Change Your Image
jplenton
Reviews
La morte vivante (1982)
Fair-Worthwhile (5.5-6.5/10.0)
The Living Dead Girl marks the second film I've seen by the cult French director Jean Rollin. The first was the oddly titled The Shiver Of The Vampires. From this pair and browsing through his filmography, he seems to be a man obsessed with naked female vampires which from a male perspective is not a bad thing.
In comparison Living
is the better film than Shivers
. It has more depth in terms of story and lead characterisation, the players are not as obtuse, and the gore is upped considerably. Both films are deftly filmed, present more than they explain, and replace scares with a surreal dreamy ambience.
The Living Dead Girl opens with a trio of unscrupulous workmen dumping barrels filled with chemical waste in the cellars of a deserted chateau. In an adjacent chamber (helpfully lit with bracketed torches) rest the chateau's former owners in two immaculate coffins. Two of the workers elect to do a bit of tomb robbing, which is unfortunate, as they stir one of the coffins occupants, who is not quite at rest.
*minor spoilers for four paragraphs*
The titular girl is one of the more unique interpretations of Undeath on film. Not quite a vampire or a zombie, she is literally living death'. Surprisingly she invokes a degree of viewer empathy for her plight, she is not evil incarnate but the unfortunate victim of a past event. Few horror films cast vampires or zombies in a sympathetic light, the girl/story has more in common with a ghost tale, which are usually founded on an injustice or unfulfilled pact.
A less sympathetic character is the girl's childhood friend. Is she too bound by the past event into helping her friend or does she have a moral choice (which she rejects)? The process of her obtaining fresh victims for the girl' is similar to events in Clive Barker's Hellraiser, although in that film the characters involved were irredeemably evil'.
The film has two major faults, the second I will mention in the closing two paragraphs. The first is the thin portrayal of all the characters save the two friends. The American couple are acutely annoying, especially the grouchy boyfriend. (Still they are not as bad as the couple in The Howling Part II).
Also there is a decidedly daft moment where a victim has a lit torch thrust at her face a couple of times. In the next scene she is a veritable human inferno, perhaps she overdid the hairspray and perfume.
Finally on a caustic note, the UK version of this film has been cut by about 2.5 minutes. Most of the gore has been removed although what remains is still relatively bloody by UK standards. Hence scenes of the girl feasting on her victims are absent. If intact I might have rated the film higher (vampire that I am) although admittedly this is not the films fault.
This censorship does mark a certain inconsistency within the BBFC. For example, I saw The Day Of The Dead on video about twelve years ago (a time when UK censorship was even more restrictive). This film had numerous intact scenes of zombies disembowelling victims and eating their intestines, so why have similar scenes been cut in this film? Anyway, between two to three minutes of cuts may seem harsh, but at my local library rests a copy of another Rollin film A Requiem For A Vampire. This has been cut by a draconian six to seven minutes! As a result I'm not too keen on viewing that one.
Spettri (1987)
Mediocre (4.0-5.0/10.0)
**SPOILERS**There is a tendency for Italian horror films to draft in British and American actors to broaden their international appeal. Easy examples being John Saxon in Tenebrae and Rupert Everett in Dellamorte Dellamore. Specters (which should have been distributed in the UK as Spectres (lazy)) ropes in veteran horror actor Donald Pleasance. It marks the second Italian film I've seen in him, the first being the rather mediocre thriller Nothing Underneath. Optimistically I reckoned that Specters would easily be the better film and it is, just, although that isn't much of a commendation.
In an undisclosed Italian city a group of archaeologists led by a Prof. Lasky (Pleasance), are exploring a series of ancient catacombs beneath the remains of a Roman bath system. Their dig' is augmented by the local construction of a subway, the tremors from which cause a new series of chambers to be revealed. Unfortunately archaic writings in the first new chamber warn of an ancient evil that will be invoked. Of course, this being a horror film, the etchings are no idle threat
Most Italian horror (and perhaps horror films in general) emphasise style over content and Specters does not deviate from this tradition. Alas, the style aspect of the film is below par and fails to redeem it from its meagre content and any potential is lost. Part of the problem is that the film consists of too many inchoate strands, another that the killing scenes are mostly rushed and could have been easily improved (N.B. wind and fissures in the ground are not particularly scary).
