Archive for the 1980s Horror Category

« Older Entries

THE BASEMENT (1989 and 2011)

Posted in 1980s Horror, 2012, Anthology Films, Bad Acting, DVD Review, Just Plain Fun, LL Soares Reviews, Monsters, Witches with tags , , , , , on February 5, 2012 by knifefighter

THE BASEMENT (Filmed in 1989/Released in 2011)
DVD Review by L.L. Soares

THE BASEMENT came out in 2011, in an odd box-set that included the movie in both DVD and VHS versions, along with several other movies on disk, in a box that looked like the old-time boxes VHS tapes used to come in. Why the strange packaging? Well, THE BASEMENT was made in 1989 and seemingly dropped off the face of the earth before it could be seen by audiences. It is something of a “lost” film, and the packaging is an attempt to recapture what its original release in the 80s should have been. It’s also a clever attempt at retro-packaging.

Unseen since its making, THE BASEMENT is finally available. And it’s kind of a treat.

An anthology film in the spirit of movies like CREEPSHOW (1982) or the Amicus films TALES FROM THE CRYPT (1972) and THE VAULT OF HORROR (1973), it begins with four people wandering around a filthy basement (we’re not sure how they got there), when they come across a strange door, which opens to reveal a monstrous creature in a hooded robe who says he is “The Sentinel.” He then goes to tell each of them what will happen in the future—and how they will die. Each story is a separate mini-movie within the whole.

The first story (“Swimming Pool“) is about an unhappy middle-aged woman named Victoria (Kathleen Heidinger) who is having an affair with a much younger “pool boy.” When her husband, whom she despises, goes for a dip in the pool one day, he is drowned by some kind of monster with tentacles, that churns up the water in a bloody froth. She’s able to dispose of some pesky neighbors in the same way, and seems both horrified and happy with the results. What kind of monster did her young paramour put in the pool? When she finds out herself, she doesn’t exactly like the answer.

The second story(“Trick or Treat“)  is the most entertaining and involves a mean old school teacher named Charles Huff (Dennis Driscoll) whose wife died the previous year around Halloween. Despite the fact that he is a teacher and is around kids all the time, he despises children and hates Halloween most of all. One day during class, he fantasizes about walking around his classroom with a knife and a gun, killing all his students.

Later that night, his dead wife comes to pay him a visit and tells him he has to change his ways, and that he will have a special visitor the following night on Halloween. Considering it to be just a dream, the man ignores her warning and continues with his child-hating ways.

On Halloween night, he shouts at children to go away when they come asking for candy (in a special bit of 80s nostalgia – one of the children is dressed like one of the California Raisins that were popular in Claymation commercials at the time!), and he eggs other kids who are in his yard, preparing to toilet paper his house. His anger is actually pretty funny. But then he starts seeing those “visitors” his wife warned him about. Demons and witches and mummies who want to scare the hell out of him. If this story sounds a little familiar, it’s because it’s kind of a Halloween variation on A CHRISTMAS CAROL, where a mean old man is scared into changing his ways by monsters in the night. I really enjoyed this one, and it’s my favorite of the bunch.

The third story (“Zombie Movie“)  involves a bad horror movie director named Mr. Adelman (David Webber) who attempts to make a zombie movie in a real graveyard. When his production assistant (a movie nerd who loves George Romero and reads Fangoria magazine, played by low-budget director J.R. Bookwalter!), tells him that the zombies are lame and he’s doing it all wrong, and that horror fans will hate his movie, the director threatens to fire the kid. But later that night, real zombies come up out of the earth to teach him a lesson.

The final story (“Home Sweet Home“) involves a guy named Scott Caplan (Scott Corizzi)who moves into a house that was previously owned by a murderer. He begins to see horrific things as the house’s victims appear to him and threaten the lives of his best friend and girlfriend, who come to visit. How will Scott confront the curse of the house?

We then go back to the confused foursome who demand to know how the “sentinel” knows these things and when these future events will happen to them. At which point we get a “twist” ending meant to jolt us.

THE BASEMENT box set consists of both VHS and DVD versions of the movie, THE BASEMENT, as well as four other films on disk.

I didn’t have high hopes for this one, since it was directed by Timothy O’Rawe who gave us the low-budget horror comedy, GHOUL SCHOOL (his only other directing credit, from 1990), a movie I didn’t particularly care for. However, THE BASEMENT is a much better movie (even though it was made a year earlier than GHOUL SCHOOL), despite limitations such as bad acting, bad writing, and the usual setbacks of ultra-low-budget cinema. The monsters, however, look kind of cool, despite the shoestring budget, and everyone here at least attempts to play things straight.

I enjoyed this movie, and it’s sad that it took almost 30 years for it to finally get released. But at least it was found and finally made available. Definitely worth a rental if you’re a fan of low-budget horror flicks, especially the kind you used to find in Mom and Pop video stores in the 1980s.

© Copyright 2012 by L.L. Soares

THE BOX SET INCLUDES:

Both VHS and DVD versions of the lost 80s horror film, THE BASEMENT
CAPTIVES (1987)
VIDEO VIOLENCE (1987)
VIDEO VIOLENCE 2 (1988)
CANNIBAL CAMP-OUT (1988)

3 Comments »

Friday Night Knife Fights: AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON VS. THE HOWLING (Conclusion)

Posted in 1980s Horror, 2012, Classic Films, Friday Night Knife Fights, Werewolf Movies, Werewolves with tags , , , , , on January 27, 2012 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  THE HOWLING (1981) vs. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON (1981)
PART 3 (Conclusion)
With Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Mark Onspaugh and Nick Cato

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Welcome back everyone to the third and final installment of our HOWLING vs. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON debate.  For the past two Fridays, our panel of Cinema Knife Fighters has been trying to determine which one of these werewolf classics is the better movie.  I’m joined, as always, by L.L. Soares; and L.L., our bout between these two films has become somewhat lopsided, as AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF won the past couple of rounds and now leads THE HOWLING by a score of four rounds to one.

L.L. SOARES:  I’m not surprised.  While I like both movies a lot, I think we’re going to find that AMERICAN WEREWOLF is the better movie of the two.

MARK ONSPAUGH:  Don’t count your werewolves before they transform!  THE HOWLING is every bit as good as AMERICAN WEREWOLF and then some, and if you guys would listen to me, you’d understand why.

LS:  Be quiet, you!  We haven’t even introduced you yet!

MA:  That’s right.  L.L. and I are joined once again by Mark Onspaugh and Nick Cato.  Thanks, guys, for being here on three successive Fridays.  Having fun?

MO:  Definitely.

NICK CATO:  Always a pleasure to talk about these movies.  And it’s a cheap date.

LS:  What?  No flowers?  No beer?

MO:  It’s been awesome, except my movie THE HOWLING hasn’t been doing that well in our debate.

MA:  That’s okay.  There’s still plenty of time left.  On that note, let’s get back to the business at hand.  It’s our final segment tonight, so before we go home this evening, one of these two movies will emerge as the winner.

On to Round 6.

The question is:  Which film is scarier?  Nick, let’s start off with you.

NC:  I found THE HOWLING much scarier than AMERICAN WEREWOLF.

MO:  Way to go, Nick!

NC:  But then again AMERICAN WEREWOLF was a dark comedy of sorts, so I’m not sure how scary it was trying to be.  But THE HOWLING is scarier.

LS:  I didn’t really find either movie all that scary, but I guess THE HOWLING is the more visceral story. There’s a clear-cut representation of good and evil. In AMERICAN WEREWOLF, that line is more blurred, and the movie also balances out horror and humor extremely well.

I think THE HOWLING is more scary in a “meat and potatoes” way. AMERICAN WEREWOLF, however, is more satisfying over all, in my opinion. But I give this one to THE HOWLING.

MA: I’m with you in that I honestly don’t find either film all that scary, and to me, that’s a weakness of both movies. I’d call it a draw, here.

MO:  THE HOWLING is definitely scarier.  Even if some of the characters weren’t werewolves, they’re not people you’d want to be stranded in the woods with.

MA:  That’s true.

Well, believe it or not, THE HOWLING won this Round as all three of you cited it as being the scarier film, and I called it a draw.  Round 6 goes to THE HOWLING.

MO:  Aaaawwwoooo!!!  THE HOWLING is coming back!

MA: Yep, it has closed the gap somewhat, but AMERICAN WEREWOLF still leads 4-2.

On to Round 7.

Which film, if any, belongs in the same conversation as older classics like THE WOLF MAN (1941) and Hammer’s THE CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF (1961)?

LS:  Well, I think AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON definitely belongs in the same class as the older classics. It’s one of the best werewolf movies ever made. Even superior to something like CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF (1962).

MA:  Whoa! Hold onto your wolfsbane!

Better than CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF?  I don’t think so.

Oliver Reed in CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF (1961), a great werewolf movie, but it really has nothing to do with this debate.

LS:  Who asked you? And since when is CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF such a cinematic titan?

MA:  Well, when ranking werewolf movies, I think it’s topped only by THE WOLF MAN.

LS:  That’s the problem  – you’re thinking again. As usual, you’re wrong.  I like CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF, but both of the movies we’re discussing tonight are just as good, if not better.

MA:  I disagree, but that being said, since AMERICAN WEREWOLF is a contemporary, updated tale with a devilish sense of humor, it is the more entertaining movie of the two, but I like the werewolf make-up on Oliver Reed so much more than the werewolf in AMERICAN WEREWOLF.  It’s just the better werewolf movie.

LS:  AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON blows CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF out of the water.  Besides, what do you know?  Has HAMMER FILMS ever made anything you didn’t like?

MA:  I’m sure I could come up with one if I thought about it long enough.

MO: Hey guys, isn’t this a battle between AMERICAN WEREWOLF and THE HOWLING? 

LS: Yeah, since when did this turn into a debate about CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF?? If you want me to tear apart what’s wrong with CURSE, just say the word, because it’s far from a perfect movie.

MA: That’ll be a debate for another night.  Okay, let’s get back on topic.

LS (to MO):  You really like THE HOWLING, don’t you?

MO: Yes!

