Last of the Monster Kids

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

Saturday, September 27, 2025

Halloween 2025: September 27th

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

 
Alfred Hitchcock Presents (1986): Beast in View

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

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

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


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

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

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


Friday, September 6, 2024

Halloween 2024: September 6th



If you've searched around the weird side of Youtube long enough, you've probably run into the short films of Robert Morgan. Morgan has been uploading his bizarre stop-motion animation to the web since at least 2009. Shorts like “The Cat with Hands,” “The Separation,” and “Belial's Dream” are characterized by disturbingly fleshy puppets engaging in unsettling behavior. I find some of his films quite entertaining and some borderline incoherent. Still, there's no denying that Morgan is a unique voice in the genre. Morgan's work has played in theaters before – he contributed a segment to “The ABCs of Death 2,” for one example – but he made his feature length debut this year. As the title indicates, “Stopmotion” utilizes his trademark style of animation into a bigger story. 

Suzanne Blake is a stop-motion animator of some esteem. However, in her old age, she has develop arthritis that prevents her from moving and sculpting the models. She enlists her daughter, Ella, to complete her latest film. When Blake has a stroke, Ella is compelled to finish her mom's work. Moving into an isolated apartment, she gets to work... But is soon visited by a little girl, who encourages her to begin work on a different film. This one tells the story of a young girl pursued by a monster called the Ash Man. The new project takes over Ella's life, the woman going to increasingly disturbing lengths to finish telling this story. Before long, the lines between fact and fiction, reality and hallucination, begin to blur. 

Like I said, Robert Morgan's shorts have an extremely distinctive look, influenced far more by Jan Svankmajer and the Brothers Quay than Will Vinton or Aardman. Even when compared to the stop-motion grotesquery of “Mad God,” Morgan's work is especially creepy to look at. His models have a flesh-like quality to them, always shiny with grease or covered with peach fuzz. They inhabit earthy, desolate environments. Obviously, this same quality is brought to Morgan's feature. The puppets in “Stopmotion” are globs of tumorous meat, with crude little faces, ratty hair, and exposed sinew. This is acknowledged in-universe, as Ella builds her creations from rotten meat and dead animals. Combined with the already eerie twitchiness of stop-motion animation makes these character even more uncomfortable to look at. Building a whole horror movie around such visuals isn't a bad idea at all. The figures in “Stopmotion” are so gross looking that Google automatically blocks images of them as “explicit content,” apparently mistaking the puppets for gory photographs.

Upon this extremely unsettling foundation, Morgan and co-writer Robin King have built a narrative about a descent into madness. As Ella grows more obsessed with completing her film, the more cut-off from other people she becomes. The minute the little girl starts to intrude into Ella's apartment, the audience has an idea of where this is going. While at a night club, she takes some acid and has a creepy vision involving a ventriloquist dummy. “Stopmotion” continues on like that. There's no doubt that the visuals “Stopmotion” employs to show this decomposition are unnerving. Notable moments have Ella's legs turning into clay, her digging through her own thigh, and the Ash Man appearing at her door. Ultimately, “Stopmotion” lacks the sympathetic element similar, but superior, movies like “May” or “Excision” bring to their unhinged female protagonists. Ella is so remote and focused on creating her films, the movie rarely stepping outside her apartment, that we don't get a sense of any other social isolation or awkwardness she might feel. It makes her fall towards madness, murder, and self-destruction a lot less meaningful.

None of this is the fault of the cast. Aisling Franciosi plays Ella. As she displayed in “The Nightingale,” Franciosi brings a great intense to all of her roles. Her eyes stare ahead with a fixed scrutiny, her body language as controlled as the puppets she animates. She becomes enraged at a colleague for plagiarizing her work, you really believe it. Also impressive is Caoilinn Springall as the little girl, who mixes an approprite amount of child-like adorableness with something a lot more foreboding. I do wish the film had given us more of a look at Ella interacting positively with her boyfriend – who seems like a tool – and the other people in her life. She starts the film out in a bad place and it only gets much, much worst from there. 

I certainly can't deny that “Stopmotion” is ambitious. Outside of its mixture of live action and animation – surely a challenge of its own – the movie tackles a number of themes. From the beginning, Ella's mother refers to her as “puppet.” This term of endearment barely hides the truth of a controlling mother who sees her own child as nothing but an extension of herself. It's clear that part of Ella's madness is spurned on by the grief of loosing a parent she has a lot of mixed feelings about. The film is also about the artist's relationship with their output. At what point are we controlling our creations and when do they start to control us? Artist routinely sacrifice everything for the sake of their work, suggesting an uneven push-and-pull exists between the maker and the made. When you live and breathe your work, it will consumed you eventually, which “Stopmotion” makes rather literal by the end.

