masters of horror.

Director Report Card: Stuart Gordon (2005)

14. Edmond

Any director who has been making horror movies for most of their career, it seems, eventually takes a stab at a more “respectable” genre. Sometimes this goes well, like Cronenberg's slow transition to psychological dramas. Sometimes, you get Wes Craven's “Music of the Heart.” Around 2005, it was announced that Stuart Gordon – maker of low budget horror films – would be directing a film written by David Mamet, one of the most respected writers of the modern age. Of course, those familiar with Gordon's career know he worked with Mamet on-stage at the Organic Theater. Still, filming one of Mamet's plays seemed to be Gordon's long awaited bid to be taken seriously. It sort of worked. “Edmond” received mixed reviews but certainly got people talking about the director again.

Edmond Burke lives an unfulfilling life as a meaningless office drone, married to a woman he no longer loves. One night, he randomly decides to leave his wife. He meets a man in a bar, who says a bunch of racist and sexist things. Frustrated and horny, Edmond heads out to get laid. It's the start of a very long night. He attempts hooking up with several prostitutes but never succeeds. He's beaten and mugged by two black men. After buying a knife, he cuts and beats another attempted black mugger. After bedding a young waitress, Edmond's night takes an even darker turn. Soon, his life is changed forever.

“Edmond” has a lot of things on its mind but one theme seems to emerge above the others. Edmond begins his night by visiting a tarot card reader. The cards reappear throughout the film, usually signaling some change in the story. One card, “The Wheel of Fate,” seems especially significant, appearing during a street-side card game. Fate plays a big role in Edmond's night. Meeting people on the street by chance is the main motivator of the film's plot. As Edmond's journey goes on, he feels more and more like a victim of fate, that life has treated him unfairly. And, to a degree, this is a true. “Edmond” suggests that we could all fall victim to the whims of random chance.

Another main thread of the story is the inability for men and women to truly connect. Gordon cleverly suggests this too with some unobtrusive visual symbolism. At one point, Edmond visits a peepshow. A sheet of glass separates him from the stripper. He repeatedly asks if the glass comes down, if he can touch her. He asks the same questions, unable to pick up on the stripper's obvious hints that full-blown sex isn't on the menu. Later, near the film's end, Edmond is in prison. Now a sheet of glass separates him from his wife. Once again, he attempts to reach out to a woman, clueless that she's disinterest in his words. Naturally, both encounters end in failure. Even as his night of transformation ends, Edmond is unable to connect with the women in his life.

Perfectly cast in the titular role is William H. Macy. Macy has made a career of playing tragi-comic sad sacks. In “Edmond,” he brings a dark edge to this persona. Edmond Burke is like many of the pathetic losers Macy has played. Except the script acknowledges the petty anger and sexual frustration boiling beneath this exterior. Macy emphasizes this bitterness. There's little of the humor he usually provides. Instead, Edmond Burke is an ugly character. Macy's everyman quality still makes the character compelling. You're watching someone who considers themselves normal embarking on the night from hell. As more events happen, Macy gets an opportunity to spit highly verbal monologue, which clearly show his strength as a performer.

As I said earlier, Edmond considers himself a victim of fate. Yet most of the bad luck that befalls him is entirely his fault. During his multiple attempts to sleep with prostitutes, he always tells them their prices are too high. He then attempts to haggle with the hookers, a huge mistake that usually results in him getting thrown out of wherever he is. Later, he bets his last dollar on a street side game of Three Card Monte. Everyone with half a brain knows those games are rigged yet Edmond goes ahead. A seedy pimp leads Edmond into an alley, promising him a girl. Again, common sense would have led anyone else to flee long before Edmond has a knife pulled on him. Ultimately, Edmond's downfall is almost entirely his own fault.

When performed on-stage, “Edmond” has attracted controversy for its use of racial epithets. It happens early and often. The man Edmond meets in the bar casually uses the N-word. Later, while beating the pimp, Edmond unleashes a barrage of racist phrases. This invigorates Edmond and he uses derogatory terms throughout the rest of the film. “Edmond” is definitely criticizing the white macho ego. Yet Edmond's apparent racism isn't even that clear. Later in the film, after totally bottoming out, he attempts to join a black church. It seems Edmond has no strong feelings about anything and only latches onto whatever he's just heard. Because he's a truly empty person.

If Edmond's fury is partially let out on black people, he reserves most of his anger for women. He cruelly dismisses his wife in an early scene. From there, he spends the rest of the movie attempting to get laid. Each time, the prostitute respectfully lays down her price, only for him to dismiss that too. As the story progresses, he becomes more and more violent towards woman. Finally, he murders one.  After that, he yells at a black woman on the subway, practically attempting to rape her. Edmond is a prime example of the masculine id, pissing and attacking everyone who isn't also a white man.

That murder scene is probably the film's key moment. After striking out all night, Edmond successfully picks up a young waitress. Glenna, played by Julia Stiles, is somehow impressed with Edmond's grandstanding and ranting. The two go back to her apartment and make love. Afterwards, he continues to yell at her, belittling her dream of being an actress. As he yells more, knife still in hand, she becomes afraid. He ignores her cries of fear, eventually slashing her throat in anger. Look at that: A grandstanding, power-mad man killing a defenseless woman, unaware of how frightened she is. Gordon shoots the scene like one of his horror movies, using frenzied camera movement to raise the tension before the sudden, shocking explosion of gore.

Despite being a low budget film, “Edmond” packs its supporting cast full of familiar faces. Denise Richards shows up for a small role as the first prostitute Edmond attempts to sleep with, projecting a subtle comedy in the brief scene. Bai Ling next appears as the peepshow stripper and she's flat-out hilarious, maintaining a sexy veneer while repeatedly deflecting Edmond's clueless advances. Mena Survari is maybe the most beautiful sex worker in the film and the one with the least patience for Edmond's foolishness. Patricia Belcher, a familiar face if not name, shows up as the elderly black woman Gordon attacks. Gordon regular Frances Bay has a cameo as the fortune teller. And, of course, Julia Stiles is excellent in her few scenes.