Most horrors incorporating archaeology either involve Ancient Egypt or a long-buried UFO. The use of Ancient Rome (and paganism) in this film is refreshing and one of its initial strong points. The baths, catacombs, zoology department of a museum, and other locales are well realised and created with some attention to detail. A big problem however is that little is made in terms of dialogue, backstory etc. of the Roman angle. The bloody history and mythology of Ancient Rome should have been emphasised a lot more to add flavour and atmosphere to proceedings. Instead, we have banal one-liners, an annoying hero' figure, and not much explanation for anything. Even the monster' itself is given scant explanation or detail; nothing transpires about what it is or its motivations.
*spoilers to end*
Another gripe is the on screen realisation of the said monster'. (The title should be Specter or Spectre as there is only one of the blighters!). The film takes the classic method of slowly and tantalisingly revealing the creature scene by scene, i.e. firstly from the monsters line of sight, then a glimpse of its claws, then its eyes in the darkness, and so on. No complaints there. But at the finale, when it should be revealed in all its glory, it only gets a few seconds of screen time. In the dark. It leaves the viewer with no impression of what it looks like (unless you play around with the VCR controls). I suppose this approach hides any limitations in the SFX and make-up but it is a rum deal for a film that relies on its monster.
The ending itself is pitifully executed. It is rushed, involves no real confrontation with the beast and over in seconds. A character who could offer some explanation for the events makes an appearance only to be butchered instantly, whilst the main characters run around avoiding the scary cracks in the earth and the oh-so-frightening gusts of wind. The reasons why the beast haunted and abducted one specific character are also given no explanation either.
Now I shall mention some of the films good points (there are some thankfully) aside from the aforementioned Roman setting. The film briefly touches on the matter of whether history and artifacts should be the domain of private collectors or museums (or the dead!). The scene where Lasky shines his torch over a series of emotionless' Roman statues to finally reveal
is impressive and invokes a sense of doom connected with a centuries dead civilisation. Finally, a character gets his head squelched against a wall (it was great!).
Torture Garden (1967)
Fair (5.0-6.0/10.0)
The British anthology horror film dates from the classic Dead Of Night to its last gasp, thirty-five years later, with The Monster Club. From around 1965 to 1975 Amicus was the most productive studio within this subgenera. Torture Garden was one of its earlier and lesser efforts, even though it was directed by (cinematographer turned director turned cinematographer) Freddie Francis and written by Robert Bloch (who also wrote Psycho). Better entries include Dr. Terror's House Of Horror, Vault Of Horror and From Beyond The Grave.
The titular Torture Garden is a fairground sideshow hosted by the flamboyant Dr. Diablo (subtlety not his strong point). It seemingly consists of a waxworks display, but for an extra 'cost' patrons are allowed into the backroom, the 'torture garden' proper. Here a statue of a Greek mythological figure, Atropos, holding shears (!) and strands of thread, has the ability to predict the future of the hapless punter. Diablo coaxes five customers into this chamber to be scryed, each premonition being one of the stories in the film.
The first notable aspect of the film is its trans-Atlantic cast. Most are British, including the ubiquitous Peter Cushing, but Burgess Meredith stars as Diablo (it's actually the best horror I've seen in him) and one of the patrons is played by Jack Palance (not someone you'd readily associate with horror films).
Secondly, only the final story and the linking story (thanks to Meredith's camp performance) really succeed. The first three stories, albeit reasonable, are too predictable and as a result lack any real surprises or menace. Admittedly, the final story can also be sussed out early on, its raison d'être is hinted at, but its secret is so outlandish that the overall effect is not spoilt. Cushing and the obsessive Palance help contribute to this section, building up a palpable sense of doom. At first I thought the story would be another retelling of Poe's The Cask Of Amontillado but happily it was different and strikingly original.