In its best moments, “Stopmotion” is a deeply eerie depiction of art overtaking the artist and psychological baggage with two strongly realized performances at its center. Like Morgan's best short films, it features unnerving visuals that seem to have emerged fully formed from the director's subconscious. Also like a lot of Morgan's work, “Stopmotion” gets a bit lost in its own sauce at times, foregrounding its nightmarish metaphors over telling a more straight-forward – or more personally realized – narrative. Still, we're unlikely to see anything else this year exactly like it and, for that alone, “Stopmotion” deserves a recommendation. I mean, if “Mad God” kicked off a wave of weirdo stop-motion animated horror movies, and this is the second example of that, I can't help but applaud its existence. [7/10]




Hammer Studio's greatest stars both always seemed somewhat reluctant to accept their status as horror icons. Christopher Lee eventually grew to resent the studio that made him famous. Though he was always professional about the many genre films he continued to appear in, you often got the impression that he'd rather be playing different roles. Peter Cushing seemed a little more willing to accept his typecasting. In his autobiography, he wrote that “Who wants to see me as Hamlet? Very few. But millions want to see me as Frankenstein, so that's the one I do.” And so Cushing continued to headline monster movies. Such as 1975's “The Ghoul,” a somewhat late attempt to replicate the Hammer formula by Tyburn Film Productions. The comparison seemed deliberate on the studio's behalf, as they got Freddie Francis to direct and Veronica Carlson to co-star. 

Daphne and Geoffrey throw a wild party for their friends in the British countryside. This soon escalates to a car race, in their 1920s automobiles, across the moors. As the fog thickens, the couple get lost and run out of gas. Daphne looks for help and soon ends up at the mansion of a mysterious man called Lawrence. A heartbroken widower, Lawrence is clearly keeping some sort of secret. His Indian housekeeper Ayah gives ominous warnings and prays at a creepy statue. The sleazy groundskeeper, Tom, seems untrustworthy. After staying in the house for the night, Daphne is murdered by an unseen occupant of the home. As Geoffrey and their other friends eventually make it to the house, it becomes clear that Lawrence is keeping a murderous, cannibalistic monster locked up in his attic.

Many a macabre story has benefitted from the setting of the English moors. The foggy, desolate land always emphasizes feelings of dread and isolation. “The Ghoul” adds to this location a sprawling country manner full of secrets. It then fills that house with a ramshackle ensembles of characters, wandering in and out of both its rooms and the plot. Yes, “The Ghoul” is one of those movies were people come and go until things happen to them. Such unlikely events include taking a nap in a car abandoned on the moors, bumping their head on a steering wheel, and stepping into some quicksand. Veronica Carlson's Daphne – ostensibly the film's heroine, up to that point – being killed halfway through was obviously intended as a “Psycho” style twist that would catch audience's off-guard. In practice, however, it simply feels like another example of the movie's haphazard screenwriting. 

The only thing holding this rough assembly of incidents together are two decent performances. Peter Cushing plays Lawrence not as a sinister villain hiding a dark secret but as a heartbroken family man desperate to hold onto the past. Cushing gets misty-eyed when delivering monologues about his deceased wife and his missing son. Within the film, it's all foreshadowing. However, Cushing made this movie shortly after his wife died, a heartbreak that he would never recover from. No wonder Lawrence's tear-strewn desperation seems so raw and realistic. The actor was experiencing the same emotions. Opposite Cushing is John Hurt, only thirty-four at the time but as raspy sounding as ever. The film never quite justifies what Tom is doing at this home, especially since he's clearly a creep. He steals food from the kitchen, harasses every woman he meets, and seems to delight in frightening anyone who comes near him. Hurt goes way over-the-top to play such an aggressively unlikable character, growling and hooting all throughout the film. He's honestly much more of an antagonist than the titular green-faced monster, which only appears in a few scenes.

If Tom's presence in the story speaks to anything, it's a vague subtext towards class division. Lawrence and everyone else that enters the mansion are clearly rich. Tom, who lives in a shack filled with animals on the grounds, obviously is not. That makes the resentment and envy he feels towards the upper class easy to understand. This subtext never connects to the monster or any other element of the film. In fact, the killer is linked to Ayah's Indian heritage in some way that's not fully defined. Ayah doesn't speak clear English and the film treats her beliefs as something strange and exotic. The way she prays to a statue of Kali and lights incense is contrasted with Lawrence's devout Christianity. "The Ghoul" could have commented on cultural clash, xenophobia, and class conflict in 1920s England. Instead, these ideas simply linger around the film, never solidifying into any sort of coherent point.