The supporting males also feature some of Gordon's favorite players. Jeffrey Combs has a small part as an effeminate hotel clerk. He's pretty hilarious in his one scene, mincing in disbelief at Macy's antics. George Wendt puts on a surprisingly convincing Russian accent as the shady pawn shop owner who sells Edmond the knife. Joe Mantegna steals his scene as the old racist that starts Edmond's journey. He never undersells how gross his dialogue is but makes it understandable why that would be appealing to some people. Dylan Walsh also appears as a stern police chief that interrogates Edmond. Lastly, Bokeem Woodbine brings a surprisingly amount of respectable to his part in the final act.

That final act ends “Edmond” in a very odd place. After going to prison, Edmond is raped by his cellmate, a large black man. This seems to confirm his worst fears.. At least, until we leap ahead several years. Now, with a shaved head and a bulked up body, Edmond seems more at peace. He has a long, philosophical conversation with his rapist. In the closing minutes of the film, he willingly kisses his bunk mate, curling up with him romantically. Maybe Mamet just wanted to end his shocking play on a shocking image. Or maybe Edmond only finds contentment, and genuine insight into the universe, after abandoning his racism and macho attitudes. Either way, it's certainly a memorable conclusion to take us out on.

"Edmond" is an ugly film. It shows us the darkest side of male entitlement. Considering there's nothing rare about that behavior, I'd excuse anyone who isn't interested in watching the movie. Yet there's a lesson, and even a layer of dark comedy, in watching “Edmond's” bumble towards self-realization. The film is excellently acted. Gordon's direction is strong, as the film has a beautifully noir-ish atmosphere. The film's star-studded cast and flashy Mamet dialogue would attract a lot of attention to Stuart Gordon, briefly revitalizing his career. Though not an easy watch, “Edmond” is one I would recommend. [Grade: B]

Director Report Card: Stuart Gordon (2003)

13. King of the Ants

I vaguely recall seeing “King of the Ants” on video store shelves around 2003. At the time, judging from the DVD cover art, I assumed it to be a low budget horror movie about killer ants. Cheaply produced killer animal films like that were flooding the home video market at the time. “King of the Ants” was even the very first production from the Asylum, the low budget company that would soon become infamous for features like “Trans-Morphers” or “Sharknado.” At the time I had no idea that “King of the Ants” was the latest feature from Stuart Gordon. Gordon, in fact, spend a decade trying to make the movie. George Wendt read Charlie Higson's novel in the nineties, loved it, and brought it to Gordon. It took them that long to find a production company willing to make it.

Sean Crawley is a young guy just looking for work. After a house-painting gig, he meets a guy calling himself Duke. Duke, taking a liking to Sean, tells the kid he'll call him if he has a job for him. That call soon comes. Sean is paid by an amoral stranger named Ray Matthews to spy on a family man. Soon, Matthews asks Sean to kill the man. Which he does strictly because the pay was so high. Matthews and Duke, however, have no intention of paying Sean. After Sean threatens to blackmail them, they attacked him, imprisoned him, and brutally tortured him. Sean, however, isn't dead. He'll soon have his chance for revenge.

Among the small group that saw “King of the Ants,” some critics took issue with the film's tone. “King of the Ants” does, admittedly, belong to several different genres. Is it a dark crime thriller? A nihilistic neo-noir? A weirdo horror movie? Yes to all of the above. “King of the Ants” leaps all over the place, its story going in many unexpected directions and strange digressions. However, the film is held together by an extremely dark sense of humor. There's an absurdity to the early scenes of Sean chatting with his veterinarian friend or being escorted around a zoo. Even when unspeakable things are happening to Sean, his captors are cruelly sardonic. The hallucinations are surreal, with an odd humor of their own. This through line connects the entire film, allowing Gordon to do whatever he wants with this crazy story.

As a crime story, “King of the Ants” does something really clever. In fiction, hitmen are usually depicted as efficient professionals that can take out anyone with ease. There's an entire industry of films devoted to the topic. In real life, experts believe there's actually no such thing as professional hitmen. Most contract killers are actually normal people performing a hit for the first time. They stumble, they screw-up, and they make a mess of things. “King of the Ants” portrays this accurately. Sean stumbles into being a paid killer. He does it strictly for the money. When the murder comes, he bumbles through it. It takes three tries to kill his target. Afterwards, he is shaken and disturbed by his actions. This is a gritty, and welcomed, subversion of usual film cliches.

“King of the Ants” really reminds of 2003. Not just because I remember seeing it in video stores around that time or because of the fashion in the film. Gordon photographs the film primarily with handheld digital cameras, in the manner that was common among low budget films at the time. Yet there's a method to Gordon's approach, presumably behind budgetary reasons. “King of the Ants” is not a fantastical story. There's none of the zombies or Lovecraftian abominations, as in his previous features. This story is closer to reality. His decision to shoot in a grittier style reflects this. This, admittedly, is a bit ugly. But “King of the Ants” is an ugly sort of story.

“King of the Ants” stars Chris McKenna. McKenna is a character actor who has had a decent career, mostly in television. He's been in a few things I've seen but I don't really recall him in it. McKenna isn't the most memorable looking guy, appearing like a regular joe you'd find in any city. This actually works for “King of the Ants.” At first, Sean seems like a normal, almost foolish, young person. He's struggling for work in a recession and jobs are hard to come by. This unassuming quality works for the film, as Sean seems exactly like the kind of guy who is in way over his head. As the story progresses, and Sean's journey becomes darker, a strange strength emerges from Sean. McKenna is good at playing this too. By the end, he's a cold-blooded killer and the audience totally buys it, McKenna slowly stripping the emotion from his delivery.

“King of the Ants” does not fall strictly within the horror genre. Yet the film features a level of violence, pushing towards the horrific. “King of the Ants” would come a year before “Saw” caused the quote-unquote “torture porn” style to explode. In some ways, the film predates this style. After Sean is abducted, he's taken to a shack in the desert. He's stripped nude, tied to a chair, and bludgeoned with golf clubs. This happens repeatedly, over the span of weeks. By the end, Sean's face is incredibly bloodied. He has a bump the size of a baseball on his forehead, his face swollen beyond recognition. The film acknowledges the even nastier details of imprisonment as well. It's not long before Sean is covered in his own urine and excrement. This kind of brutality is shocking and unexpected.