LS: And I have to say, I don’t want to completely bash THE HOWLING. The truth is, I like it a lot, too. While I think AMERICAN WEREWOLF is better, I think THE HOWLING is still a classic of the werewolf genre and belongs in the same group with THE WOLF MAN, too, especially if Arruda is including CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF in that group. So I would say that both THE HOWLING and AMERICAN WEREWOLF fit the bill as genre classics.

YAAARGH!


MA:  Well, regarding the two movies we’re discussing today, I strongly prefer AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF.   However, I’m not sure I’d include it in the same conversation with THE WOLF MAN or CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF, which are my two favorite werewolf movies.

And I feel the same way about THE HOWLING.

The main reason?  The weakest links of both these movies are the werewolves in them.  Without decent werewolves in either movie, I can’t consider either one as a classic werewolf movie.  I think AMERICAN WEREWOLF is a notch below THE WOLF MAN and THE CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF, and THE HOWLING is several notches below.

So, my answer is neither.

MO:  I completely disagree with you.

Both films pioneered makeup effects, and both have a tragic protagonist.  If you are having a conversation about important werewolf movies (as opposed to the dozens – it seems – HOWLING sequels or VAN HELSING) then you need to include both of these.

MA:  I think our answers just cancelled each other out.

MO: You’re killing me, man!

NC:  I’d include both, too.

MA:  Well, I say neither, and the three of you say both. So Round 7 goes to both movies.

LS: Give them each a point!

MA: Okay, so now AMERICAN WEREWOLF leads THE HOWLING 5 to 3.

It’s time for the Final Round, when we ask: All things considered, which one is the better movie?

Now, remember, just like in real boxing, even though one fighter may be ahead on points, he can still be knocked out in the final round.  So, there’s still hope for THE HOWLING.

MO: And how would that work exactly?

MA:  In this round, we’re picking which one is the better movie, and so if we all picked THE HOWLING, that would be considered a knock-out.  Mark, why don’t you get this final round started?

MO:  Except for Baker’s awesome transformation, the make-up on the victims (including a terrific decapitation) and Griffin Dunne’s hilarious portrayal of undead best friend Jack, I have to give it to THE HOWLING.  If the final werewolf in AMERICAN WEREWOLF had been better with more screen time—.  Naw, I’m still going with THE HOWLING.

NC:  Despite being a fan of horror comedies, I think THE HOWLING is the better werewolf film, as AMERICAN WEREWOLF is slowed down by a couple of non-wolf side-plots. So, like Mark here, I’m also picking THE HOWLING.

LS:  I think AMERICAN WEREWOLF is the better movie, hands down. But THE HOWLING has a lot going for it, too. I think the two films make a great double-feature.

MA:  No surprise here, I’m going with AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON.  It has the better script, the more memorable characters, and I like its story much better than the one told in THE HOWLING.  Both movies attempt to update the werewolf story to modern times, and both succeed, although AMERICAN WEREWOLF succeeds more.
Had AMERICAN WEREWOLF been able to include a scary, ferocious, and realistic looking werewolf in its movie, it would be one of my all-time favorite werewolf films.  I love everything about it except for the actual werewolf.

LS: Yeah, I gotta agree that the final werewolf is a letdown.

MA: So, our Final Round is a draw, as Mark and Nick chose THE HOWLING, while L.L. and I chose AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON. So each one gets another point.

That means that our final tally is AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON -  6  and THE HOWLING – 4.

Which means the winner of tonight’s FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHT is AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON.

AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON wins! Hurray!

LS:  As it should be.  It’s the better movie.

MO:  Nope.  It’s THE HOWLING, but I’ll concede that AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF OF LONDON is very good, and I can see why you guys chose it.  You’re just wrong.  (laughs).

MA:  Well, before we come to blows here, it’s time to say so long, because we’re out of time.  So for the final time tonight, thanks guys!

NC:  You’re welcome.

MO:  Any time.

LS:  Any place!  Especially if it has a bar!

MA:  I’m Michael Arruda, and on behalf of L.L. Soares, Mark Onspaugh, Nick Cato and myself, thank you all for joining us, and we look forward to seeing you next time on FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS!

Good night everybody!

—END—

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Mark Onspaugh and Nick Cato

Leave A Comment »

Me and Lil’ Stevie: CREEPSHOW (1982)

Posted in 1980s Horror, 2012, Anthology Films, Classic Films, Family Secrets, George Romero, Horror-Comedies, Just Plain Fun, Me and Lil' Stevie, Peter Dudar Reviews, Stephen King Movies with tags , , , , , , on January 25, 2012 by knifefighter

Me And Lil’ Stevie

Feel Right at Home at the

CREEPSHOW (1982)

EXTERIOR/NIGHT.

(Establishing shot of a lone house in Late October.  There is a Jack O’lantern burning in the front window.  From inside the house we hear the sounds of a father berating his son for reading comic book-style horror magazines.  Camera pans up at the full moon hanging directly over the house, and then pans downward again at the figure of a frightening, maniacal skeleton lurking about just outside the boy’s bedroom.   The skeleton laughs and waves at the boy in a display of intimate understanding, and then the skeleton lifts its hand and pulls off its costume, revealing underneath a man with a ventriloquist dummy in the form of Master of Horror, Stephen King.)

Lil’ Stevie:  I can’t breathe in this thing!

Peter:  Greetings, and welcome to our latest edition of Me And Lil’ Stevie.  Today we’ll be discussing the 1982 George Romero sleeper hit CREEPSHOW!

Lil’ Stevie:  It was MY hit too, ya know!

Peter: …And since most of you are fans of horror, George Romero needs no introduction, but for the rest of the uninformed heathens, Romero is the mastermind behind the LIVING DEAD zombie series as well as a multitude of other beloved horror gems.

Lil’ Stevie:  Really?  What else has he done?

Peter:  C’mon…you really need to ask?  Romero filmed THE CRAZIES (1979), MARTIN (1976), MONKEY SHINES (1988), and THE DARK HALF (1993), which is also based on a story by Stephen King.

Lil’ Stevie:  So the man’s got some taste!

Peter:  As well as talent and style.  But CREEPSHOW seems to be a stand-out favorite among us horror fans, and for good reason.  Romero and the real Stephen King teamed up specifically on this picture, with a concept for an anthology-style film that celebrated the campy fun of the old E.C. Comics of yesteryear (VAULT OF HORROR, TALES FROM THE CRYPT, etc.).  The result is five independent stories, book-ended by a story concerning the boy above and his stern, overbearing father who doesn’t want him reading trashy horror comic books.  If you didn’t know, the boy in the movie is actually played by King’s real-life son Joe!

Lil’ Stevie:  Who now goes by the name Joe Hill, and writes kick-ass horror stories just like ME!

Peter: You don’t write anything, Splinter-Chin!

Lil’ Stevie:  Do SO!

Peter:  Really?  Well maybe you could help me write up an Ebay ad for a used ventriloquist dummy…

Lil’ Stevie:  (moping) I’ll be good!

Peter:  The first story is called “Father’s Day”, and it appears to be a tongue-in-cheek nod to all the other horror films around that time that were based on some holiday or other gone horribly awry (HALLOWEEN, FRIDAY THE 13TH,  etc). The story concerns the posh, snobby heirs of Nathan Grantham (Jon Lormer, THE BOOGENS, 1981), whom congregate every Father’s Day to remember their patriarch on the anniversary of his death…murdered by dear Aunt Bedelia after the old man drove her crazy.

Lil’ Stevie:  Bashed his head in with a marble ash tray!  Of course, he had it coming after he murdered Bedelia’s suitor in cold blood.

Peter:  Grantham had made the family fortune by bootlegging whiskey.  So when Bedelia visits his graveside with a bottle of booze and accidentally spills some on his tomb, the old man comes back from the dead to extract vengeance.  There seems to be a lot of extracting vengeance in this pic…but I think that mirrors the style of the old pulp comics.  There’s a moral code in their somewhere, and it’s delivered in all its bloody tongue-in-cheek fun.

Lil’ Stevie:  Leave it to Romero to lead off with a zombie story first!  I wanted to lead off with “Jordy Verrill”…

Peter: …Which leads us to the second story, “The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill”.  This story is one of the two in this movie that are based on pre-existing Stephen King stories.  This particular story is based on “Weeds”, which was published in Cavalier magazine in May, 1976 (and remains unavailable in any subsequent King story collection).  It is a retooling of the story, “The Colour Out Of Space” by H.P. Lovecraft, and concerns Jordy Verrill, a rube farmer who finds a meteor on his land.  Verrill is played by none other than…

Lil’ Stevie:  ME!  ME!  I played Jordy Verrill!  Wasn’t I stupendous?

Peter: ….the real Stephen King. Not you! Verrill finds the meteor, and dreams of selling it to the local university (to the Department of Meteors, to be specific) and pay off his outstanding bank loan.  When Verrill douses the meteor with water to cool it off, the meteor breaks in two, killing his plans immediately.  Of course, Verrill has already touched the meteor and been infected by whatever alien growth it contains.

Lil’ Stevie:  “Meteor shit!”

Peter:  You can’t swear like that.  L.L. will censor us again!

Lil’ Stevie:  “That’s the Verrill luck for ya!  Always in…Always bad!”

Peter:  (Sighing) Anyway, the rest of the story is Verrill’s downward spiral as the alien plant growth slowly consumes him.

Lil’ Stevie:  Easily the best story in the movie!

Peter:  The third tale is called “Something To Tide You Over”, and with the title alone we see more of that ironic, tongue-in-cheek wordplay that makes this movie such fun.  This is another vengeance tale, concerning crazed millionaire Richard Vickers (Leslie Nielson, AIRPLANE, 1980), who is bent on murdering his adulterous wife, Becky (Gaylen Ross, DAWN OF THE DEAD, 1978), and her lover, Harry Wentworth (Ted Danson, who played Sam Malone on the hit television show CHEERS, ’82-’93).  Richard shows up at Harry’s house and informs him that he knows what’s been going on.  Harry tries to play it cool, but when Richard informs him that Becky is in peril and that if he wants to see her alive again, he’d better do as he says, Harry allows himself to be led out to Richard’s beachfront property.  There is a hole in the sand waiting for him there, and Richard (while holding him at gunpoint), tells him to get in and start burying himself.