The ghoul in the attic isn't fully revealed until the final scene. Once you get a look at it, you realize this was probably because of its underwhelming appearance and not to build suspense. The cannibalism element is referenced a few times but you never see the monster munching on any flesh. I'm also not sure that this man-eating habit qualifies this creature as a ghoul exactly, since they traditionally only eat dead flesh. They're also, mythologically, Arabian and not Indian. I doubt the filmmakers cared too much about that. To learn that Freddie Francis directed this one as a favor to his son – who produced it – is not horribly surprising. There's some decent stabbing scenes and Cushing and Hurt do their best to elevate the material. Yet "The Ghoul" remains a supremely underwritten and unfocused attempt at Victorian horror. [5/10]




“Something Borrowed, Something Blue” is about engaged but broke couple Ryan and Alison. They receive a letter from her estranged father, Frank, an ailing millionaire eager to make amends. They arrive at his mansion for brunch and Alison quickly leaves in a huff. That's when Frank reveals to Ryan that he has an eldritch abomination in his basement, that must be fed every fifteen years or chaos will be unleashed on the world. If Ryan continues to feed the beast, he and Alison will inherit Frank's fortune. And the deadline is their wedding day. ”Doodles” concerns Angela, a struggling cartoonist trying to get hired at famous magazine Timeless. She has her cartoon stolen by another woman in the waiting room. That night, she doodles a gory end on a picture of the woman... Only for that ghastly fate to actually befall her. Angela soon finds her drawings have the power to end people's lives, using this ability to knock off her rivals.

“Something Borrowed, Something Blue” has the classic morality tale style set-up we expect from “Creepshow” and its predecessors. Ryan, a seemingly seasonable man, is given a choice: Commit one amoral act and be on easy street for the rest of his life or stick by his ethics and remain poor.  It's the kind of moral conundrum that anyone can relate to. This also means Ryan going behind his wife's back, or so it seems. The main attraction “Something Borrowed, Something Blue” has to longtime horror fans is that Tom Atkins, genre icon and featured player in the original “Creepshow,” plays Frank. There's definitely some fun seeing Atkins, stately in his old age, play such a nasty guy. Most notably when he gives Ryan an ultimatum. 

While I like the cosmic horror element of this story – an unearthly horror in a pit that must be fed every generation - “Something Borrowed, Something Blue” drops the ball at the end. It takes a circular path to the obvious conclusion to this dilemma, introducing an extra twist that strikes me as unnecessary. This sets up another swerve in the final minutes, which pushes the episode into a more cartoonish direction. I also found Curtis Lum and Kristy Dawn Dinsmore, as Ryan and Alison, to be fairly broad in their performances. Once again, I find Shudder's “Creepshow” trying its hand at a “Tales from the Crypt” style story without understanding the simplicity that made that show work.

“Doodles,” meanwhile, might be too simple. It rushes through Angela's arc too quickly. She doesn't mean to cause the first two deaths, unaware of the effects her doodles have on the real world. Within the span of a single scene, she comes around to accepting this power, justifying her actions, and being willing to kill again to protect herself. Anja Savcic is likable but the script lets her down. The best thing about this episode is a decent twist ending, making sure evil is done unto evil as always. There's also a gnarly exploding head and some nice, comic book style colors. Which sometimes feels like an afterthought in this show. [Something Borrowed, Something Blue: 6/10 / Doodles: 6/10]



“Death Becomes Her” was the kick-off to the second half of “Chucky's” third season, though it's fairly low-key for a “mid-season premiere.” Chucky's declining health has him facing down the existential crisis of his own mortality. Lexy patches things up with Grant. Jake and Devon travel to the voodoo clinic Chucky previously visited, learning that the murderous doll is indeed dying. President Collins begins to see the ghost of his late son, Joshua, around the White House while Charlotte begins to crack under the mounting pressures of the cover-up. Meanwhile, in Texas, Tiffany/Jennifer Tilly continues to plot her escape from prison before a desperate phone call from Chucky ends up giving the doll his most fiendish idea yet.

“Death Becomes Her' is one of those episodes without much of a driving point of its own. It splits up the cast and has a bunch of different characters pursuing different goals. It's very much a middle-of-the-season episode in that regard. Of all these competing subplots, the President seeing the ghost of his dead son and the First Lady being anxious about conspiracies is easily the most disposable. I guess the haunting scenes are mildly creepy – including some decent camera movements and a screaming flag – though I don't know where the show is going with that. At the very least, Jake and Devon's road trip builds up to a nice moment the show has been teasing all season. The two finally consummate their relationship, in a neon hotel room to the tune of “Relax” by Frankie Goes to Hollywood. The conversation afterwards is genuinely quite sweet, continuing to show the surprisingly sincere handling of the young queer romance at the center of this show.

Of course, we are here for the murderous doll above all else. “Death Becomes Her” puts Chucky in a position we've never seen him in before: Hopelessly confronting the end of his own life. He's been reduced to a wrinkled, shriveled up visage. He murders a maid with some bleach but admits that it doesn't bring him any particular thrill. As always, Brad Dourif's multilayered vocal performance brings far more depth and soul to these moments than you'd expect. The phone conversation with Tiffany provides more surprise pathos. It's also frequently absurd, of course. The comedy is undeniable and the episode plays that up, with a scene where Chucky rudely dismisses a trio of other killer doll movies. 