At least one review of “King of the Ants” describes the film as being similar to an episode of “The Red Shoe Diaries.” This couldn't be more misleading However, the film does consider issues of sex and desires. While spying on the family man, Sean develops a crush on the guy's wife. When he's trapped and tortured, he has fantasies about her, masturbating. When you read accounts from survivors of torture, some say thinking about sex gets them through the worst of it. So including Sean's scattered fantasies is an interesting decision, allowing the audience further inside his mind during these brutal scenes.

Of course, not everything he sees while being tormented is so pleasant. Really confirming “King of the Ants'” status as a horror film are the bizarre hallucinations Sean has. Some of these are supremely strange. He imagines his dream woman as a bloated, hairy beast with snaggle teeth. She then proceeds to feed on her own excrement. Later, Sean imagines the same woman but with some, shall we say, incompatible equipment. These moments are effectively freaky. Not every nightmare scene in “King of the Ants” works as well. Another involves the woman screaming profanity, while the camera seizes around. That frankly feels like a move from a filmmaker of a skill level much lower than Gordon.

At this point in the story, “King of the Ants” is still not done shifting genres. The last act concerns Sean getting revenge on those that tortured him. And it's as brutal as the torture that was inflicted on him. A frozen body is rolled out of a freezer, decapitated, and then burnt. An ax is shoved into a gut, the man surviving the initial wound. Another man is beaten with a sludge hammer, leg and back shattered brutally. Lastly, Sean sets his most prominent torment on fire, the man burning in a ghastly fashion. In your typical hitman movie, this would be a glorious, crowd-pleasing moment. In “King of the Ants,” it's the final sign that Sean's humanity is gone, a frighteningly cruel conclusion to a frighteningly cruel film.

For a low budget production starring a relative unknown, “King of the Ants” has a pretty stacked supporting cast. George Wendt appears as Duke. Wendt is best known for his lovable turns on “Cheers.” Here, he plays a callous man who only cares about himself. It's a good bit of against-type casting for Wendt, who is effective as the hardened man. Daniel Baldwin is no one's favorite Baldwin. However, his innate greasiness is well utilized as Matthews, the slimeball who gets the plot rolling. Vernon Wells, by now a Gordon regular, shows up as the sole member of Matthews' squad who is mildly sympathetic to Sean's plight. Wells, known for playing unhinged villains, works well as an enforcer with a conscious.

“King of the Ants” is kind of funny but in the darkest way possible. A nihilistic heart beats at the center of this nasty tale. When Sean ends up reunited with his dream woman, seemingly finding a happy life with her, it's destined to be short-lived. Animals are repeatedly referenced throughout the movie. More than once, humans are compared to them. In the final scene, the meaning of the title revealed, the film states that humans are simply the most advanced animals. It's a cruel world and one must be cruel to survive it. In a universe this cruel, Sean's transformation into a cold-blooded killer is the closest thing we can get to a happy ending.

“King of the Ants” was widely overlooked in 2003, though a number of its reviews were positive. In some ways, it's a significant film for Stuart Gordon. He would continue to move away from the sci-fi/horror genre, making films more based in reality. His next two features even make an interesting trilogy with “King of the Ants,” each connection by a theme of man's cruelty to his fellow man. Though cheaply produced, “King of the Ants” is worth seeking out. The film is clever, visceral, well acted, and impressively uncompromising. [Grade: B+]

Director Report Card: Stuart Gordon (2001)

12. Dagon

Despite his long association with H.P. Lovecraft, Stuart Gordon had never adapted any of the author's most famous works. It wasn't for a lack of trying. Starting in the early nineties, Gordon began work on an adaptation of “The Shadow Over Innsmouth.” Probably Lovecraft's most famous story after “The Call of Cthulhu,” it proved difficult to bring to the screen. A version with Full Moon nearly came to fruition but fell apart before filming. Gordon didn't give up on the story though. A decade later, Brian Yunza would partner which Spain-based studio Filmax to form Fantastic Factory, a production company specializing in genre films. One of Fantastic Factory's first features was “Dagon.” Despite being named for a shorter Lovecraft story, this was actually Gordon's long-simmering adaptation of “The Shadow Over Innsmouth.” Over the years since, “Dagon” has garnered a passionate cult following.

Paul Marsh is on vacation with his girlfriend, Barbara, and two mutual friends. Their boat is stranded outside an unusual village in Spain. Paul swims over to the town, named Imboca. Imboca is not like other towns though. As the sun goes down, Paul discovers that the Imboca villagers are half-human creatures. They worship the dark sea god Dagon and have, slowly over the years, transformed into fish-like monsters. Now, Paul must rescue his girlfriend and escape the village with his life. Little does he know, Paul’s own family has secrets in this town.

Gordon's previous Lovecraft's adaptations were fairly loose, mostly because they were adapting short stories. “Dagon” is also a fairly loose adaptation. However, the film captures the spirit of Lovecraft better than any previous adaptations. The movie features almost everything you associate with the author. There's a sea-side town with a dark secret. There's humanoid fish creatures crawling through the mud, revealing gills, bulging eyes, tentacles and claws. Arcane pacts are made with ancient beings, in decadent and desecrated churches. Human sacrifices are performed to elder gods, giant eldritch creatures who sleep in the ocean. Strange statues devoted to profane entities are seen. The infamous C'thulhu chant is even said on-screen. That Gordon manages to cram all these iconic elements into one film is impressive. In this regard, “Dagon” maybe the ultimate Lovecraft movie.

As a Spanish co-production, “Dagon” shifts “The Shadow Over Innsmouth's” location from a seaside Massachusetts town to a tiny village in Spain. (Amusingly, the town is renamed “Imboca,” a rough Spanish translation of “Innsmouth.”) However, Gordon maintains that New England setting in one important way. Imboca is rainy as hell. A thunder storm rolls in within the opening minutes. After that, rain falls throughout the rest of the movie. So, yes, this is a horror movie set on a dark and stormy night. That cliché works for a reason though. The constant rain provides a gloomy, foreboding atmosphere. Combined with the crumbling buildings and towns, it makes “Dagon's” setting memorably bleak and portentous.