Lil’ Stevie: Of course, the tide is just starting to come in…

Peter:  Once Harry is buried up to his neck, Richard sets up a television and video player, right there in front of him, so that Harry can watch how Becky drowned, just as he is about to, with the return of the tide.  Of course, the two dead lovers are reunited by the sea, and come back from the dead to extract further vengeance on Richard.

Lil’ Stevie:  Not as compelling as “Jordy Verrill”.

Peter:  Or sandpaper!

Lil’ Stevie:  You’re so mean to me!

Peter:  The fourth story is “The Crate,” and it is the other piece that is a pre-existing Stephen King tale (and like “Weeds”, it doesn’t appear in any subsequent King collection.  You can find it, however, in the Arbor House Treasury of Horror & The Supernatural, 1980 or Great Tales of Horror & The Supernatural, 1981.)  The story concerns Henry Northrup (Hal Holbrook, THE FOG, 1980), a college professor who is forever cowed and browbeaten by his obnoxious, overbearing wife, Wilma (Adrienne Barbeau, also in THE FOG).

Lil’ Stevie:  Adrienne Barbeau!  Rowwwrrrr!

Peter:  Um, yeah…not in this picture.  In this story, Wilma (“Just call me Billie…everyone else does!”) appears to be the consummate pain-in-the-ass significant other; drinking, complaining, and verbally emasculating Henry at every opportunity.  So when Henry’s colleague and best friend Dexter Stanley (Fritz Weaver, MARATHON MAN, 1976) shows up at his home rambling incoherently about a crate that has been found at the university, and the monster inside that devoured the janitor who found it (as well as one of the school’s brightest students), Henry begins hatching a scheme to murder his ball-and-chain and be rid of her forever.

Lil’ Stevie:  Some things are just better off left alone…particularly if they are chained and padlocked and hidden away in a college basement!

Peter:  This segment was my least-favorite in the movie.  Adrienne Barbeau is a hottie, and to see her in this role really, unfortunately, changed how I feel about her.  She embodies the role with such efficiency that whenever I see her I instantly correlate her to the character she portrayed here.  And that’s a drag.

Lil’ Stevie:  That’s her job, you idiot!  She’s an actress!

Peter:  I’m sorry, I’m sorry!  And yeah, when Billie finally falls prey to the beast in The Crate, I did feel a sense of huge satisfaction.  I guess maybe it’s because I just don’t care to see people get brow-beaten, especially in public places.

Lil’ Stevie: And did you notice the personal nod I gave to my wife Tabby in this one?

Peter:  Yeah, one of the secondary characters is named Tabitha…and unlike Billie, she’s polite and well-mannered.  It seems almost like an inside joke that her name appears in this piece.  On to the final story, “They’re Creeping Up On You!”  This tale concerns another eccentric millionaire, Upson Pratt (E.G. Marshall, 12 ANGRY MEN, 1957), a germaphobe who has turned his upscale penthouse suite into a colorless, sanitized-white protection bubble.  Pratt hides away from the rest of the world in this bubble, where he can be a ruthless tycoon that makes business dealings that destroy other peoples’ lives without ever having to face them.  Through his personal interactions over the telephone, we get a glimpse of a man that has reduced the rest of mankind to being nothing more than pesky insects, which he loathes.

Lil’ Stevie:  So, of course, we have to call in the cockroaches and sic them on him!

Peter:  This piece is not for the squeamish.  Thousands of roaches invade the apartment, and before it is over, the dead Upson Pratt’s body literally erupts with insects as they burrow and tunnel their way through his corpse.  It’s an amazing scene to watch, with props to special effects master Tom Savini for making the body infestation so life-like you’d swear it was real!

Lil’ Stevie:  And you should note that Savini makes a cameo appearance as a garbage man at the end of the movie.

Peter:  In all, CREEPSHOW really is a standout King movie.  Even if this movie isn’t the scariest thing that either King or Romero has put out, the tagline on the poster reads “The Most Fun You’ll Ever Have Being Scared,” and that still holds fairly true, even 30 years later.  With the screenplay written by King, the all-star cast, and the great comic book animations and panel-framing, this movie is a celebration of all things dark and macabre…more like a film for summer camp than for the Cannes film festival.  It is a treasured homage to those horror-themed comic books we dug on in our childhood, rather than reading Boy’s Life or Y.M..

Lil’ Stevie: Just out of curiosity, if you could pick any five of my stories for a CREEPSHOW sequel, which would you choose?

Peter:  Wow, that’s a tough one…you’d want to go with the ones that are visceral enough to paint that comic book sense of grue while maintaining that almost moralistic come-uppance at the same time.  Off the top of my head, “Grey Matter” really stands out.  As does “Home Delivery” and “The Monkey”.  Of King’s more recent works, I’d say “In The Deathroom” or “Mute” would be cool.  Then again, I’d also hope that King would make the effort to write some new stories specifically for the screenplay.  The REAL King, of course, not your sorry ass. 

(Lil’ Stevie’s eyes roll back in his head, and then the dummy lunges forward, mouth wide open, and begins biting Peter’s face off.  Peter screams in agony as the blood begins to spray in comic book gushes of blood.)

Lil’ Stevie: (At the camera, with blood all over his wooden face), Goodbye, folks!  See you next time!

The scene fades into an animated sequence of Lil’ Stevie devouring the rest of Peter as camera pans out.

© Copyright 2012 by Peter N. Dudar

2 Comments »

Friday Night Knife Fights – THE HOWLING VS. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON – Part 2

Posted in 1980s Horror, 2012, Animals Attack, Classic Films, Friday Night Knife Fights, Horror, Werewolves with tags , , , , , on January 20, 2012 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  THE HOWLING (1981) vs. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON (1981)
PART 2 (of 3)
With Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Mark Onspaugh, and Nick Cato

From THE HOWLING

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Welcome back, everyone.

Tonight it’s PART 2 of FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  THE HOWLING (1981) vs. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON (1981), where our panel of CINEMA KNIFE FIGHTERS attempt to decide which of these two werewolf classics is the better movie.

Once again, L.L. Soares and I are joined by Nick Cato and Mark Onspaugh. Thanks again, guys, for being here.

MARK ONSPAUGH:  No problem.

NICK CATO:  As long as I don’t have to howl at the moon anymore.

MO:  Not into howling at the moon?

NC:  No.

L.L. SOARES:  What’s the matter with you, Nick?  Not into howling at the moon?  What kind of a werewolf fan are you?

NC:  Sane.

MA: Okay, after two rounds in PART 1, both these films were tied one round apiece. Ready, guys?  It’s time for Round 3.

Which film has the better cast of characters?

LS:  I think Dee Wallace is pretty good in THE HOWLING, and she has some interesting supporting actors like Patrick Macnee (Steed from the classic AVENGERS TV show from 1961 – 1969), character actor Slim Pickens as the sheriff, and even old-time horror icon John Carradine as a strange old man. The rest of the supporting cast is pretty good, too.

I also like that there are a lot of fun cameos in the film, including director Roger Corman as a man waiting to use a telephone booth, Corman regular Dick Miller as a bookstore owner, Forrest J. Ackerman as a bookstore customer, and even screenwriter John Sayles as a coroner.

But there are some weaker characters, too. Don McLeod as T.C. is just such a stereotypical creepy character that he doesn’t seem believable at all. And Elizabeth Brooks, as the seductive Marsha Quist, certainly looks the part, but isn’t a very good actress in this movie (it is her film debut, however, to be fair).

Don McLeod as T.C. Quisp in THE HOWLING.

That said, the acting in AMERICAN WEREWOLF is just that much better. David Naughton is terrific as the lead, David Kessler. Griffin Dunne steals every scene he’s in as David’s buddy Jack Goodman (even after he’s dead) and provides a lot of humor in the story, and I have to admit to having a crush on Jenny Agutter as Nurse Alex Price back when I saw this in the movie theater as a kid.

MA:  Me, too. And I relived that crush all over again when I rewatched this one.

MO (howls):  Aaaawwoooo!!!

LS:  The acting chops are just a different level in this movie, while THE HOWLING seems more like a B-movie you’d see at the drive-in (although better than average for those kinds of flicks).

It’s also funny to note that there’s a scene in THE HOWLING where Dee Wallace’s character is trapped in a car while werewolves slam into the doors and try to get in. This mirrors another movie she would star in two years later, CUJO (1983), where her character was in much the same situation.

MA:  So, are you saying that you like the cast in THE HOWLING better, but you prefer the acting in AMERICAN WEREWOLF?

LS:  Actually, no. I like the cast of THE HOWLING, but the cast of AMERICAN WEREWOLF is superior in just about every way.

MA:  Nick, how about you?  What do you think of the casts?

NC:  I’m with L.L. on this one. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON has the more interesting cast, especially the dead friend, Jack.

MO:  You guys are both wrong.

While I think David Naughton, Griffin Dunne and Jenny Agutter were all good in AMERICAN WEREWOLF, how can you compare them to a movie with Patrick MacNee, Slim Pickens and John Carradine? And Bob Picardo is amazing as “Happy Face” serial killer Eddie; as are awesome “bad girl” Elisabeth Brooks as Marsha and Don McLeod as redneck psycho T.C.

I love the whole dynamic of werewolves who are joyously evil vs. scared victims, some of whom come to embrace their bestial nature, and the pompous psychotherapist (MacNee) who recommends the worst course of therapy imaginable…  I go with THE HOWLING.

MA:  I dunno, Mark. I think I’m siding with L.L. and Nick.

MO:  The horror of it all!

LS:  When you’re right, you’re right!

MA:  I’ve always liked the characters in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF better. David Naughton is OK as David Kessler, the werewolf.

L.L, you said you thought Naughton was excellent as David, but I’ve always found him running hot and cold in this movie.

LS:  What do you know!

MA:  I like it when he’s being goofy, but other than the transformation scene, he doesn’t have the angst and pain of a guy who’s now a murderous beast.