*spoilers to end*
The first two patrons readily deserve their fate; viewer sympathy is not at a premium. The third patron could be considered innocent; a rarity for such a film, but it is hinted at that she is a 'gold-digger'. Finally, Palance's fanatical collector invokes little sympathy, his sins surmounting to that of the initial patron. Perhaps a more likeable set of customers would have engaged the viewer more.
The film has numerous daft moments. These include the vivid red 'paint' used for blood; the fact that two characters who had no intention of eating at a restaurant still ordered food and drink for themselves anyway; and the actress who played the statue who could hardly keep still, she was twitching and breathing continually. Finally, the 'smooth' bit of editing at the end for the final 'scare' is just priceless.
To finish, any film that pokes fun at the 'Masonic' like inner world of filmmaking and has a moving, killer piano (!) is alright in my book.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986)
Fair (5.0-6.0/10.0)
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** The original Texas Chain Saw Massacre was one of the best horror films of the Seventies and could be construed as that decade's answer to Psycho. Both films were inspired by/loosely based on the murderer Ed Gein and both hold up a dark mirror to the conventional all-American family. The second murder in Psycho, which is more startling and horrific than the infamous initial murder, was stylistically the template for the initial batch of killings in Texas.. About a dozen years after Texas. director Tobe Hooper returned to make it's first sequel that, alas, has more in common with the typical horror franchise sequel than its two previously mentioned forebears.
The film opens with two idiotic young men travelling by car to a party in Dallas. A number of makeshift roadsigns they pass and shoot, advertise 'museums/theme parks' based on savage military battles fought in the titular state e.g. the Alamo. This is a nice touch, depicting slaughter as cultural entertainment and hinting that the states history (all history in fact) is based on killing. OK back to the film's premise, the two goons fail to reach their destination but their fate is overheard and recorded by a local radio DJ whom they were pestering via a phone-in. The next day at the 'accident' site, Dennis Hopper (of all people) turns up as a vigilante policeman out to avenge his siblings who died in the first film. He teams up with the DJ to locate the killers. Guess who does the searching?
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Part II is a mixture of the good and the bad. Only Hooper himself could have got away with ripping off his classic to such a degree. Some of the scenes and dialogue are lifted almost unchanged from the original. The film ups the gore quotient considerably (good) and the number of chainsaws, to the point of fetishism, compared to the original. But to the films detriment the atmosphere, menace and violence of the first are much diminished. Most of the film occurs in one of the aforementioned theme parks, a setting too fantastic and unreal compared to the original's run-down farmhouse (everyone knows some local desolate, run-down building). The 'cannibals' are portrayed in a comedic light, which dispels the sense of their perversion and evil so evident formerly. The `Cook' (note all the characters have nicknames) and `Chop-Top' (who I 'assume' was in Vietnam when the first film occurred) babble on endlessly - at times amusing, but mostly annoying or incoherently.
*spoilers to end*
The worst victim of this volte-face is `Leatherface'. Formerly he was a grunting vortex of destruction savagely wielding his saw with impunity and no concern for personal safety (OK he still wields it well but spends too much time harmlessly sawing up furniture. On a similar note, Lefty's chainsaw shenanigans were pitiable. How many scenes were there of him sawing through wooden supports with no resulting damage to the 'caverns' infrastructure?). This time round `Leatherface' is more like a lovesick bear, what with his forlorn eyes rolling about. The 'Beauty and the Beast' aspect is quite appalling. At what point did he fall for the girl exactly? Was it when he came smashing out of the record vault (love at first sight) or (my hunch) when she fired CO2 into his maw?