Scripting wise, there's actually not too much to “Dagon.” A solid chunk in the middle of the movie is devoted to a long chase. Paul sees the deformed fish people roaming the streets. They see him. He leaps from his hotel window. He's on the run for most of the rest of the film. It's a simple structure but one that works for the movie. Paul is in a constant state of panic, understandably. By strapping the audience to this character, running from one frightening encounter to the next, the audience shares in his panic. Effectively, “Dagon” doesn't give the viewer much chance to catch their breath. We don't know when the next monster attack will be coming. We only know it'll be soon.

Aside from C'thulhu himself, Lovecraft's most famous creation are the Deep Ones. Humans slowly mutating into fish creatures, their pop culture progeny can be seen in “Creature from the Black Lagoon” and hundreds of other stories. Weirdly, before “Dagon,” we never actually saw them on-screen. It was worth the wait. In “Dagon,” the Deep Ones are portrayed in various stages of development. We see humans that are almost humans, save for their webbed hands or bulging eyes. Soon, more mutated versions appear. Fanged tooth, gnarly gills, and spotted skin show through. At the end, we see a fully squid-headed C'thuloid, an impressive sight. Yet Gordon makes moves to humanize even these creatures. One of the best scenes involves a tentacle-armed Deep One. Paul beats him unconscious, just in time for the creature's grandson to cry over him.

If there's a serious thing holding “Dagon” back, it's the lead performance. This was Ezra Gooden's first feature credit. With his black-rimmed glasses and narrow body, he can't help but strike the viewer as a Jeffrey Combs lookalike. Gooden's approach to the material is very different. He plays Paul as a chronic worrier, hopelessly nerdy and anxious. He's introduced watching his stocks while on vacation. After becoming an unlikely survivor, Gooden begins to play the character in a weirder way. He starts shouting profanity at the fish-people, as if he's some sort of bad-ass action hero. Instead of a dweeb. The performance has grown on me over the years – the unlikely hero is an interesting subversion – but it's not the most likable choice.

There really aren't too many other characters to write about in “Dagon.” Paul's girlfriend is a damsel in distress. His friends are fodder for the fish guys. The Deep Ones are slobbering monsters. However, there is one other really important character in the film. Veteran Spanish character actor Francisco Rabal plays Ezequiel. A homeless drunkard, the Deep Ones let him live in Imboca because he's harmless. After Paul runs into him, Ezquiel explains the town's history. What could've been a dull moment of exposition is instead transformed into a highlight. We see the town, formerly full of good Christians, loose faith after the fishing trade dries up. When God won't send more fish, they worship Dagon instead. Dagon, it turns out, provides. Powered by Rabal's gravelly narration, it's a powerful sequence about how supposedly unshakable faith can be easily molded when the food runs out. It's an idea Lovecraft, with his cosmology of ancient gods indifferent to humanity, surely would've appreciated.

It seems Gordon likes to insert one scene of impressively brutal horror in his Lovecraft adaptations. Maybe he's feels fans expect something to top “Re-Animator's” Head Giving Head scene. So we got twisted body horror and brain-sucking in “From Beyond” and a chained prostitute having her breasts bitten off in “Castle Freak.” “Dagon” is moderately gory usually but one scene stands out. After Paul and Ezequiel are captured, we see how the Deep Ones create their human flesh mask. The homeless man has his face flayed away, while still alive. It's a pretty fucked up moment, featuring plenty of blood and focusing on the character's suffering.

The film's practical effects are actually pretty good. The Deep Ones, especially the squid-headed elder and the octopus-legged mermaid, all look excellent. The gore is solid stuff. However, presumably as a cost-saving measure, “Dagon” features some awkward CGI. The camera peers below the crashed ship, showing an unconvincing shape in the water. Dagon himself leaps on-screen near the end. It's an underwhelming appearance, as the elder god is brought to life by some shaky effects. Worst yet is when Paul's squid-y mermaid dream girl joins him in the deep. The very real Macarena Gomez is traded out for a plastic-y, unconvincing CGI replica. These moments looked bad in 2001 and look even worst today.

Despite its flaws, it's easy to forgive “Dagon” for its pitch perfect ending. Throughout the film, Paul has been haunted by dreams of a strange mermaid. They frighten and intrigue him. Throughout the film, he meets this dream girl. Despite her being a stranger, he's still attracted to her. Even after discovering she has tentacles for legs, he can't deny the siren's call. In the final minutes, we learn she's his half-sister too. As they sink into the deep together, Paul's gills activated and he discovers his true fate. Somehow, “Dagon” makes swimming into the deep with your own half-sister/fish monster lover look kind of appealing.

Freed from the Empire/Full Moon house, Stuart Gordon gets a chance to work with another composer besides Richard Band. Carles Cases provides the music for “Dagon.” His score is beautifully effective. A woman's ghostly singing, from off, as if heard underwater, is peppered throughout the film. This is obviously the siren calling Paul home but it entrances the listener too. Cases also utilizes chanting voices throughout his score, bringing the cult of Dagon to mind. It's a foreboding score, effectively eerie, but maintains an odd beauty to it as well.

“Dagon” would not get a theatrical release in the U.S., instead going direct-to-video. Luckily, the film was released during a time when the direct-to-video market was exploding. “Dagon” was quickly pick up by horror fans. While reviews were slightly mixed, those that love this movie really love it. The cult following remains strong, some saying its Gordon's best film. I wouldn't go that far. An unappealing lead character and some shaky effects detract. Ultimately, “Dagon” isn't on the level of the director's previous Lovecraft adaptations. However, it's a really strong feature. It's worth seeing just to see so many classical Lovecraft elements depicted on-screen. [Grade: B]

Director Report Card: Stuart Gordon (1998)

11. The Wonderful Ice Cream Suit

During my “Space Truckers” review, I noted how Stuart Gordon has primarily directed gory horror movies and goofy sci-fi movies. Maybe the director was becoming aware of that pigeon-holing too. For his eleventh feature, he would radically shift gears and direct a family film. A PG rated family film made by Disney, no less. (Unsurprisingly, the poster doesn't say it's “from the director of “Re-Animator.””) Upon closer examination, there's a pretty clear reason why Gordon would direct “The Wonderful Ice Cream Suit.” The film was based on a stage play, adapted by Ray Bradbury from his own short story. Gordon had previously directed a stage production of “The Wonderful Ice Cream Suit” and obviously decided, then and there, that the story would make a fine film.