But I agree with you that Griffin Dunne steals the show as David’s undead friend Jack. And I also really like Jenny Agutter as David’s love interest, Nurse Alex Price, and John Woodvine is also memorable as Dr. Hirsch. They all deliver solid performances.

Griffin Dunne as Jack Goodman in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON provides comic relief, even after he's dead.

Interestingly, David Schofield, who plays a dart player in a key scene in the movie, was also in the recent remake of THE WOLFMAN (2010) as a police constable.

I agree that THE HOWLING has a more impressive cast, with Patrick Macnee, Kevin McCarthy, John Carradine, and Dee Wallace in the starring role, but I’ve never warmed up to the characters. As such, I prefer the cast in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF OF LONDON.

Since L.L., Nick, and myself all chose the cast of AMERICAN WEREWOLF, Round 3 goes to AMERICAN WEREWOLF, giving it a 2-1 edge over THE HOWLING.

Next up, it’s Round 4, and the question is, which film’s director does a better job, Joe Dante on THE HOWLING, or John Landis on AMERICAN WERWOLF?

MO:  It’s interesting, both directors are known for their senses of humor – and Dante peppers his film with werewolf references and even a cartoon Big Bad Wolf.

MA:  You’re right, but I think the humor works better in AMERICAN WEREWOLF than it does in THE HOWLING.

MO: Funny you should say that because I actually see AMERICAN WEREWOLF as a tragedy.

MA: It is a tragedy. It just has a lot of funny parts in it.

MO:  And I see THE HOWLING more as a “monster picture.”

Both are entertaining, but I find THE HOWLING darker and scarier – and that’s often what I look for. So, I go with Dante and THE HOWLING.

LS:  Like I said before, Dante gives us an above average drive-in movie. But John Landis gives us something more, with more believable characters and just a higher standard of writing and directing. While I like what Dante did on THE HOWLING, I don’t think you can compare it to AMERICAN WEREWOLF in the directing category. Landis was at the top of his game.

David Naughton in a dream sequence from AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON.

MA:  I agree.

MO:  What am I going to do with you two guys?

MA:  I definitely prefer Landis’s work on AMERICAN WEREWOLF. He created the more memorable transformation scene, and the opening bit when David and Jack are attacked on the moors is probably the most suspenseful scene in the movie, and far more suspenseful than anything in THE HOWLING.

I also thought Landis was far more successful pulling off the comic relief, as there are many humorous moments in AMERICAN WEREWOLF.

All in all, I’m going with Landis.

MO:  Nick, help me out here, dude.

NC:  I wish I could, but when it comes to these two directors and their work on these two movies, I don’t have a clear preference. I’m calling it a draw.

MA:  All right, Round 4 goes to AMERICAN WEREWOLF, giving it a 3-1 lead over THE HOWLING. It’s starting to pull away.

Round 5. Which movie has the better screenplay?

I’ll go first.

Hands down, AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF. No contest. It’s a very creative screenplay, and includes off-the-wall humor and some memorable scenes with Griffin Dunne as a walking dead man.

I did like how THE HOWLING included in-joke character names, like Dr. George Waggner (the name of the man who directed THE WOLF MAN (1941), Terry Fisher and Fred Francis [two of Hammer Film’s more famous directors. Fisher directed Hammer’s THE CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF (1962)], and Erle Kenton (who directed HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1944) and HOUSE OF DRACULA (1945).

In terms of story and characters, though, I prefer AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF to THE HOWLING.

LS:  Funny enough, I just read the original novel of THE HOWLING before watching the movie again recently – it’s by Gary Brandner – and I was surprised how much the movie changed the story. Not all of the changes make sense – since there are very strong motivations in the novel that are not as clear-cut in the film. I’m surprised by this, because the script was written by John Sayles (along with Terence H. Winkless), and Sayles has a reputation for being an above-average screenwriter—and has had an accomplished career since as a director—even for a movie like this. I actually wish it had stuck more to the original story.

The main changes are the fact that Karen White is a news anchor and a local celebrity (in the book, she was just an average woman), and that the “retreat” she goes to after an attempted rape is some kind of group therapy getaway (in the book, it was a small town that the Whites go to recover from Karen’s actual rape – no attempted in the book). It just seemed that the characters were stronger in the novel. While I don’t hate all the changes the movie made, I just think it’s a so-so script, when it could have been a really good one.

In comparison, John Landis’s script for AMERICAN WEREWOLF is smarter, his characters are more fleshed out, and the motivations are more believable. So AMERICAN WEREWOLF wins the screenplay competition hands down.

MA:  Well, Mark, here we go again. Are you going to side with THE HOWLING on this one?

MO:  Actually, I have to admit the writing is a bit better on AMERICAN WEREWOLF.

NC:  Yes, AMERICAN WEREWOLF has an excellent screenplay.

MA:  Round 5:  AMERICAN WEREWOLF. It’s now up 4-1 over THE HOWLING.

And believe it or not, that’s all the time we have here tonight.

MO:  Already?  Man, that went by fast.

LS:  And see, Nick, you didn’t even have to howl!

NC:  I’ll let you guys do the howling.

MA:  Join us again next Friday night for the third and final installment of our HOWLING vs. AMERICAN WEREWOLF bout. Will AMERICAN WEREWOLF continue to beat up on THE HOWLING?  Or will THE HOWLING come from behind and win with a knock-out?

Tune in next Friday night to find out.

Good night everybody!

—END Part 2—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Mark Onspaugh and Nick Cato

1 Comment »

Friday Night Knife Fights: THE HOWLING VS. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON – PART 1

Posted in 1980s Horror, 2012, Cult Movies, Friday Night Knife Fights, Special Effects, Werewolf Movies with tags , , , , , , , on January 13, 2012 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS: THE HOWLING (1981) vs. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON (1981)
PART 1 (of 3)
With Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Mark Onspaugh and Nick Cato

MICHAEL ARRUDA: Welcome everybody to another edition of FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS, that column where we pit two titans of terror against each other, whether it be movies or directors or whichever, and we see which one comes out the victor.

L.L. SOARES: Or in layman’s terms, we let them kick the crap out of each other and see which one wins!

MA: Something like that. Anyway, tonight L.L. and I are joined by Nick Cato and Mark Onspaugh. Thanks, guys, for joining us.

NICK CATO: You’re welcome. I’m looking forward to this.

MARK ONSPAUGH: Likewise. I had so much fun the last time, I couldn’t wait for the next one.

LS (to Nick): It’s about time you showed up for one of these. What took you so long?

NC: What took me so long? I dunno. Maybe it had something to do with your welcoming personality.

MA: Tonight on FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS we look at two werewolf classics from the 1980s, two movies that were released the same year in fact: THE HOWLING (1981) vs. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON (1981).

Our panel of Cinema Knife Fighters will attempt through a series of questions to determine which one of these hirsute tails—er, tales—is the better film. We’ll be bringing you this debate in three installments, with tonight being PART 1, and PARTS 2 and 3 to follow on successive Friday nights.

Before we get to this evening’s questions, I just have to offer a disclaimer.

LS: What? That you have no taste and no idea what you’re talking about?

MA: No.

That I’ve always preferred AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON to THE HOWLING. I saw both these movies when they first came out in 1981. I loved AMERICAN WEREWOLF immediately, but I left THE HOWLING unimpressed.

In an attempt to avoid unfairly tilting our results in AMERICAN WEREWOLF’S favor, I re-watched both these movies recently, in the hope that I might gain a fresh perspective. As always, I’ve tried my best to keep an open mind.

LS: You have a mind?

MA: I have a mind to take that fire axe hanging on the wall backstage and plunge it into your head.

LS: How violent of you. How can you live with yourself?

MA: Easy. I work with you.

LS: By the way, that sure was some incredible disclaimer. I sure am glad you got that out of the way.

MA: Anyway, moving right along. Tonight we begin our bout with the question, which of these two movies has the better werewolf, or in THE HOWLING’s case, werewolves?

Mark, since this duel was actually your idea— and thank you once again for the suggestion— we’ll start with you.

MO: You’re welcome.

THE HOWLING, hands (paws?) down.

I really hated the final werewolf in AMERICAN WEREWOLF, especially since its form and coloration seemed to bear no relation to the brilliant transformation scene earlier. It also moved so poorly that I wasn’t able to suspend my disbelief. I found THE HOWLING werewolves to be effective and scary… except for the final transformation of Dee Wallace – ugh.

MA: You mean you didn’t like her cute little puppy dog nose?

MO: No!

MA: I’ve always thought she looked like a Muppet. You know, like Rowlf’s girlfriend.

LS: Who the hell is Rowlf?

But getting back to your question. While I think the transformation scene in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON (1981) is superior, I wasn’t all that impressed with the end result. It looked like a big bear or something.

MA: Agreed.

LS: That was my one letdown with AMERICAN WEREWOLF.

The werewolves in THE HOWLING (also 1981) actually look cooler, because they’re more a cross between wolves and humans, but they’re iffy. Sometimes they look really cool, and other times they look fake as hell, depending on the shot. It’s inconsistent.

A cool-looking werewolf from THE HOWLING.

And I’m still not sure what I think of the big ears on the HOWLING werewolves. They add to their unique look, but they also look a little silly. But if I had to make a decision, I think the HOWLING werewolves look a little bit better.

NC: I would agree with you.

I’ve always thought the ‘wolves in THE HOWLING were scarier, especially in the sequence where the woman witnesses a transformation in that small room…the beast’s size shot from such a close range gave me the creeps.

MA: I definitely agree with you about that scene. That’s probably my favorite scene in the movie. It gives me the creeps, too.

But as far as choosing which one has the better werewolf, to be honest, I don’t like either werewolf.

To me, that’s always been the weakest part of AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON, a movie I like a lot, that its werewolf looks fake and unconvincing. The werewolves in THE HOWLING aren’t much better, but after seeing these two movies again back to back, I have to give the slightest of edges to THE HOWLING. They were slightly more menacing looking than the creature in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF, who looks almost “cute.”

The "bear-like" werewolf from AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON.

Okay, so even though I didn’t like either werewolf all that much, the three of you went with the creatures in THE HOWLING, so Round 1 goes to THE HOWLING.