It is interesting that, after seven movies and two seasons of a TV show, the “Chucky” franchise has never gotten into the mechanics of its magical rules much. I can't say I've ever had that many questions about the arcane magic that makes Chucky's shenanigans possible. Season three has really devoted itself to figuring these things out. The scene where Jake and Devon meet with the doctor, who continues to be a dryly comedic presence, quickly gets into a conversation about the nature of the soul and spirit. Though I'm betting actual practitioner of Voodou do not find this show to be an especially sensitive portrayal of Damballah. Anyway, “Death Becomes Her' is a middle chapter episode that still has enough funny, interesting scenes to keep me watching. [7/10]

Sunday, October 1, 2023

Halloween 2023: October 1st



When Radu was decapitated and burned to ash in “Subspecies 4,” that seemed as concrete a conclusion as the franchise could have. Yet Ted Nicolaou never seemed prepared to let his vampiric offspring stay dead forever. A handful of times over the years, rumors of a fifth “Subspecies” – a prequel, detailing Radu's origins – would surface. Yet the Full Moon of the 21st century is not the same company it was in the early nineties. These days, Charles Band occupies himself with endless “Evil Bong” sequels, clip shows, and quickies shot on green-screen and designed to capitalize on whatever's in the news that week. When he does produce a new entry in his classic franchises, the results are usually discouraging. Nevertheless, “Subspecies V: Bloodrise” was formally announced in 2019 as part of Full Moon's Deadly Ten initiative. In-between “Sorority Babes in the Slimeball Bowl-o-Rama 2” and “The Grim Rapper,” Nicolaou and Band would film the prequel this year, with the series established stars returning. 

During the twelfth century, vampire king Vladislav and undying sorceress Circe beget Radu. The half-vampire infant is immediately abducted by the Knights Templar, who raise him as one of their own. After a lifetime spent eliminating vampires for the church, Radu returns to Vladislav's castle. He learns of his true origins, discovers the Bloodstone, and meets Helena – Vladislav's concubine – and Stefan, her half-vampire offspring. Radu becomes enamored of Helena, quickly getting bitten by her and becoming a full vampire. Reuniting with his mother and learning the dark arts, the now ageless vampire searches the ancient world for companionship and a love he can never have. 

I often joke with my buddy that modern Full Moon features are made for ten bucks each. This is an exaggeration, of course, but the movies often carry that air of utter cheapness. “Subspecies V” is still, obviously, a very low budget motion picture. The digital effects, such as whenever the vampires turn into shadows, look directly out of After Effects. The practical make-up effects are not quite up to the standards of the older films. The movie also, repeatedly, does this extremely annoying thing where it uses Zack Snyder-style ramping to illustrate the vampires' speed. Despite all these issues, you can tell Nicolaou and cinematographer Vladimir Ilic did their best to replicate the look and feel of the original “Subspecies.” This one was shot in Serbia, not Romania, but it still captures that old world sense of age and isolation. There's some cool old castle and some shots of Radu sneaking through the fog. It's appreciated. 

Though some of Nicolaou's vampire movies overdid the lore and backstory, you can tell he's really been thinking about Radu's origins over the last twenty-five years. “Bloodrise” covers a period of about 566 years. It shows how Radu went from being a weathered human – Anders Hove looking very much like he's 66 – to being the gnarly vampire we know and love. His first meeting with “Vampire Journals'” Ash is shown, as are his introduction with the Bloodstone and the magic dagger. There are rivalries and love interests introduced along the way, some more fleshed out than others. This is a lot to squeeze into an eighty minute movie. “Bloodrise” frequently feels like a highly condensed adaptation of a sprawling novel. Yet it's surprising how well the film captures the ennui and loneliness that comes with living an endless, bloodsucking life. 

As dangerously close as “Bloodrise” comes to being bogged down by ridiculous vampire melodrama, something remains compelling about its central conflict. Radu is immortal and immensely powerful but also incredibly lonely. He turns Ash and his companion Ariel into vampires because their music brings him comfort. Yet, after they become undead, they loose the ability to play music. Even more pressing is the character of Helena, who is played by Denice Duff. Hove and Duff continue to share the embittered chemistry they once had, with Helena being even more conflicted and combative than Michelle was. Anytime Radu finds someone he cares about, they abandon him, betray him, or he destroys them through his own hubris. The idea that Radu has been chasing Helena's ghost for something like 700 years re-contextualize his pursuit of Michelle in the first four movies. It confirms that the raspy vampire is as tragic a figure as I've always felt he was.