In East Los Angeles, Gomez is known to be a conman. Despite this, he has roped four other guys into his latest scheme. Five guys will each chip in twenty dollars so they can purchase a gleaming white suit from a local shop. The guys each wear the suit for an hour that night, the ice cream suit seemingly having a magical effects on their lives. Martinez, a love-lorn young man, gains the courage to ask his beautiful neighbor out. Guitar player Domiguez attracts attention for his music. Poet Villanazul develops an audience for his way with words. Bum Vamanos, meanwhile, cleans up his life. Yet Gomez is still planning to wear the suit and skip town. Will its whimsical properties make him change his mind?

“The Wonderful Ice Cream Suit” is the third version of this story from Ray Bradbury. He wrote the original short story, adapted it for the theater, and would then write the screenplay for this film. As the title suggest, it's is a fairly goofy comedy. There's a farcical streak in the air from the earliest minutes, when Gomez chases Martinez into a alleyway... Just to measure him with a tape measure. Yet the silly comedy is not what marks “The Wonderful Ice Cream Suit” as Bradbury's work. Instead, it's the story's element of whimsical, magical-realism. The film is seemingly set in our world but little, fantastical touches distinguish it. People break into sound and dance on the streets. Simple words can stir a crowd to march across the city. And a white suit can change somebody's life. His earlier work may not suggest it but Gordon nails this tone fantastically.

Bradbury's play was inspired by the friendships he experienced while living in a largely Latin American community as a poor young man. Through this lens, it's possible to read “The Wonderful Ice Cream Suit” as a celebration of Latin American culture. Of the five main characters, two are played by Puerto Rican actors and two by Mexican-American actors. (And one by, uh, an Italian.) The film steeps itself in Latin-American culture. A Mariachi band acts as something of a Greek chorus, appearing on the sidelines of several scenes. Music, dancing, and Mexican cuisine crop up all throughout the film. This lends a colorful energy to the film. “The Wonderful Ice Cream Suit” is a really fun movie to watch and much of that stems from the vibrant culture it draws from.

One, however, must remember that Bradbury's story was written back in 1957. “The Wonderful Ice Cream Suit” was certainly a more than fair depiction of Latin-American life back in the late fifties. To modern sensibilities, it can appear a little less sensitive. Yes, everyone in the story is very poor. Gomez lives in near poverty, the others eventually co-habituating with him. One of those characters is a homeless man, always filthy, who is fond of smoking, drinking, and eating tacos. The story concludes near a bar, in a scene that features chubby mamachita, a muscle car, and a guy named Toro. And, like I said, one of the main characters is played by a man in brownface. So the film was obviously intended to be a sincere celebration of this culture. At times, however, it comes off as a little stereotypical.

As I said, “The Wonderful Ice Cream Suit” is Stuart Gordon's first (and thus far only) PG-rated family film. Yes, the movie was produced by Disney. However, the Mouse Factory chose to distribute it under their Touchstone label. And it's easy to see why. I'm not sure if the film would get a PG rating today. One character is constantly smoking, a habit the MPAA comes down on a lot harder today. There's also constant references to drinking. Most surprisingly, in the last act, a character is greeted by what appears to be a prostitute. When the other guys point out that he only has five minutes in the suit left, he decides that's more than enough. It's still pretty tame but, considering the PG-rating is now solely the domain of squecky clean family fair, the content is still a little edgier than expected.

“The Wonderful Ice Cream Suit” works best when embracing the whimsical energy at the story's center. This is best exemplified during the film's several musical numbers. The opening credits are brought to life with colorful, swirling sand art, the titular song playing along. This is an enchanting way to open the film. After Domingeuz dons the white suit, he plays his guitar inside an apartment complex. Soon, every woman in the building is singing and dancing with him, kicking and stepping up and down the stairs and into the streets. When Villanazul wears the suit, a scene that isn't technically a musical number but sure feels like one follows. Before a crowd, he delivers a poem about community pride. What follows is a scene of film walking through the desert, the other parts of the city, and his own street. All of these scenes perfectly capture the heart-warming energy central to the film's success.

The other side of “The Wonderful Ice Cream Suit's” tone is its goofier comedy. This farcical side grows as the film goes on, becoming especially notable by the end. When Vamanos puts on the suit, he immediately does what the others told him not to do. He heads to a local bar, drinking, smoking, and eating. Dancing with Ruby, a popular woman at the bar, enrages her boyfriend, Toro. The other four guys immediately intervene, not wanting the suit to get damaged in a fight. Each man convinces Toro to punch them instead, sometimes multiple times. Gordon plays this was broadly as possible, the punches coming in slow motion, the men grimacing ridiculously. This builds towards an even sillier scene, Toro attempting to run Vamanos down with his car. The climax is even goofier, featuring the bum leaping atop the moving vehicle. It's silly stuff but admittedly enjoyable.

“The Wonderful Ice Cream Suit” probably wouldn't work at all if it wasn't for the cast. Yes, it takes a minute to accept Joe Mantegna as Gomez, a Hispanic man. Once you get over that, Mantegna's performance becomes quite good. He has an impressive comedic energy, making the character active and enjoyable. Clifton Collins Jr., previously seen in “Fortress,” appears as Martinez, the lovelorn kid. Collins projects a pure sincerity, making him perfect for a part like this. Collins' gee-whiz attitude makes you root for this kid, in his journey to find love and connect with the woman of his dreams.

There's two artists, of sorts, in the group. Esai Morales plays Dominguez, the guitar player. As written, the character is not quite a would-be ladies' man but he's more sincere than that implies. He has a genuine love for his music. Morales has just the right balance for the character, managing to make him likable while maintaining the character's slightly edgy side. More gentle is Gregory Seirra as Villanazul, the poet. Seirra projects a natural intelligence, paired with a slight lack of confidence. This makes the utter joy he gains from the suit feel especially well earned. Both performers do very well in the part, making the characters seem real and lovable.