On to Round 2.

A staple of the werewolf movie is the transformation scene. Which of these two hirsute classics sports the better transformation scene?

I’ll go first this time around and answer my own question.

No contest here. The transformation scene in AMERICAN WEREWOLF is much better than anything seen in THE HOWLING. It’s become a classic of the genre, and there’s a reason why—no, not because Rick Baker/John Landis re-created nearly the exact same scene for Michael Jackson’s THRILLER music video—but because it’s a terrific sequence!

LS: You had to bring up THRILLER? Ugh.

MA: For its time, the special effects were better than anything I had ever seen. Make-up that actually moved, ears and snouts that grew, that was pretty amazing stuff! Plus, David Naughton looks like he’s experiencing the kind of pain you’d expect if your body was contorting into the shape and appearance of a werewolf; the kind of pain Lon Chaney Jr. only hinted at.

The transformations in THE HOWLING don’t come close to what we see in this scene in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF.

NC: Agreed.

AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON has the better—and all-time BEST—transformation scene, which of course won the first Oscar for horror film special effects.

MO: I don’t know. Both are amazing, and you have that martial arts trope of the student going against his old master.

MA: You mean Rob Bottin in THE HOWLING going up against Rick Baker in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF?

MO: Yep. Bottin vs. Baker.

LS: Hey, there’s a future FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHT!

MO: Yeah, that would be a good one.

And both scenes display practical effects, which (when done right) kick the ass of CGI. However, the style and intent of the scenes are so different.

Bottin had total control of the lighting of his scene, while Landis wanted Baker to do something in a high level of light. Bottin’s scene with Picardo is meant to be scary and evil, while Baker’s scene is largely a nightmare being endured (alone) by Naughton.

Landis forbade Baker from giving his protégé (Bottin) any advice, so Baker could only hint at how to solve certain problems. Bottin relies a lot on bladder effects, whereas Baker had pioneered “change-o heads”, where foam and latex forms of Naughton’s face could be mechanically altered (stretched) to produce actual real-time transformations. Unfortunately, the rhythm of Baker’s scene is off, because Landis insisted the head/face change last, in defiance of logic.

David Naughton's transformation begins in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON.

As for my choice? I think the main transformation scene in THE HOWLING is scarier, but the scene in AMERICAN WEREWOLF made my jaw drop, awestruck. Even when I knew how it was done (I saw Baker demonstrate the heads to an EFX makeup class), it didn’t lose any power… Just a masterpiece. AMERICAN WEREWOLF wins it.

MA: So you saw Baker demonstrate the heads in an EFX make-up class? That must have been awesome!

MO: It was.

LS: I’m going to help AMERICAN WEREWOLF land another punch because I also think the transformation scene in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON is pretty incredible. Rick Baker and his team give us perhaps the best transformation scene ever, from the sprouting of each hair, to the rising of the spine, to the telescoping of the snout.

The funny thing is, THE HOWLING is no slouch, either, and if THE HOWLING had been the only werewolf movie to come out 1981, it would have been hailed as an effects breakthrough. Unfortunately, AMERICAN WEREWOLF is just that much better, and overshadows it.

I also think there are a few shots in the transformation scene in THE HOWLING that look kinda goofy – like you can tell it’s a rubber mask – while the transformation scene in AMERICAN WEREWOLF is longer, more detailed, and more impressive. Also, THE HOWLING relies a bit too much on inflated condoms under the latex skin—the “bladder effects” Mark was talking about. It looks like everyone who becomes a werewolf has the mumps for a few minutes.

Eddie Quisp (Robert Picardo) begins his change in THE HOWLING.

MA: Inflated condoms? Maybe that’s why Dee Wallace looks so bright and happy in that final transformation scene!

LS: My last comparison is in the circumstances of the big transformation scenes. In AMERICAN WEREWOLF, David is alone in an apartment when it happens, and therefore there’s no one to interrupt or run away screaming. The scene can continue unhindered and give us a thing of beauty.

In THE HOWLING, the big transformation involves the psychopathic Eddie Quisp (Robert Picardo), and he stands there, going through this lengthy transformation as Dee Wallace cowers before him. She just stays there and waits for the entire metamorphosis to finish—instead of trying to run away while he’s occupied with his changes. I guess you could say she was frozen in fear, but it just seemed incredibly silly to me that she gives him time to undergo a complete change without trying to save herself.

NC: She was like the rest of the audience, too busy pissing her pants to move!

MA: We all picked AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON as having the best transformation scene, so Round 2 goes to AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF. After two rounds, we’re dead even, which is better of course than being even dead.

Believe it or not, that’s all the time we have for tonight. It looks like we’ve got a good one going here, folks, so join us next Friday night for PART 2 of FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS: THE HOWLING (1981) vs. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON (1981).

It’s sure to be a howl.

(Michael Arruda, Nick Cato, Mark Onspaugh, and L.L. Soares all howl at the stage lights.)

—END Part 1—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Mark Onspaugh and Nick Cato

2 Comments »

Suburban Grindhouse Memories: CANNIBALS IN THE STREETS (1982)

Posted in 1980s Horror, 2011, Action Movies, Cannibals, Grindhouse, Italian Horror, Nick Cato Reviews, Suburban Grindhouse Memories with tags , , , , , , on December 15, 2011 by knifefighter

SUBURBAN GRINDHOUSE MEMORIES
CANNIBALS IN THE STREETS (1982)
Support Your Local Veterans!
By Nick Cato

Besides an overabundance of slasher films, the early 80s was also a hotbed of DAWN OF THE DEAD and ZOMBIE rip-offs, and if you lived in the right places, these (mainly) euro-schlock offerings seemed to be released every week.

Although zombie-mania is mainstream today, in 1982 it was still cool to be a zombie geek.  And upon seeing the above ad in my local newspaper for something called CANNIBALS IN THE STREETS, my geekdom hit an all-time high.  Here was a film I hadn’t read a thing about in any horror magazine or fanzine, and it starred John Saxon, an actor I had been a fan of since his stint as a robot opposite Lee Majors on the TV show THE SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN (1974-76 episodes).

Thankfully one of my buddies’ older brothers smuggled us into the Fox Twin Theatre, another defunct twin here on Staten Island that’s now the site of a multiplex.  For a Saturday afternoon, CANNIBALS IN THE STREETS was packed…but by the halfway point the theater had all but emptied.  The fools should have stuck out the slow middle…

I should point out—before I go any further—that I eventually discovered this film was a HEAVILY edited version of a 1980 Italian production released in Europe as CANNIBAL APOCALYPSE, and eventually released on VHS in America, still edited, as INVASION OF THE FLESH HUNTERS (got all that?).  As far as I know, this is the first Italian cannibal film to be shot almost entirely in Atlanta.  I forced myself to watch (okay—SCAN) through Image Entertainment’s uncut DVD version (under the title CANNIBAL APOCALYPSE) back around 2002, and am happy to report that the “uncut” version didn’t enhance or change my opinion of the film.  In fact, anyone seeking a gory cannibal/zombie outing can do themselves a favor and look elsewhere.

BUT: the film still has its moments.

Saxon locates a couple of P.O.W.’s in Vietnam.  To survive, the men resorted to cannibalism, and as Saxon tries to help one soldier out of a prisoner pit, he has a nice chunk taken out of his arm!  The theater DID go nuts over this opening sequence, which quickly ended and brought us back to modern-day Atlanta.  Giovanni Lombardo Radice (who would soon get a power drill through his head in Fulci’s THE GATES OF HELL (1983) ) plays one of Saxon’s ‘Nam buddies—and for some reason they’re both living in Atlanta.  When Saxon refuses to go out with him for a drink (apparently he’s still haunted by being bitten in ‘Nam), Radice heads to a local movie theater where instead of focusing on the feature, he watches some pervert lick his girlfriend’s body.  Radice has a flashback and decides to bite the poor girl’s neck, which causes the place to panic.  He’s chased by a bunch of crazed theater patrons, and a sorry-looking biker gang, into a thrift shop, where he’s eventually apprehended and sent to the hospital for observation.  DURING this fiasco, John Saxon is at home with a babysitter, who keeps giving him flashbacks every time she flirts by showing a little leg.  Knowing his wife is being unfaithful, Saxon gives in and goes down on her without literally eating anything, temporarily sating his cannibalistic urges with some playful nibbling.

At this point in the film, it became clear CANNIBALS IN THE STREETS wasn’t a zombie film, and while it moves well up to this point, the mid-section becomes quite tedious.  Patron after patron began to leave the theater, but my friends and I were confident something titled CANNIBALS IN THE STREETS simply HAD to have a pay off.

It does and it doesn’t.

The action slowly picks back up when Radice and the other rescued P.O.W. escape from a hospital along with a nurse they’ve bitten.  They run into the aforementioned biker gang right outside the hospital and a mini-brawl breaks out.  The trio goes on to infect unlucky citizens with their cannibal virus, and eventually meet up with their former captain, John Saxon.

The rest of the film turns into a violent action flick, complete with a nifty chase sequence through Atlanta’s sewers and a flamethrower battle at the finale.  The gore scenes cut out of this theatrical release (provided by ZOMBIE (1979) and THE BEYOND (1981)-alumni Gianetto De Rossi), which I finally saw on the DVD, include a gruesome close-up of Radice’s stomach after he gets a hole blown in it, a doctor having his tongue bitten off, and some sloppy mechanic having his leg sliced up like cold cuts at a deli.

I have no idea if director Antonio Margheriti was trying to make some kind of non-subtle point regarding the returning Vietnam vet as being the “real” monster, or if he just set out to make some cash by combining APOCALYPSE NOW and DAWN OF THE DEAD (both 1979).  What I came away with was a satisfying exploitation experience, despite the (then) lack of gore, which was made up for with uncomfortable sex scenes, plenty of action (despite the slow middle), and some of the worst left-over disco music ever to appear in a cannibal film (and THAT’S saying something).  I’ve read that John Saxon has publicly denounced the film, and co-star Radice has said Saxon seemed “out there” while the film was being shot.  Either way, CANNIBALS IN THE STREETS is must viewing for Saxon completists and lovers of so-bad-they’re-good grindhouse classics.  All others, stick to RAMBO…

© Copyright 2011 by Nick Cato

John Saxon discovers P.O.W.s just before getting bit in CANNIBALS IN THE STREETS!