For long-time fans of the franchise, “Bloodrise” is mostly as satisfying an origin story as I think we could get. It introduces Radu's rivalry with Stefan while also, finally, giving us a good idea of why the Bloodstone is so damn special. (Apparently it produces a drug-like high in vampires, which one assumes is addictive.) I'm not sure what happens with Radu's dad here squares with the events of the first film but.. Oh well. Maybe Ted forgot some things since 1991. I am admittedly grading it on the incredibly steep curve of “modern day Full Moon movies,” which no doubt had me going in with extremely low expectations. Yet “Subspecies V” proves to be a surprisingly well done and effective capstone on a series that I assumed was long since dead. [7/10]




It's well known that the seventies was awash with killer animal movies. Most attribute this fad to the mega-success of “Jaws,” which isn't wrong. Many of these beastly flicks were directly inspired by Spielberg's shark thriller. Yet “Willard” becoming a surprise blockbuster earlier in the decade also led to a wave of movies about smaller critters attacking people amass. Snakes, frogs, bees, and ants would swarm all over folks throughout the disco decade. The same decade is also considered a golden age for made-for-TV horror movies but don't think for a minute that television producers weren't interested in cashing in on fads. In 1977, all these factors would combine to bring us a small-screen creepy crawler creature feature called “Tarantulas: The Deadly Cargo.”  

A pair of unscrupulous fellows plan to make a mint by flying coffee beans in from South America. Unbeknownst to them, a whole horde of venomous tarantulas have stowed away inside the bags. When the spiders attack, the plane crash-lands in the California town of Finleyville. Soon, the spiders begin to creep out and cause chaos, being responsible for several mysterious deaths. The mayor of the town is unwilling to declare an emergency, in fear of disrupting the town's lucrative orchards. That means it's up to everyday folks with names like Bert, Joe, and Doc Hodgins to stop the wave of arachnid terror and save the town before it's too late.

Many seventies Movies of the Week are well-remembered for putting clever spins on otherwise familiar genre troupes. Yet there's a reason “Tarantulas: The Deadly Cargo” isn't spoken of in the same breathes as “The Night Stalker” or “Don't Be Afraid of the Dark.” The movie faithfully follows the cliches you'd expect from a “Jaws” rip-off and a low-budget disaster flick. As in “Jaws,” the mayor downplays the animalistic threat in hopes of protecting the town's profitable businesses. (Though an orange distribution plant is not as flashy as a beach.) Both movies even feature a young boy being claimed by the threat. As in the decade's various disaster flicks, it's up to a ragtag team of common men to contain the beasties. An estranged couple even patch up their romantic problems by the end. It's clear director Stuart Hagmann – making his final film after an undistinguished career of episodic television and weepy social dramas – was not interested in reinventing the wheel here. 

In fact, Hagmann doesn't show much aptitude for the horror genre in general. “Tarantulas” is, as far as killer spider movies go, extremely sleepily paced. Mundell Lowe's weirdly funky but also largely mellow theme song sets the mood here. “The Deadly Cargo” languidly moves from scene to scene without much tension ever being raised. Even the death of a child is treated matter-of-factly. A sense of suspense is never created, not even during the finale where an amusingly implausible trap is set for the tarantulas. Perhaps this is because the movie seems hesitant to show off the ick factor of its star arachnids. Compared to the same year's “Kingdom of the Spiders,” which absolutely covered Captain Kirk in spiders, there's very little interaction between humans and tarantulas here. We only ever see the eight-legged fuzz-butts crawling towards people, never on them. We only see the aftermath of their bites, never the action itself. This is some low-wattage horror here.

I first became aware of “Tarantulas: The Deadly Cargo” many years ago after discovering a DVD copy in, of all places, a Dollar General. The reason the case caught my eye is because Tom Atkins and Howard Hesseman were top-billed. Sadly, the movie does not fulfill that promise of Dr. Johnny Fever and Detective Cameron blasting spiders. Atkins and Hesseman play the pilots who are responsible for unwittingly smuggling the tarantulas into Finleyville. The two ham it up nicely in their scenes but exit the film early. Instead, the stars are veteran character actor Claude Akins, future Commissioner Gordon Pat Hingle, and forgettable working actor Charles Frank. Akins and Hingle furrow their brows in consternation throughout the film but the script gives them almost nothing to work with. Charles Frank gets the juiciest character arc, as the guy trying to work out with his old girlfriend, but Frank is an especially uninvolving performer. 

Of course, anyone who knows anything about spiders is aware of the fact that tarantulas pose no threat to humans. They may look hairy and fearsome, and their bites can sting, but their venom is never deadly. Even the movie seems vaguely cognizant of this. Though the spiders are played by (the very pretty) Mexican red-knee tarantulas, they are referred to in the film as Brazilian wandering spiders. That species does have potent venom that has led to several deaths but they also are not tarantulas. “Tarantulas: The Deadly Cargo” received two Emmy nominations for its sound work but, otherwise, fell into obscurity quickly. Proving no creature feature is altogether forgotten these days, the film recently got a decent Blu-Ray release for those Atkins devotees really desperate to complete their collection. [4/10]



The Twilight Zone: The Obsolete Man

So many episodes of “The Twilight Zone” have become pop culture staples, their twist endings and ironic messages ingrained within the brains of sci-fi and horror nerds even if they haven't actually seen them. This is why, this year, I decided to seek out one of the less widely discussed episodes of Rod Serling's classic series. “The Obsolete Man” takes place in a dystopian future where the state deems what people are and aren't useful to society. One such man on trial is Mr. Wordsworth, a librarian. In a state where books are often banned and certain ideas are prosecuted, such a job is deemed obsolete. Wordsworth is allowed to choose his own form of execution, which is televised, and he uses this as a chance to confront the man who has condemned him. 