Of the central five characters, only one strikes the viewer as unlikable. Vamanos first appears covered in dirt and grime, with a full beard. His appearance is such that, at first, you don't even realizes its Edward James Olmos playing him. The way the character is treated strikes the viewer as slightly mean-spirited. Gomez cruelly dismisses him several times, usually off-handedly. Yet you kind of understand this reaction, as Vamanos is kinda' annoying. He shouts and mugs. However, as the other four grow attached to the character, so does the audience. At the end, when Vamanos insists the others remove the suit so it doesn't get damaged, you've grow quite fond of him.

Yes, “The Wonderful Ice Cream Suit” has a clear sentimental streak. It's a movie about friendship and trying to achieve one's dreams, even when life around you is hard. The film concludes with a touching scene of the five guys bonding over what they've accomplished that day, reflecting on what friendship has brought them. It comes dangerously close to being sappy. Yet “The Wonderful Ice Cream Suit's” utmost sincerity keeps the film from feeling treacly or preachy. You're happy to see these guys achieve their dreams. Moreover, you're happy to see them find each other. That sweetness helps smooth over some of the tonal inconsistencies.

“The Wonderful Ice Cream Suit” was probably never going to be a crossover success. However, the movie's release was really unfair. After receiving positive reviews at various festivals, it ended up being dumped on video with little fanfare. There, naturally, it wasn't seen by very many people. Still, the film deserves to be seen and not just because it's an outliner in Gordon's career. It's a goofy and light-hearted but ultimately amusing little picture. The film is less than eighty minutes long too, so you've really got no excuse for giving it a look. Go in with the right mindset and “The Wonderful Ice Cream Suit” may charm you too. [Grade: B]

Director Report Card: Stuart Gordon (1996)

10. Space Truckers

It seems, at some point, Stuart Gordon acquired a reputation for doing two kinds of movies: Gory horror films and goofy sci-fi adventures. You might assume the horror movies are more Gordon's style but one can't forget that he has writing credits on both “Robot Jox” and “Space Truckers.” Gordon was apparently drawn to “Space Truckers,” primarily the work of former National Lampoon writer Ted Mann, by his childhood desire to become an astronaut. The resulting film is not discussed very much. While “Robot Jox” and “Fortress” have followings, “Space Truckers” has become one of Gordon's most obscure features.

It’s the future and man lives among the stars. But goods must still be transported from location to location. This is where the space truckers come in. John Canyon considers himself the greatest space trucker. After running into trouble at a truck stop, he takes a mysterious job from a corporation. A waiter Canyon admires, Cindy, and another male trucker, Mike, accompanies him. He’s told he’s transporting sex dolls. In fact, he’s transporting a fleet of bio-mechanical killer cyborgs. Soon, space pirates become involved and the cyborgs are unleashed.

With “Robot Jox,” Gordon sought to capture a tone comparable to a Saturday morning cartoon. I have no idea if he had a similar goal with “Space Truckers” but the movie's atmosphere seems to suggest as much. “Space Truckers” is very much a live action cartoon. The comedy is highly goofy. The characters are broad. The action is comedic. More over, the film takes its premise very literally. When I first heard the title, I assumed “Space Truckers” would concern futuristic blue collar workers like in “Alien,” hauling huge space platforms or minerals. Instead, the film transports modern truckers into space. They drive rigs with trailers, hauling hogs or other standard goods. They wear baseball caps and talk on CB radios. They hang out in “road side,” as it were, diners. It's not a futuristic version of the trucking industry as it exists now. It's literally the modern trucking industry moved into space.

Like a cartoon, “Space Truckers” is not especially concerned with coherent plotting. The story is essentially a series of random encounters. The central trio bumble into meeting each other. Afterwards, they are given a mission. Yet it's not a straight path. The rig is damaged in an asteroid field. The ship is abducted by pirates, leading to a lengthy mid-film digression. Lastly, the killer robots pop out as the characters (and script) wanders towards Earth. There's next to no connection between these events. They don't really build on each other. By the time the film ends, it feels more like the screenwriter ran out of ideas then the plot reaching a logical conclusion. That “Space Truckers” is the work of a comedy writer is revealing. The movie feels like a series of loosely linked sketches than a proper story line.

Though some of the cartoonish, sci-fi details are endearingly weird. John Canyon is hauling hogs but not typical pigs. Instead, he's transporting “square” pigs, hogs that have been genetically engineered to fit inside a confined space. That's a lovably weird touch. The space setting occasionally contributes an interesting moment. Canyon is introduced eating a hot dog, the squeeze-bottle of mustard floating through his cab. Futuristic billboards, floating through space on satellites, put in brief appearances. In a likely homage to “2001,” the waitress in the space-diner walk around in a loop, on a revolving platform. Weightlessness also comes in handle during a fight scene, where someone is punched across a room. Even if the film is very literal about its “truckers in space” premise, at least it utilizes the attributes of the sci-fi setting somewhat.

What I immediately noticed about “Space Truckers,” more than anything, was its production values. Most of Gordon's previous films have been made in the two-to-five million dollar range. “Space Truckers,” meanwhile, was made for twenty-five million. That's a significant step up and it shows. The film features some impressive model and miniature works. Canyon's cab and the other space rigs are pretty cool looking. The police vessels and the pirate ship are similarly memorable. The sets are large, filling lived-in and impressively detailed. There's even some CGI which looks very rough by modern standards. However, in 1996, just the mere presence of computer generated images was kind of a big deal. The director clearly enjoyed playing in this larger sand box.

Despite the increased budget, “Space Truckers” functions poorly in one very important way. For a comedy, it's simply not very funny. Many of the supposed gags come off as overly mean-spirited. The film begins with the fleet of killer robots murdering fifty soldiers. Later, someone – a jerk but not evil – gets painfully sucked out a window into space. The characters often snipe at each other in a way that is less than endearing. I wonder if the rating had something to do with this. “Space Truckers” was Stuart Gordon's first PG-13 effort. Maybe, if it was made within his usual R rating, the film would've been closer to the absurdly funny gore-fests of his previous pictures. By limiting the blood, the violence actually becomes more mean-spirited. The characters are snide even while people are dying around them. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. In fact, I only laughed once throughout the whole film. When two people attempt to kiss, they forget they're in space suits and they're helmets clink together. Otherwise, I didn't chuckle once.