Leave A Comment »

Me and Lil’ Stevie vs. THE CHILDREN OF THE CORN (1984)

Posted in 1980s Horror, 2011, Evil Kids!, Me and Lil' Stevie, Peter Dudar Reviews, Religious Cults, Stephen King Movies with tags , , , , , on November 29, 2011 by knifefighter

“ME AND LIL’ STEVIE”
VERSUS
THE CHILDREN OF THE CORN (1984)
By Peter N. Dudar

EXTERIOR/DAY:

(Camera pans along a long, desolate Nebraska road, lined with miles and miles of man-sized late summer corn stalks. Creepy soundtrack music rolls, as the camera zooms in on a strange happening within the rows of corn. The corn suddenly starts moving and bending, as if making a path for something big and terrible coming. The camera freezes and zooms in on a patch of corn just at the side of the road. The corn spreads apart and a figure steps through. It is a man carrying a ventriloquist dummy that resembles Master of Horror, Stephen King.)

Peter: Phew, I thought we’d never get out of there!

Lil’ Stevie: I told you we should have taken that left turn at Albuquerque! Welcome, Constant Viewer, to another addition of “Me and Lil’ Stevie”…

Peter: Hey, that’s MY line!

Lil’ Stevie: I’m your host, Stephen King, and I’ll be…

Peter: You are NOT Stephen King! You’re a puppet! And besides, I’M the host of this. You’re just my sidekick.

Lil’ Stevie: The REAL Stephen King wouldn’t like you. Not even a little bit!

Peter: Would you like to do this review by yourself?

Lil’ Stevie: (Bowing his head) No.

Peter: Then let’s get started. Today, we’ll be discussing Fritz Kiersch’s 1984 film, CHILDREN OF THE CORN.

Lil’ Stevie: That should read “Stephen King’s CHILDREN OF THE CORN”. It’s right there in the opening credits.

Peter: Fine. After all, it’s based on King’s 1977 short story of the same title, which appears in his first collection “Night Shift”.

Lil’ Stevie: An excellent read, by the way. And Christmas is coming, if you suddenly felt the urge to buy a copy for the horror-reading loved one in your life.

Peter: Quit pandering…we’re not making any money out of this. Now, this story is just one of the many King gems that doesn’t take place in his home state of Maine. This one takes place in Gatlin, Nebraska…and for all you King geeks like me, there’s even mention of close-by Hemingford in the movie, which is where Mother Abigail is waiting for all her children in THE STAND.

Lil’ Stevie: “I’m a hundred and four years old, and I still make my own bread!”

Peter: You’re a dummy, and you have my hand up your kiester!

Lil’ Stevie: I really hate you sometimes!

Peter: The plot centers around Burt (Peter Horton: television actor, writer, and director, who has appeared on such shows as THE SHIELD, GREY’S ANATOMY and 30-SOMETHING) and Vicki (Linda Hamilton: Sara Conners from THE TERMINATOR films); a doctor and his girlfriend (who wants to be his wife, although he seems to has a phobia about commitment). The two are traveling cross-country for a job that he’s about to begin. They get lost in Nebraska and, on the verge of an argument, manage to run over a little boy who runs out of the cornfield.

Lil’ Stevie: In my story, the two are already married and on the verge of a divorce. They are on a last-ditch effort to save their marriage when they get hopelessly lost in Nebraska, and Burt accidentally runs the little boy over. Of course, the little boy has already had his throat cut and was a goner anyway…

Peter: At the beginning of the movie, we’re offered a voice-over narrative from Job (Robby Kiger of MONSTER SQUAD, 1987), a little boy who explains exactly what happened in Gatlin in an opening montage, and will subsequently serve as the lead source for exposition throughout the movie. Job and his sister, Sarah (Anne Marie McEvoy, INVITATION TO HELL, 1984), are the youngest of the kids in Gatlin to remember the massacre, when all the grown-ups of Gatlin were murdered in cold blood by the followers of Isaac and worshippers of “He Who Walks Behind the Rows.” As the movie progresses, we’ll discover that the town of Gatlin is inhabited solely by children, and that all of them are brainwashed by this mysterious Isaac (played by John Franklin, who played “Cousin Itt” in the ADDAMS FAMILY movies in ‘91 and ‘93), who wanders around in an Amish hat and preaches an Old Testament message of bloodshed and sacrifice.

Lil’ Stevie: It bears mentioning that, in my story, Isaac is only 11 years old, but is in fact played by a 24-year-old in the movie.

Peter: That happens a lot in movies and television. You just have to suspend disbelief. And that is really easy for this movie, because Franklin DOES look like a little kid. Even in the Amish hat and coat. It also bears mentioning that this fanatical religion culminates in each of the children sacrificing themselves to “He Who Walks Behind the Rows” on their 19th birthday. It’s important because the little boy that Burt and Vicki are about to run over is a kid that is running away to find help and bring a stop to Isaac and his heathen religion. Only, Isaac is forewarned of the traitorous child (Sarah has the gift of sight, demonstrated in her crayon drawings) and sends Malachi (Courtney Gains, who played Hans Klopeck in THE BURBS, 1989) out to stop him. Malachi slits the boy’s throat and sends him sprawling out into the road, and into the path of Burt’s moving car…

Lil’ Stevie: Squish!

Peter: Being a doctor, Burt realizes that the boy was already dead before his car ran him over, and becomes obsessed with getting the kid to the police as quickly as possible. Vicki, on the verge of hysterics, wants them to just get out of Nebraska as quickly as possible.

Lil’ Stevie: Another deviation from my original story. In my story, the two are at each other’s throats, and when Burt runs the child over, Vicki does nothing but punish and degrade him. She wanted to stay on the highway, and in his subsequent obsession with finding somebody, anybody, to report the accident to, she fights him at every possible opportunity. She’s terrified, distressed, and when he doesn’t cater to her every possible request, she acts like a total bitch.

Peter: Yeah. In the real King story, I actually wanted Burt to hand her over to the kids. But we’re reviewing the movie at the moment, so none of this really matters.

Lil’ Stevie: It matters to ME.

Peter: So the boy with the slit throat stumbles out in front of them, Burt runs him down, and then they spend the next ten minutes driving around Nebraska, confused by signs for Gatlin that are misdirecting them and sending them in circles. They finally manage to find a gas station, operated by veteran actor R.G. Armstrong (who has appeared in just about everything in the latter half of the 20th Century), who tells them that there is nothing in Gatlin, and that they should just press on for Hemingford……

Lil’ Stevie: Yay, Hemingford!

Peter: …because the children have an agreement with the old man at the gas station. They need his fuel, and in return they let him and his dog, Sarge, alone. Armstrong sends them on their way, but Malachi and his pals off the old man anyway (they even kill his dog), and will later get chastised by Isaac for it. The point of this whole series of events is to let the viewer know that there aren’t any grown-ups for miles and miles, and that Burt and Vicki aren’t just lost, but have been manipulated into a trap that has been laid out for them.

Lil’ Stevie: I just want to go on record here that I actually wrote the original screenplay for this movie, but my treatment was dismissed for the screenplay written by George Goldsmith. None of this is MY concept for what was supposed to happen in the movie.

Peter: Duly noted, Lil’ Stevie. In fact, I don’t recall there even being a mechanic in the original short story.

Lil’ Stevie: Thank you!

Peter: But it works here. And, as Isaac will later inform us, they needed the man to keep supplying gas for their generators, and that Malachi’s murdering him was sinful pride, and “He Who Walks Behind the Rows” is most displeased as a result. And here is the pinnacle plot source of this movie: There is an obvious power struggle going on between Isaac and Malachi. Isaac is all about pleasing “He Who Walks Behind the Rows,” the fictitious version of God in the eyes of Isaac and his followers. This whole cult following came as a direct result of Isaac (according to Job’s narrative), but Malachi is the actual enforcer, so to speak. He, too, wants to please the god that keeps providing corn and life to the kids of Gatlin, but where Isaac’s lot is to preach, Malachi is the actual leader of the children.

Lil’ Stevie: And what of Burt and Vicki???

Peter: I’m glad you asked. After driving around in circles, Burt finally convinces Vicki that they should just go to Gatlin and find somebody to report the murder to. They roll into Gatlin and find it deserted. But there seem to be children here, so there must be grown-ups around to talk to…

Lil’ Stevie: Not necessarily!

Peter: We know that! Burt and Vicki are soon pursued by Malachi and his band of child-thugs. They kidnap Vicki and leave Burt to escape the murderous mob and figure out what the hell actually happened in Gatlin, so that he can try and rescue her. And possibly put an end to “He Who Walks Behind the Rows.”

Lil’ Stephen: And none of it actually happens in my story. In my story, they enter Gatlin, Burt finds the Grace Baptist Church, where he manages to uncover the history of the town, and by the time he solves the mystery Vicki has already been abducted and brought into the cornfield to serve as a sacrifice. In the movie, Burt and Vicki work together through most of it, and what information they are lacking is given through Job’s exposition.

Peter: True. But what makes this movie compelling is the fact that Burt and Vicki are likeable characters. As are Job and Sarah. We want them to survive, to thwart the terrible Isaac and the all-out frightening Malachi. In previous columns we’ve discussed the idea of “Good-enough” child actors. This movie offers some great child actors (even though Franklin is in his mid-twenties, he’s frightening and compelling to watch, as is Gains’s version of Malachi), and the whole premise of murderous children always makes for disturbing fiction. On a personal note, I tend to really dig on stories based on religious fanaticism, which makes this enjoyable fodder for me.

Lil’ Stevie: Yeah, but enough to spawn six sequels and an actual remake? Was my story THAT compelling?

Peter: You didn’t write it, Lil’ Stevie!