“The Obsolete Man” is one of the “Twilight Zone” episodes that leaves no ambiguity about its meaning. This is a half-hour about fascism, about the state declaring itself all-powerful, oppressing and destroying ideas it deems inappropriate, and killing men for any reason they see necessary. Hitler and Stalin are name-dropped. A society where everyone is recorded and broadcast, while conformity is enforced through uniforms and lifeless rooms, recalls “1984.” (While the focus on books being banned points towards “Fahrenheit 451.”) Inevitably, the councilor discovers that his status does not protect him from this prosecution either. What makes Serling's thesis a little muddled here is that this state openly represses religion. Wordsworth is a Christian. He reads from the banned Bible. We know all too well that American Fascism will be happy to use religion as a cudgel. I guess, during the Cold War era, this was a little harder to acknowledge. 

Aside from this slightly confusing tangent, “The Obsolete Man” remains an captivating and intense presentation. It's largely a two-man show between Burgess Meredith as the punningly named Wordsworth and Fritz Weaver as the unnamed chancellor. Watching two compelling actors trade theatrical dialogue, in such a confined set, is worthwhile in of itself. Director Elliot Silverstein overlays a ticking clock – alongside other optical tricks – over much of the second half, helping raise the tension. The downbeat ending is similarly effective, as the viewer feels the hopelessness close in on them too. 

Also noteworthy is the expressive set design of the court room, which features an elongated judge's pulpit and table. That gives the proceedings even more of a dream-like, nightmarish feel. You could never call “The Obsolete Man” subtle, especially since Rod Serling's opening and closing narrations lay out the themes explicitly. By the way, his epilogue, as written, downplayed the religious element of the story too. That makes me wonder if some network pressure wasn't a factor in that. Either way, “The Obsolete Man” is a compelling and distressing half-hour of television. [7/10]




“Operation Herman” begins with Eddie coming home from school upset. His dad soon uncovers this is because the boy has to have his tonsils out. Though the operation goes off without a hitch – despite the doctor being near-sighted – Herman discovers he has a fear of the doctor's office. Grandpa talks his son-in-law into sneaking out of the house to visit the boy in the hospital. “Lily's Star Boarder” sees Mrs. Munster renting their guest room out to a mysterious fellow. Herman is immediately jealous of the attention the guy is getting, suspecting he's up to something... Which he is, as the guy is an undercover cop spying on the criminal operation next door.

“Operation Herman” is one of those episodes based on wacky misunderstandings, of the Munsters wandering into a traditional setting and fouling it up while normies react to the Munsters with shock and confusion. Lots of silliness ensues and some gags are more amusing than others. A surgeon mistaking Herman for an accident victim made me chuckle. Grandpa gets a few good lines, about necks. The running gag of Herman passing out at the sight of Eddie's tonsils and the buffoonish doctor looking down Eddie's throat are less inspired. Truthfully, this episode feels kind of directionless, sleepily progressing from one bit to another without much of an overarching theme. 

The second episode of this batch takes similar set-up – the Munsters reacting to mundane humans – to far funnier places. Basing the comedic premise around Herman making a fool of himself, set in his own childish tendencies, makes for a much richer set-up. Watching the misunderstanding play out is much more satisfying, when it's based in the established character's personalities. There's some broad physical comedy too, though even that made me chuckle thanks to the ridiculous lengths the episode takes it. And it all works out okay in the end, the way we expect from these old sitcoms. Satisfying, ya know? [Operation Herman: 6/10 / Lily's Star Boarder: 7/10]

Wednesday, October 30, 2019

Halloween 2019: October 30th


Trick (2019)

Depending on who you ask, the director/writer team of Patrick Lussier and Todd Farmer are either geniuses or total hacks. In-between the two of them, they have created flashy, trashy horror flicks like “Jason X,” “Dracula 2000,” “My Bloody Valentine 3D,” and “Drive Angry.” At one point, they were so successful that they had been chosen to reboot iconic franchises like “Halloween” and “Hellraiser.” It seems like the duo has had more trouble getting their projects off the ground recently. The two has largely worked in television since 2011. However, the infamous twosome return this year with “Trick,” an original slasher flick set around the Halloween holiday. What the hell, I'll give it a shot.

In 2015, high school student Patrick Weaver – known to all his friends as "Trick" – goes on an inexplicable rampage on Halloween night. He slashes several of his friends to death while wearing a pumpkin mask. Injured, he ends up at a local hospital where he escapes, getting shot and tossed out a window by Detective Mike Denver. Trick disappears after that... Until Halloween of next year, where he kills more people at another party. For the next two years, Trick reappears on October 31st to claim more victims. Denver becomes obsessed with tracking down the killer, believing Patrick Weaver is still responsible. Meanwhile, Trick becomes a cult figure on the internet. As Halloween approaches, Denver and his former partner prepare for the killer's inevitable return.