I actively wonder if “Space Truckers” wasn't originally intended as an R-rated film. The movie is full of sexy shenanigans. While Canyon is outside fixing the overheating rig, Cindi and Mike are left inside. As the ship's interior gets hotter, they strip down to their underwear. Inevitably, within minutes, they are getting intimate. Cindi spends most of the rest of the film in her bra and panties.  Instead of being funny and sexy, it comes off as slightly sleazy and unpleasant. She's (barely) dressed like this when they get abducted by pirates. Which leads to the cyborg captain attempting to sleep with her. That leads to a deeply uncomfortable sequence where the captain activates his robot genitalia with a pull-string, like a chainsaw. “Space Truckers” is seemingly set in a future where women have to prostitute themselves to get anywhere. That's a pretty gross place to insert some light sex farce.

Other than the weirdly neutered violence, there's another hint that Stuart Gordon primarily makes horror films. The bio-organic killer robots in “Space Truckers” would probably be pretty cool villains in a monster movie. The machine soldiers were designed by Hajime Sorayama, a Japanese artist famous for his paintings of sexualized gynoids. While not blatantly erotic, the robots do have weirdly shapely hips. (And, while deactivated, they sprout testicle-shaped sacs.) Atop these vaguely human-shaped heads are heads like cameras, adding to their unnerving appearance. They are difficult to kill, shoot a laser beam that reduce people to goo, sprout giant blades from their arms, and produce tentacles from their chest. Gordon cast female dancers as the robots, giving the machines a fluid, unique movement. It all adds up to make memorable adversaries, even if the movie around them is forgettable.

“Space Truckers” was made during that weird period when Dennis Hopper was actually something like a box office draw. Weirder yet, Hopper breaks from the kind of roles he played in “Speed,” “Super Mario Bros.,” and “Waterworld” by being the film's hero. Despite the change in moral alliance, Hopper still hams it up like he did in those villain roles. Hopper's John Canyon is a bit of a rogue, who frequently thumbs his nose at authority and does what he wants. He gets out of tough situations by tricking and out-thinking people. It's a good role for Hopper, who could always be counted on to nicely ham it up when the occasion called for it. The material may not be the best but Hopper is at least enjoying himself.

Among the film's semi-heroic trio, Hopper ends up being the bright spot. “Space Truckers” was also made during that weird period when Hollywood was trying to make Stephen Dorff happen. As Mike, Doriff comes off as overly smug. It doesn't help the screenwriter wrote the character primarily as a bumbling idiot, who gets the heroes into trouble more often than he gets them out of it. Opposite Doriff is Debi Mazar as Cindy. Mazar is a more appealing performer than Dorff. The part of a sassy diner waitress, thrown into a crazy adventure, is certainly well suited to her abilities. Yet, as good as Mazar is, she still can't save the lackluster script. Too often, she's reduced to reacting to the situations in an unbelieving way.

There are a few recognizable faces bouncing around “Space Truckers'” supporting cast. Charles Dance appears as Macanuda, the cyborg pirate captain. It's honestly odd seeing a classically trained performer like Dance playing a horny robo-pirate with a pneumatic dick. Considering how much make-up he's under, it's honestly hard to recognize Dance at first, if it wasn't for his immediately recognizable voice. Dance plays the ridiculous material straight but can't manage to wring any laughs out of it. George Wendt, who worked with Gordon on-stage, has a small role as the owner of the shipping company badgering Hopper. Vernon Wells shows up in one of his trademark henchmen roles, this time as a space pirate. Minutes before the movie is over, Barbara Crampton appears in a surprise cameo. It's nice to see her again.

Despite its fancy special effects and somewhat star-studded cast, “Space Truckers” would be a disastrous box office bomb. The film only grossed a little over a million dollars in theaters, against a considerably larger budget. I'm not even sure the film was released theatrically in America. This might explain why Gordon has never returned to the science fiction genre in the years since making this one. Yet the people who have seen the film seem to consider it a campy delight. I wish I could share that enthusiasm. I found the film frequently annoying, weirdly paced and tonally odd. [Grade: C]

Director Report Card: Stuart Gordon (1995)

9. Castle Freak

“Castle Freak” should've been a bigger deal than it was. The film was Stuart Gordon's return to the house that Charles Band built, his second feature for Full Moon and his fifth overall for Band. Moreover, it was another “Re-Animator” reunion, with the script adapted (albeit loosely) from Lovecraft, and Jeffrey Combs and Barbara Crampton in the lead roles. Instead, “Castle Freak” had some bad luck. The film was made right after Full Moon parted ways with Paramount, who distributed their movies and chipped in with the budget. Afterwards, Full Moon would make increasingly cheaper and lazier movies. This split also led to a delayed release. Originally meant to get a theatrical release around Halloween of 1994, “Castle Freak” would instead creep onto video during 1995. Upon release, the film wasn't seen by many outside the Fangoria Magazine readership. Yet, in my opinion, “Castle Freak” deserves as second look.

In a dilapidated Italian castle, an elderly woman brutally whips a freak locked in the basement. Afterwards, she collapses from a heart attack. The castle is willed to the woman's only surviving relatives: The American Reilly family. The Reillys are currently in crisis. A year ago, father John wrecked the family car while driving drunk, killing his five year old son J.J and blinding his teenage daughter, Rebecca. His wife, Susan, has been reluctant to forgive, their marriage nearly at an end. Along with the castle, the family has also inherited the freak. Soon, he escapes, creeping through the castle at night, preying on the embittered family.

On paper, “Castle Freak's” premise is almost hokey. The idea of a long lost relative dying, leaving an actual castle in the inheritance, is the kind concept seen more often in parodies than serious stories. Even the idea of a monster hiding in the basement of the old home is a similarly well-trotted troupe. Yet Gordon approaches these gothic horror concepts with utmost seriousness. He infuses the story with a personal weight, mixing in serious themes. The result is a surprisingly mature horror picture, more adult than the madcap gore-fests of “Re-Animator” or “From Beyond.” It's certainly not the cheesy exploitation flick the title implies.