Now for some good points. There are some memorable setpieces especially the initial chainsaw attack. The puppet-like corpse wielding the saw on the top of the pick-up is both surreal and eerie. Whose corpse was it exactly, I thought `Hitch's' cadaver might make an appearance as a few bodies from the original have cameo appearances. The DJ's initial confrontation with `Chop-Top' was also memorable. He turns up like a loopy fan or stalker at the radio station - any public figure's worst nightmare. His dialogue here is his best in the film, both amusing and filled with menace. His request for Iron Butterfly's In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida is suitably off-kilter. All eighteen minutes of it, no hope on a commercial radio station, but she did play `Lefty's' 'request' so perhaps he thought he might be in with a chance.
*big spoilers*
Finally having an explosion to wipe out most of the film's players is just lazy storytelling and filmmaking. Anyone could have come up with something better. Thankfully, the closing image of the 'victor' triumphant on the 'fake mountain' whirling the chainsaw in madness is effective. This hints at a potential starting point for Part III, which I have not seen but I don't think was advanced upon. `Dog eat dog'.
The Beast with Five Fingers (1946)
Worthwhile (6.0-7.0/10.0)
The Beast With Five Fingers predates any other disembodied' hand film I've seen by a good twenty years. Such films include Dr. Terror's House Of Horror, The Hand, Evil Dead II, Severed Ties, and the two Addam's Family films and television series. This selection illustrates the gamut of horror film quality, from the delightful Evil Dead II to the atrocious Severed Ties. Happily, their precursor, The Beast With Five Fingers is hands down' one of the better entries in this sub-genre.
The Beast
is set in an Italian village, home of the successful pianist, Francis Ingram, who resides in a sumptuous villa. Ingram is wheelchair bound as his entire right side is paralysed, and is forced to play piano using his single left hand. His style is suitably heavy and melancholic. He is a haunted figure, heavily reliant on his young nurse to the point of obsession, and fixated on his own death. Therefore, he summons his companions to dinner to witness the signing of his will. Amongst them is his personal secretary Hilary (Peter Lorre), a man with his own obsessions; astrology and the occult. It is not long before the Grim Reaper arrives as a belated dinner guest.
The film's most prominent actor is Peter Lorre. Lorre's career in horror fare has seen a slight regression over the years, though not as profound as some of his contemporaries such as Bela Lugosi and John Carradine. In the Thirties, Lorre starred in Fritz Lang's classic M and the rather good Mad Love. However, by the Sixties he was resigned to playing second fiddle to Vincent Price in horror-comedies The Comedy Of Terrors and The Raven. These two films are reasonable enough but eclipsed by his formative work. The Beast
makes a fitting mid-point between these two eras.
Lorre is an engaging actor, his childlike physique and strange manner always invoke some degree of viewer sympathy no matter how heinous his crimes (cf. M). J. Carrol Naish who plays the affable police inspector (yep, never heard of him before) is also notable but his more comedic moments do lessen the film's impact.
The special effects used to animate the hand are impressive for their time, although as the film is in b&w this helps mask its inadequacies somewhat. The rubber hand in Dr. Terror's House Of Horror is pitiable in comparison, and that was made twenty odd years later. The interplay between Lorre and the hand as he alternatively soothes and struggles with it are reminiscent of Ash's plight in Evil Dead II.
*spoliers*
The majority of the players seem primarily motivated by avarice. It is somewhat surprising then that the final bodycount is so low. A modern horror would have casually knocked off such sinners' with glee. Perhaps, this highlights a rift between vintage' and modern horror. The vintage film has a more human approach to its characters, although they do suffer in terms of danger and scares, they do not die. The usual modern approach is to emphasise the killings, the characters are just fodder for the killer's and the audience's whimsy. Of course this reasoning parallels the change in audience expectation and tolerance with time, and also what the changes the filmmakers could get away with in terms of censorship and decency'.
Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed (1969)
Worthwhile (6.0-7.0/10.0)
The diabolic Dr. Frankenstein has a knack of escaping near-death situations at the hands of the authorities, lynch mobs and his own creations. Thus the chances of his titular destruction are admittedly slim especially with the potential for another sequel. Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed is the fourth and penultimate instalment in Hammer's Terence Fisher/Peter Cushing Frankenstein series. This classification excludes The Evil Of Frankenstein (which was directed by Freddie Francis instead) and the widely different The Horror Of Frankenstein (directed by Jimmy Sangster and starring Ralph Bates as the eponymous doctor).
Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed commences with two separate events, a sickle decapitation and a thief discovering a secret laboratory in a fire-gutted mansion. The petty criminals in Fisher's films always seem to be portrayed in a comedic light. It is not surprising who links these two events. Frankenstein is still having trouble with transplanting brains (although he himself is evidence of his expertise in this field). However, he learns of a brain expert and former colleague, a Dr. Brandt, who has gone insane and has been committed to an asylum. The film involves Frankenstein's attempt to reacquaint himself with Brandt so he can exploit his knowledge. Of course, this involves further experiments and a rising death toll.
Unlike the diminishing returns (in terms of quality) evident in most horror sequels, Fisher's Frankenstein series, from The Curse Of Frankenstein to Frankenstein And The Monster From Hell, has remained relatively consistent. With the focus on the doctor as the source of 'evil', the series has always managed to produce new variations and progressions on his character and his work. Can you think of any other horror series that has remained as good right up to the fourth sequel? However, the aforementioned The Horror Of Frankenstein proves that the studio was not infallible. But this did not involve Fisher or Cushing; its storyline was a basic retread of earlier films, the only novelty being that it concerns Frankenstein as a young man.
Some familiar faces pop up in Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed. Windsor Davies has a minor role as a police sergeant. Hammer regular Thorley Walters appears as the bumbling police chief. His characters features are reminiscent of Inspector Lohmann in Fritz Lang's M and The Testament Of Dr. Mabuse. But his irritating mannerisms and constant snuff taking (which refers to the cocaine dealers) are very disparate.
*spoilers to end*
The film contains some memorable setpieces. The highlight is the burst water pipe and the nightmarish vision it reveals. The finale is also impressive. It is ironic that here the 'creation' was mad originally and 'cured' by the experiment. Usually the test subject is originally 'normal' but is driven insane by the experiment. Madness, however, is a qualitative term; here the 'monster' could be considered slightly unhinged, as it is hell-bent on revenge. This is understandable but alternatively he could have been more grateful for being cured of his 'madness'.
*also includes spoiler for Frankenstein And The Monster From Hell*
The most surprising and sinister moment is the rape scene. From previous films, Frankenstein has seemed obsessed entirely with science to the point of asexuality; also he has appeared too urbane and self-controlled for such an act. But as the series progresses, its protagonist has become increasingly unhinged, so this surrender to lust and hatred is perhaps not that unexpected. In the final film, Frankenstein is the resident at an asylum, as Brandt is here, taking his obsessions to their logical conclusion. Also compare the crude 'monster from hell' he creates compared to his earlier experiments: a definite regression. It is perhaps unfortunate that the consequences of the rape did not directly effect Frankenstein's downfall. I thought a more decisive retribution would be in order.
Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989)
mediocre (4.0-5.0/10.0)
The first slasher' film and thus one of the earliest horror films I saw was Halloween II. At the age of twelve I was mightily impressed and equally enjoyed the subsequent viewing of Parts I and III (hey, it's different). Throughout my mid-teens I had an unhealthy diet of similar fare such as the numerous Friday The 13th's and A Nightmare On Elm Street's. But by the time I saw Halloween IV in the early Nineties, my slasher bubble' had burst. I found it predictable and daft. The genre reached its nadir with Friday 13th Part VIII which I saw at about the same time and compounded my disillusionment. So after about ten years I've returned to the Halloween franchise with instalment number five. I wasn't expecting much and unfortunately my foresight was correct.