At the very least, “Trick” is trying to put a clever spin on the slasher genre. The film is attempting to show how a Michael Myers-like figure would emerge in the modern age. Trick's violence is unprompted, without explanation, a seemingly normal teen turning vicious killer. Like Myers or Jason, he reappears every year on the same day. He can seemingly shrug off any wound, always slipping away from the cops at the last minute. Rather accurately, the film posits that such a killer would immediately become a figure of fascination among internet denizens, even attracting obsessive fan-girls. The film eventually reveals why Trick is capable of these amazing feats, the filmmakers clearly finding this twist far more clever than the audience does. (Let's just say I've seen it done before and in a film one of the co-stars here appeared in.) Still, coming at the slasher premise from this angle – attempting to squeeze an entire series into one film, basically – is almost a fresh take on the genre.

That last act reveal – which goes on for way too long, the film smothering any remaining plot points – is not the only time “Trick” thinks itself more impressive than it actually is. The killer has another gimmick. He always spins his knife, spin-the-bottle style, when selecting his victim. The murderer swoops, leaps, spins, and flicks his blade around like a henchman in a “John Wick” movie. Trick also builds elaborate, Jigsaw-style death traps that people are repeatedly caught off-guard by. He's also a genius plotter, seemingly always one step ahead of his cop adversary. The point is clear: We are suppose to think Trick is cool and bad-ass. It's a good example of a movie trying too hard to impress the audience, without realizing that kind of style eventually becomes silly-looking.

Despite hyping up its killer like he's a big deal, the gore in “Trick” is actually pretty underwhelming. There's lots of stabbing, slashing, a disemboweling or two. None of its that memorable. The decapitations we do get are hampered by obviously fake-looking blood. That's not the only janky special effect, as CGI muzzle flashes afflict the guns in the film several times. Eventually, “Trick's” plot degrades into one endless chase scene after another. The scenery changes – a dock, a haunted attraction, a midnight double feature, a hospital – but “Trick” never gets any closer to building some actual tension.

Omar Epps gives an okay performance as Denver, staying grounded no matter how obsessed he becomes with wanting to capture the killer. Yet the only truly memorable performance is from Tom Atkins, returning from “My Bloody Valentine 3D,” as the folksy and lovably smart-ass owner of a local diner. But that's just Tom Atkins being cool. Lussier's direction is frequently overdone, with images flashing on-screen, handheld shots, and over-editing. “Trick” has a decent premise and some bitchin' Hallowen atmosphere – a hallway full of jack o'lantern is a nice touch – but the film is ultimately almost a textbook definition of “trying too hard.” [5/10]




Gog (1954)

One of the first movies I watched during 2019's Halloween Horror-fest Blog-a-thon was a killer robot flick. So it only seems fair to me that one of the last movies I watch this year also be a killer robot film. In the 1950s, Hungarian playwright and filmmaker Ivan Tors – who later became famous for producing animal adventure shows like “Flipper” and “Gentle Ben” – would produce a trilogy of science fiction films. The connecting fiber between these films was the Office of Scientific Investigation, a fictional organization meant to decipher sci-fi mysteries. The third, and most famous of these films, is 1954's “Gog.” Unlike the other two, “The Magnetic Monster” and “Riders to the Stars,” “Gog” was filmed in color and presented in 3D. It also features a pretty cool killer robot, perhaps its greatest claim to fame.

Deep within the New Mexico desert, there is a top secret, high-tech, underground facility designated with designing space stations. The nuclear-powered lab is operated by a super-computer called NOVAC. But something is going wrong down there. Two scientists and a monkey are killed when a freezing chamber malfunctions. Prototypes all over the property are beginning to act up fatally, without warning. Dr. David Sheppard and Joanna Merritt, agents with the OSI, are sent in to investigate. They begin to suspect that a mysterious robot jet flying over the base might be a cause of the deadly malfunctions. Soon, they are fighting for their lives against the berserk machines, specifically two robots named Gog and Magog.

“Gog” doesn't get as much tension out of its underground setting as you'd hope. This being an upbeat 1950s sci-fi flick, the facility is not claustrophobic. Rather, it's brightly colored and roomy. However, that isn't to say “Gog” doesn't have its tense moments. The rather slow first act is largely devoted to introduced all the gizmos that are then turned into dangerous weapons. It's necessary though, or else these sequences probably wouldn't be as suspenseful as they are. A fight with a solar-powered death ray inside a very small room is probably the film's highlights. A sequence involving a series of out-of-control tuning forks is certainly a novel threat. “Gog” stacks up a surprisingly high body count, as it thinks up more high-tech ways to kill its various supporting characters.