In particular, “Castle Freak” is concerned with the theme of familial shame. The titular freak is the result of the old woman's only marriage. Because the boy reminded her of her unfaithful husband, she castrated, starved, and tortured him. Grigorio is hidden away, like all shameful secrets. The Reilly family has shameful events in their past. The death of J.J. haunts John and Susan still. John is so ashamed that he refuses to take responsibility for his actions, still drinking too much. As the story progresses, Grigorio becomes a symbol of everything shameful and awful the Reilly family refuses to recognizes. It's not until John faces down this monster that he owes up to his own mistakes.

There's also parallels between the various lost sons in the film. John discovers Grigorio's tomb, which contains a casket full of rocks, and notices how much he resembled his dead son. The same actor plays both young boys. Fittingly, Grigorio looks up to John in an odd way, attempting to recreate John's lovemaking with a prostitute with disastrous results. This further makes the monster a reflection of John's mistakes. There are other parallels. Both J.J. and Grigorio have been failed by his parents. The irresponsibility of J.J.'s father killed him. Grigorio's mother, meanwhile, brutally abused him as revenge against her philandering husband. These aren't the only sons abandoned by their parents in the film. The murdered prostitute has a son, who appears in the last scene, mourning alongside his father. The weight of parenthood was clearly on Gordon's mind while making “Castle Freak.”

It's easy to see why Charles Band would give the film's freak top billing. Giorgio is an impressively grotesque monster. Johnathan Fuller, the hero from “The Pit and the Pendulum,” is unrecognizable under multiple layers of latex. Giorgio's body is emaciated, his mouth torn open, his nails bloody. Gordon also has no problem showing us the monster's eunuch genitalia. Giorgio is a hideous monster but he's ultimately a human one. Fuller's cries are desperate and agonized, obviously those of a suffering man. Unlike the kind of Lovecraftian monsters Gordon usually depicts, Giorgio's horribleness is the result of human cruelty. So, in an odd way, this freak is a tragic character.

Despite the heavier themes “Castle Freak” engages with, the film shows Stuart Gordon returning to his hyper-gory early days. The violence in “Castle Freak” is graphic and intense. Giorgio's suffering is depicted without flinching. How he escapes his shackles – gnawing off his own thumb – is especially squirm-inducing. By the end of the film, his body is covered with bleeding wounds. Probably the most graphic scene occurs between the monster and the prostitute. In what may be a homage to Italian gore-masters like Lucio Fulci, he bites off the woman's nipples. There's also a smashed-in head for good measure. While likely to please gore fans, “Castle Freak” doesn't feature any “fun” violence.  The gore is disturbing and graphic.

Referring to “Castle Freak” as a Lovecraft adaptation is, admittedly, stretching it. Ninety percent of the film is original. However, Gordon takes one key sequence from his favorite author. After emerging from his dungeon, Giorgio spots a mirror. As he slowly approaches the smooth, reflective surface, he realizes the hideous beast he's looking at is himself. This is taken directly from one of Lovecraft's best short stories, “The Outsider.” It's a small moment but a pivotal one and I applaud Gordon for including it. By the way, Lovecraft's name is not above the title, as with “Re-Animator” and “From Beyond.” Gordon does, somewhat cheekily, include his name in the “thanks” section of the credits.

“Castle Freak” also contains maybe Jeffrey Combs' best performance. Combs displays no ego as an actor here. He plays John as a man at the end of his rope. When he attempts to make love with his wife, his pleas are desperate. When he eventually has sex with the prostitute, the act is sweaty, frantic, and short-lived. As John becomes more obsessed with unraveling the castle's mysteries, you perfectly understand why his family would think he's going crazy. There's none of the smarm or smugness Combs brought to Herbert West. Instead, his performance as a man shaken apart by grief and hungry for forgiveness is raw and powerful.

Of course, Barbara Crampton is here too. It's interesting to see how different Crampton's role are in each of Gordon's movies. In “Castle Freak,” she shows an anger boiling just below the surface. She is unable to forgive her husband but it's clear that it's eating her up inside. Susan Reilly has almost lost her ability to feel anything. Which makes Crampton's occasional outburst – of anger, fear, or sympathy – especially effective. Notably, Crampton keeps her clothes on this time, the character coming off as deeply reserved... Except for one scene. When Giogorio has captured her daughter, Susan offers herself to him, the character shedding her sense of propriety in a moment of panic.

Another surprisingly effective performance in the film is Jessica Dollarhide, as Rebecca. This was Dollarhide's final credit and her sole feature film credit. This is disappointing, as she shows a lot of natural talent in the film. Dollarhide never overdoes it as the blind girl. She plays the role realistically yet never mugs. Maybe it's the character's blindness or Dollarhide's acting ability, but she is an especially vulnerable character. This makes her an ideal horror heroine, a character the audience is immediately invested in, someone we want to see protected and be safe. This is important, since Dollarhide being endangered is what drives the last act. The film wouldn't work as well if she wasn't excellent.

Being a Full Moon release, “Castle Freak” is naturally scored by Richard Band. Band's scores are somewhat notorious for being derivative. His music for “Castle Freak,” however, represents some of his best work. The soundtrack represents nearly the entire emotional spectrum. Band's music is often discordant, full of darkly strumming bass, wild strings, and disharmonious chimes. This is perfect for the final act, when Giorgio is chasing the women through the castle. Yet there's also a mysterious and melancholic quality to Band's music, evident in the end credits music, hinting at the immaturity of Giogorio's character and the tragic subtext of the film.

“Castle Freak” doesn't get the praise that “Re-Animator” or “From Beyond” does. It's most remember today as an in-joke on the Flop House podcast. This is a bit unfair to the film, an intense and nasty piece of horror that is deeper than you'd expect. While it doesn't reach the giddy heights of those two films, it's the more nuanced, mature movie, while still functioning as a shocking horror story. If nothing else, it's undoubtedly the classiest thing Full Moon has ever released. [Grade: A]