Lil’ Stevie: Of course, I didn’t. In my story, there was no struggle for power between Isaac and Malachi, there was no sibling bond between Job and Sarah, and there was no happy ending. In MY story, Burt enters the cornfield to find Vicki crucified, with her eyes plucked out and corn stalks buried in her empty sockets and shoved down her throat. And “He Who Walks Behind the Rows” comes out victorious when he claims Burt before it’s all over. In the movie, we’re offered another crappy happy ending, when Burt and Vicki basically adopt Job and Sarah after smiting the God of the Corn and seeing both Isaac and Malachi brought down.

Peter: Way to spoil it for everybody. Yeah, Burt saves Vicki and together they put an end to “He Who Walks Behind the Rows,” but not before we see some really, really crappy animation at the movie’s climax. There’s a brief glimpse of “He Who Walks” in the form of an underground predator that, when in motion, pushes the earth up like some kind of monster gopher…and that is kind of creepy and disturbing to watch. But this gives way to a cartoon beast that detracts from the overall impact of the movie, and relegates the film to eternal 80’s schlock rather than being a timeless classic of horror fiction. And that’s too bad because I recall watching this movie as a kid and having the wits scared right out of me. But upon watching again as an adult, I’m sad to discover that this movie just didn’t hold up under the test of time.

Lil’ Stevie: It would have if they’d just followed MY screenplay!

Peter: I guess we’ll never know. Overall, this is still a fun movie to watch. There are some really good performances, at least by Franklin and Gains as the respective Isaac and Malachi, but in the movie, the fictitious happy ending and the cartoonish “He Who Walks Behind the Rows” detract from what this movie could have been. These factors alone whitewash the brutality of child violence and blasphemous devil-worship the short story actually succeeds in capturing. And again, I find myself stuck in the dilemma of having a fondness for the movie out of personal recollection, but am hard-pressed to give it my recommendation as a fan of horror. I guess the Stephen King geek in me tells me that I should give it a pass, if only as a means of regarding King’s history in the cinema (primarily towards the beginning of his career) and giving it some historical context.

Lil’ Stevie: Did you hear something?

Peter: Hear what?

Lil’ Stevie: Something’s coming. Look at the cornfield!

(The corn begins to part again, as if something monstrous is barreling down right at them. The corn suddenly parts and L.L. SOARES walks out, wearing a “Motorhead” shirt and drinking a beer).

L.L. Soares: Oops, wrong column. I guess I should have taken that left turn at Albuquerque!

Peter: Holy Crap! It’s “He Who Walks Behind the Rows!” Let’s get out of here!!!

Lil’ Stevie: (With tears of absolute terror in his eyes) Goodbye, folks! See you next time!

The End

 

© Copyright 2011 by Peter N. Dudar

 

3 Comments »

Friday Night Knife Fights: ALIEN VS. THE THING – PART 2

Posted in 1980s Horror, 2011, Aliens, Classic Films, Friday Night Knife Fights, John Carpenter Films, Science Fiction with tags , , , , , , on November 18, 2011 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  ALIEN VS. THE THING
PART 2
Featuring Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, and “special guest star” Mark Onspaugh

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Welcome back to FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  ALIEN (1979) VS. THE THING (1982).  Tonight it’s Part 2, as L.L. SOARES, MARK ONSPAUGH, and myself continue our panel discussion over which of these two horror science fiction classics is the better movie.

Ready for Part 2, guys?

MARK ONSPAUGH:  Bring it on!

L.L. SOARES:  Let me just down this beer first  (guzzles from a giant can of FOSTERS).

MA:  Hope that doesn’t cloud your judgment.

LS:  Don’t worry.  When it comes to talking about movies, I can do it in my sleep.

MA:  Which you’ve done on some occasions.

LS:  Yeah, and I still make more sense than you do. (laughs).

MO:  Uh oh.  Here we go again.

MA: There’s never a cream pie around when you need one.

MO:  Would you like me to get one?

MA:  Maybe later. Moving right along, let’s get back to our discussion.

Watch out! THE THING is coming to get you!

In Part 1, both Rounds went to ALIEN, and so ALIEN leads THE THING 2-0.  On to Question 3.

Which film has the better special effects?

I’ll answer this one first.  Hands down, I like the special effects in THE THING better.  I thought the gross-out effects in this movie were ahead of their time. And better yet, they still hold up today.

On the other hand, while I love the look of the Alien, we don’t see him a whole lot.  Now, I’m not faulting the fact that we don’t see him a lot, because this actually works to the movie’s advantage, but when we do see him, it’s quick and fleeting, and visually not all that impressive.  It’s still scary, but in terms of special effects, it doesn’t pack the same punch as the effects in THE THING.

For me it’s a no brainer.  The special effects in THE THING are better.

A dead unearthly astronaut on an alien ship in ALIEN

MO:  I disagree.  I don’t find the special effects in ALIEN disappointing at all.  Both films have awesome effects, in a time when rubber and paint still ruled… But THE THING takes place in Quonset huts—while ALIEN gives us a battered ship, an alien planet, an alien ship… and a decapitated android…. I have to give the nod to ALIEN when it comes to special effects.

LS:  You seem to have forgotten all that, Michael.

MA:  No, I haven’t forgotten.  I love the look of the Nostromo, the alien planet, the abandoned alien ship, the different stages of the alien, all that’s cool.  But in terms of pure impact, the way the special effects were used in THE THING, they were unforgettable.  To me, the best part of THE THING were its special effects, its creature effects in particular.  I can’t say that about ALIEN.

LS:  They both have great effects for their time, and if you watch them now, both films have scenes where the effects are pretty strong, and other scenes that look dated and even silly now.

MA:  Really?  I think they hold up rather well.

LS:  That’s because you look dated and silly, too.

MA (suddenly wearing a 1970s leisure suit):  What do you mean?

LS:  Overall, though, I’d have to go with THE THING, just because the monster is constantly changing. It’s just more of a field day for the effects people.

MA:  Yep, that’s what I’m talking about.  The special effects in THE THING are a more integral part of the movie than they are in ALIEN.

Round 3 goes to THE THING, which means THE THING finally scores a point and gets on the board, cutting into ALIEN’s lead. After three rounds, ALIEN holds a 2-1 advantage.

Next question.  Which film’s director does a better job, John Carpenter or Ridley Scott?

LS:  I’m a big Carpenter fan, especially THE THING, which is probably my favorite of his movies, up there with the original HALLOWEEN (1978). But ALIEN gets the edge here for me. I’d have to say Scott does a slightly better job at generating real scares.

MA:  I agree with you here.  Ridley Scott creates some genuinely creepy scenes.  He pulls out all stops in terms of creative direction.  ALIEN is full of suspense.  Strangely, Carpenter, who made a cinematic masterpiece of suspense with HALLOWEEN, seems to have forgotten all that with THE THING, which really isn’t suspense-driven.  It’s a showcase for gross-out effects, and while this certainly works for me, it’s a far cry from Carpenter’s work on HALLOWEEN.

LS:  Come on!  Carpenter’s work on THE THING is great!  It’s every bit as good as his work on HALLOWEEN, maybe better!

MA:  I disagree.  I think his work on HALLOWEEN is more impressive, but that’s neither here nor there.  We both agree that Ridley Scott does a better job at the helm of ALIEN.

MO:  Both directors give us fleshed-out worlds, paranoia, claustrophobia and disturbing imagery… But I found ALIEN scary whereas THE THING was more thrilling… Based on being scared, I go with Ridley.

MA:  Looks like ALIEN is going for the clean sweep with this question because I’m going with Ridley Scott too.

LS:  Didn’t you already say that?

MA:  Well, I said it in response to your answer, but I haven’t given my answer yet.

LS:  I think we’re in for some repetition.

MO:  As long as it’s about ALIEN and THE THING, I don’t mind.  I could talk about these movies all night.

MA:  Like you LL, I’m also a huge fan of John Carpenter, but I still have to go with Ridley Scott.  The strength of ALIEN is the suspense it generates, and ALIEN is so chockfull of suspense it’s downright uncomfortable at times.  The scene where Tom Skerritt (Dallas) travels through the air ducts searching for the Alien armed with a flame thrower is a classic nail biter.

I’ve always felt Carpenter’s direction in THE THING was not as inspired as his direction of HALLOWEEN or even THE FOG (1980).  There’s a strange use of fades in THE THING that’s very noticeable.  I’m sure he did this for a reason, but to me it’s very awkward.

Looks like Round 4 goes to ALIEN, and so folks, after four rounds, ALIEN has a commanding lead, 3-1.

And that’s all the time we have for tonight.  Join us next Friday for the third and final installment of FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  ALIEN VS. THE THING, when we’ll decide once and for all which one of these two horror classics is the superior film, and with ALIEN sitting comfortably in the lead, it remains to be seen if THE THING will be able to mount a comeback.

LS:  I wouldn’t count THE THING out yet.

MA: Thanks, Mark, for joining us again.  We’ll be looking forward to finishing this up with you next week.

MO:  Likewise.  Thanks, guys, it’s been awesome!

LS (to audience):  And thank you for joining us.  We’ll see you next Friday for the exciting conclusion to ALIEN vs. THE THING.

MA:  Good night everybody.

—END of PART 2—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares and Mark Onspaugh

1 Comment »

Suburban Grindhouse Memories: FIEND (1980)

Posted in 1980s Horror, 2011, B-Movies, Killers, Nick Cato Reviews, Paranormal, Suburban Grindhouse Memories, Supernatural, Weird Movies with tags , , , , , , on November 9, 2011 by knifefighter

SUBURBAN GRINDHOUSE MEMORIES
So Bad It’s . . . Not Good or Bad…. Just … Hmmmmm …
By Nick Cato

Faithful readers of this fine column have heard me mention Staten Island’s (now defunct) Fox Twin Cinema. The more my suburban memory is refreshed, the more I realize just how many amazing double features were shown there during the early 80s—1982 being out of control.

And in 1982, the Fox Twin introduced me to the wacky world of low-budget film maker Don Dohler. Among Don’s nearly-unwatchable achievements are the painfully bad THE ALIEN FACTOR (1978) and NIGHTBEAST (1982), both which feature unconvincing monsters and acting that’d make H.G. Lewis blush. But in 1980, Don ALMOST got it right, and the result has been debated by underground horror fans since its release.