While some of the technology-run-amok moments in “Gog” are genuinely suspenseful, many come off as silly. A gyroscope spinning two astronauts to their deaths looks like a piece of playground equipment gone horribly wrong. This double-edge sword is no more apparent than with the titular robot. From a design prospective, Gog and Magog are kind of cool. They don't seem practical by any means but their spherical heads, multiple antennas, six flailing arms, and tank-like bodies make for a memorable sight. The only problem is the damn things don't move around very well. The murderous machines are incredibly awkward whenever they have to move. This makes their eventually defeat by the human heroes, bludgeoned or burned into submission, seem inevitable. In order to utilize the 3-D effect, the film repeatedly thrust the robot's limbs towards the camera, which doesn't make them look any less goofy.

Yet this is the campy but still oddly grim world “Gog” inhabits. The movie reflects the time it was made in some very strange ways. The story is built around the concept of sending man into space, if it's even possible, which was still something scientist where trying to figure out at the time. This leads to a ludicrous sequence of potential astronauts doing ballet in a zero-g environment, while wearing outfits that look like glittery bathing suits. This gee-whiz space age optimism is paired with a Cold War tension. The saboteurs that cause the facility's machines to go nuts are never identified. They are only referred to as “America's enemies.” The film reflects an era when people were still a little too nervous to even mention the Soviet Union – and, thus, imply the Cold War and the concept of nuclear destruction – in their ultimately light-hearted sci-fi monster movies.

That mixture of camp and political concerns is also reflected in some of the movie's minor plot points. The fear of exposure to radiation runs throughout the entire movie... Until its heroine collapses from exactly that at the end. In the next scene, she's making out with the hero, assured that “it's nothing serious. Just a little too much radiation.” I'm sure that's the attitude she'll have when she develops cancer in a few years. This oddball contrast – and those lovably dorky killer robots – is what makes “Gog” way more interesting than it probably would've been otherwise. Should I give the other films in the OSI trilogy a look? I've never heard a word about them, good or bad. [6/10]




The Real Ghostbusters: Halloween II ½

The first season of “The Real Ghostbusters” introduced a couple of iconic villains that would reoccur throughout the show's run. Such as the Boogeyman. Or, most pressing to tonight's topic, Samhain. Yes, the pumpkin-headed ghost of Halloween from “When Halloween Was Forever” would return in season three episode “Halloween II ½.” This time, the spirit of Halloween is freed when two imp henchmen of his break into the Firehouse and sabotage the Containment Unit. Freed again, Samhain turns the Ghostbusters' headquarters into his own base, capturing the Junior Ghostbusters in the process. It's up to Ray, Winston, Venkman, Egon, Slimer, and Janine to save the day once again.

Obviously, a pumpkin-headed pagan god associated with October 31st was too cool a villain not to brain back. Sadly, Samhein’s second appearance is not up to snuff. This is another season three episode focused on the Junior Ghostbusters. These characters were introduced early in the show's run, as an obvious attempt to appeal to the younger viewers. And they are super annoying. They take up so much time, they practically steal the spotlight from the main heroes.

The third season would also re-design Janine, giving her a less stylized look and a less grating voice. This softening really begins to show its strain. (Kath Soucie uses nearly the exact same voice she’d use later on “Rugrats.”) Slimer, too often an obnoxious comic relief character on this show, is also given an extended role. All this makes sure “Halloween II ½” is packed full of annoying elements. Samhain isn’t as threatening as last time either, mostly taking over the firehouse and sending lesser ghosts out to do his bidding. His defeat is almost comical. It’s a fairly weak episode but does have some decent Halloween atmosphere, such as they opening scene devoted to the trick-or-treaters. [5/10]



Spooky Club (2016)

Here's your required bit of punk rock-influenced, Halloween-themed, absurdist comedy. The titular organization of the Stas' brothers' 2016 short are made up of four Halloween-obsessed weirdos. Each have a totally useless but spooky superpower. For example: Franklin can stop his heart for a second, Marge can temporarily go stop-motion, and Whitby vomits at least once a day. On Halloween day, the Spooky Club decides to steal back the missing skull of Vincent Price and cremate it, just like the rest of him was. This quest will both be easier and more difficult than anyone the group imagines.

“Spooky Club” packs its brief four minute run time with as many gags as possible. Which is your favorite? The hilarious on-screen realization of someone going stop-motion for few seconds? How about the relative ease with which Vincent Price's skull is received? (The actual break-in occurs totally off-screen.) Maybe the best gag is the not-so-intimidating guard dog that the Spooky Club treats like a major threat. The Stas brother's visual sense is energetic, the movie driven by a rowdy rock soundtrack. The aggressively wacky tone occasionally pauses for moments of quiet comedy or even oddball pathos. Such as the final sequence or the unexpected death of one of the members. The cast is committed, especially Simon J. Curd as the very enthusiastic Franklin. The makers of “Spooky Club” haven't tried their hands at features yet but I hope they do someday. [7/10]