FIEND (1980) was re-released in 1982 with the gruesome DON’T GO IN THE HOUSE (another film originally released in 1980), in one seriously uneven double-bill. After two years of seeing stills from FIEND in horror magazines and fanzines, I was thrilled to finally catch it. DON’T GO IN THE HOUSE was first, and a more brutal R-rated film would never be released (how this one hit American theaters unrated is anyone’s guess). Its depraved scenes of some lunatic killing women in his fire-proof basement with a flame thrower had the theater screaming out loud, and the film managed to work even despite its PSYCHO-inspired conclusion.

After a brief intermission, FIEND hit the screen, and within the first five minutes I can recall at least six people walking out…not due to anything disturbing, but due to a “special effect” so cheesy, it’s amazing any of us stayed for the rest. But I’m glad I did. Kind of.

Some red “spirit” is seen floating around a dark graveyard in the aforementioned special effect. It enters a grave and reanimates some 70s-looking guy, complete with big mustache and ugly sports jacket. Just WHY this happens is never explained, but we now have the title creature who—instead of eating flesh or drinking blood—decides to buy a large house in Maryland where he opens a music school!

(BRIEF PAUSE FOR MY MENTAL STABILITY: It’s my interest in plots like these that have caused me to age at an unusual rate and lose friends. Now back to the review.)

The FIEND takes the name Eric Longfellow, and spends a lot of film time wandering around the front yard of his new home where his neighbors stare at him with odd expressions. It should be pointed out that Longfellow, played by Don Dohler regular Don Leifert, does a fine job here and gives off a truly eerie vibe.

We’re eventually clued in as to just why Longfellow is a FIEND and not a ZOMBIE: if he doesn’t take other people’s “life forces” on a regular basis, he starts to grow old. When fully charged, Longfellow looks to be about 35-40 years old. But as he ages, the cheap special effects attempt to make him look like he’s in his 80s. The unique angle of the FIEND is how this freshly-risen creature kills his victims: by strangulation!  When the FIEND chokes some poor soul, his body glows the same shade of ghastly red that reanimated him in the first place. And while this could’ve been a real laugh-riot (especially with the below-grade-Z effects), there’s a certain sense of dread and some decent atmosphere that makes these sequences work.

A couple of nosey, goody-two-shoes neighbors eventually begin to suspect there’s something weird about their new neighbor, and decide to investigate. (The one thing I laughed at by the middle of the film was the absence of students or any actual music playing in Longfellow’s home academy…perhaps this is what caused suspicion in his neighbors?).

FIEND is a seriously flawed film, but worth a look if only for Leifert’s fine performance as the soulless title monster, and some unusually solid atmosphere for a low budget picture. But as fans of B-horror know, there’s stretches of boredom here that will challenge even the most jaded of trash film junkies. But if you can get through these areas, FIEND isn’t too bad a time (and it didn’t help seeing this after DON’T GO IN THE HOUSE, a superior film on every level).

(NOTE: In researching this film, I discovered FIEND star Don Liefert had passed away just recently in 2010. Hopefully his rest won’t be interrupted by a tacky-looking, malevolent spirit…)

© Copyright 2011 by Nick Cato

 Showing his early 80s horror-film colleagues you don’t need sharp weapons to be effective,
the FIEND (the late Dan Liefert) takes another soul.

(Note: Because there wasn’t a Suburban Grindhouse Memories column last Thursday, Nick agreed to write a new one this week, as well as his regular column again for next Thursday)

3 Comments »

Bill’s Bizarre Bijou: MYSTICS IN BALI (1981)

Posted in 1980s Horror, 2011, Asian Horror, Based on a True Story, Bill's Bizarre Bijou, Campy Movies, Cult Movies, Exploitation Films, Magic, Supernatural, William Carl Articles, Witches with tags , , , , on October 13, 2011 by knifefighter

Bill’s Bizarre Bijou

William D. Carl

This Week’s Feature Presentation:

MYSTICS IN BALI (1981)


Welcome to Bill’s Bizarre Bijou, where you’ll discover the strangest films ever made. If there are alien women with too much eye-shadow and miniskirts, if papier-mâché monsters are involved, if your local drive-in insisted this be the last show in their dusk-till-dawn extravaganza, or if it’s just plain unclassifiable – then I’ve seen it and probably loved it. Now, I’m here to share these little gems with you so you too can stare in disbelief at your television with your mouth dangling open. Trust me, with these flicks, you won’t believe your eyes.

In the early 1980s, the Indonesian film market was trying to distance itself from its Bollywood cousin. They refuted the song-and-dance numbers and the boy-meets-girl happy endings in favor of emulating the exploitation cinema of the West. Full of crazy amounts of violence, nudity and unfamiliar mythology, grindhouse cinema patrons were graced with such delightfully nutty movies as JUNGLE VIRGIN FORCE (1982), SATAN’S SLAVE (1980), and the don’t-miss-it exploitation classic LADY TERMINATOR (1988). We also got the wild and whacked-out MYSTICS IN BALI (1981), certainly one of the oddest horror films ever produced.

Our story begins in (where else) Bali, where Catherine Kean, a student from the U.S. and her Indonesian boyfriend Mahendra (who proudly sports a ‘Property of Notre Dame’ T-shirt) discuss the book she wants to write about Leak (pronounced Lee-ack), a Balinese black magic. He knows a guy who knows a guy who can take them to meet the Queen of Leak. Within five minutes, they are watching a strange ceremony, obviously a real one shot documentary-style, which features tons of loud screaming and even louder percussion. The following night, they follow the friend’s instructions and do, indeed, find the Queen, a hag with hair covering her face and ten-inch rubber fingernails. She refuses to stop laughing, a high screech that sounds a lot like Witchypoo from H.R. PUFNSTUF of “Seventies Saturday Morning” fame. She cuts off her hand and says to come on back now, ya’ hear, and disappears. The following night, the pair of lovebirds do go back in the spooky forest, where the head Leak demon hides behind a bush, its tongue emerging to snatch jewels and drink blood. Then, it brands Catherine’s leg with its long tongue so she can gain power. Yeah, sure, go ahead and disfigure me with a ten foot tongue. Catherine and Mahendra take it all in stride. The next evening, Catherine returns wearing a traditional undergarment (!) and holding a cloth of spells. In the background, we can hear the wolves (werewolves?) of Bali howling in the night. Wait a minute!  Are wolves indigenous to Bali?  Not unless it’s the soccer team, the Tangerang Wolves.

“Where do you get your nails done?” The Queen of Leak from MYSTICS OF BALI.

Catherine returns alone to find a hysterically laughing pig-woman, who even resembles Witchypoo. They both laugh for what seems like ten minutes, and I had to laugh along with them. It’s just infectious!  Then, they dance like hula dancers with Parkinson’s Disease, and in a moment of so-called “special effects”, the two women transforms into pigs. But, in the morning, Catherine seems fine, not bothered at all by her swinely state. Luckily, Mahendra’s uncle is a holy man, who recites holy Buddhist mantras. What a stroke of luck!

Even though she feels ill, Catherine goes back to the park to learn the final lesson of the Leak (I’m at a loss to explain anything she’s learned except how to become a pig). After a long laughing match, Catherine’s head rises right off her body, pulling out most of her internal organs — heart, lungs, intestines—which dangle from her neck. The Leak sends her head, trailing her guts, flying out after nourishment. This leads to one of the sickest scenes ever to (dis)grace a movie screen. A pregnant woman is having trouble birthing her baby. The head, now sporting fangs, flies to between her open legs, and sucks out the unborn child!  The woman’s stomach slowly deflates as Catherine’s possessed head slurps away. After this, the Leak apparently has complete control over Catherine, screeching and laughing, “I’ll never let you get away!”  Plus, the Leak seems able to transform itself into a worm Leak, a fish face Leak, a beautiful woman, a snake, all with the aid of helpful time-lapse photography. She also becomes a pair of laughing, bouncing balls of fire. Meanwhile, Catherine gets sicker and sicker, even vomiting blood after being kissed by her boyfriend, which should be a turn-off, but Mehandra doesn’t seem to mind very much. Although, his hair does continue to get bigger, making him look more and more like Tony Orlando.

“I have a special present for your baby!”

More insane laughing. More heads flying through the night. More babies are devoured, sadly off-screen. Finally, a bunch of local holy men and magicians decide to stop talking and take action. It’s up to Mehandra’s uncle to stop the floating head zombie chick before she kills again, giving eternal life to the forest witch Leak!  It’s not as exciting as it sounds, but it does involve villagers with torches trying bat the head like a psychotic piñata and stabbing incense sticks into the headless body. This is followed a laser show that almost demands Pink Floyd playing in the background, instead of the cheesy electronic music we get. Then, the ultimate in dues ex machina excuses for the final battle. Yes, a god comes down and fights the evil pig woman in a not-so-royal rumble.

Wow!

The director of this hilarious trashy wonder is H. Tjut Djalil, who should be recognized and lauded as Indonesia’s greatest exploitation director. Not only did he give us the fabulous beyond words LADY TERMINATOR (1988), but also SATAN’S BED (1983), THE WHITE ALLIGATOR QUEEN (1988),  and  DANGEROUS SEDUCTRESS (1995). MYSTICS IN BALI was one of his earliest flicks, and it’s obviously low-budget, but it contains fun, rubbery special effects, laughable acting, atrocious dubbing, a very loud percussion and electronic score, way too much blue eye shadow, neat locations in temples and parks, and a totally new kind of villain. It never reaches the ludicrous highs (lows?) of LADY TERMINATOR, but it certainly comes close.

With its flying heads, floating monks, hysterical laughter, snakes, fireballs, sub-par optical effects and witches, there’s never a dull moment in MYSTICS IN BALI. If you’re looking for something different—and I mean really different —this is the movie for you!  It’s available on a great looking DVD from Mondo Macabro Video, that includes a terrific essay about Indonesian exploitation.

I give it three and a half Witchypoos out of four.

© Copyright 2011 by William D. Carl

This stop - PAGAN ISLAND. Next stop - MYSTICS OF BALI.

3 Comments »

« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 28 other followers