Halloween 5 begins exactly where Part 4 left off (plus points for continuity). After being shot repeatedly and falling down a mineshaft, Michael Myers (not the guy from Austin Powers and Wayne's World, alas) crawls away to a remote log cabin. The old man within assists the unconscious and wounded Myers in his ignorance (shades of Bride Of Frankenstein here). A year later, to coincide with All Hallows, Myers' niece, Jamie, who is now resident in a children's institution goes into an epileptic fit. Her doctors are baffled and helpless, all except the ever present Dr. Loomis (and the viewer), who know what is about to happen.
*spoilers related to Halloween 2*
This brings us to the first of many inconsistencies in the film. A year later', so for all this time Myers has been comatose in the old hermits hut as if he was part of the furniture! A continuity error from earlier films is the recuperative power of both Myers and Loomis. Both were torched at the end of Part 2, but only Loomis appears to have any burns (albeit not as bad as expected). Also Myers had his eyes shot out in the same film, here the film has numerous close ups of his eyes which are in perfect condition!
Horror veteran Donald Pleasance who has been in an inexhaustive list of horror films returns as Loomis. The good include The Flesh And The Fiends, Death Line, From Beyond The Grave, Prince Of Darkness, and the first two Halloween films. The bad includes Nothing Underneath, The Uncanny and Halloween 4. The ugly' is Buried Alive. Throughout Halloween 5 Pleasance appears quite fatigued which adds weight to his portrayal of Loomis, a man who has suffered a lot. It is odd that anyone would let Loomis near a children's hospital, he is as obsessive and as freaky as Myers. The only person he can relate to is his former patient, his worldview narrowed(cf. the mad' scientist of most horror). His relationship is quite paternal, note the softness (love) in his voice as he talks to Myers.
*spoilers for this film (to end)*
As Myers was incarcerated as a child he could be considered a youth in adult form. He gets up to his normal tricks and treats here, but seems to have reached adolescence. To wit; he drives his date' around town, discusses' sports cars with his peers, and treats a young couple making out to his own peccadillos (involving a garden fork and a scythe). If the prongs on the fork had been longer we would have had another double slaying sans A Bay Of Blood and Friday 13th Part 2.
The character of Jamie, although well acted, seems ill thought out. Her psychic link is quite whimsical, some killings she can see, and others she can't. Thus the linking falls to the level of a poor plot device used to link scenes and characters. Also her relationship/confrontation with her uncle does not reach any sort of conclusion, it just becomes an excuse for a young girl to be in peril.
Finally, the film features a mysterious man in black waltzing around whom reminded me of Max von Sydow in The Exorcist (the black coat and case). I assume he is involved in the final scenes at the police station (cf. The Terminator)(also the police in the film seem to be based on the Keystone Kops!) but his motivations and identity are not resolved. This of course paves the way for yet another sequel but leaves a rather unsatisfactory ending to this one.
The Food of the Gods (1976)
Mediocre (4.0-5.0/10.0)
A film reviewer in the Guardian newspaper once dismissed Bert I. Gordon as `a man who has forgotten more about film-making than he ever knew'. Cruel, yes; amusing, certainly; and the statement also has a slight modicum of truth about it. Gordon is most famous for churning out cheap and cheerful sci-fi films in the Fifties, most famously The Amazing Colossal Man. By the Seventies however, his output was pretty much the same still obsessed with giant people, animals and the like.
The Food Of The Gods tells the tale of a professional American football player, called Morgan, and his two chums who take a break on a rural island. One of the friends becomes separated (yawn) and has an unlucky encounter with a rather large wasp. Whilst searching for help Morgan has his own meeting with an over-sized beast. After saying hello' to a giant rooster (the film's highlight!) Morgan meets an ageing farmwife who is concerned about ratholes in her larder. It seems the rats have been eating her special' foodstuff reserved exclusively for the poultry.
Food
is based on a `portion' of a story by H.G.Wells. Some decent films have been adapted from Wells' sci-fi fables such as Things To Come and The Time Machine. Needless to say, Gordon's two efforts, this film and the later The Empire Of The Ants, are not among them. Still, I personally consider Food
to be the better of the two, in all respects from sound balance (a major problem in Empire's early scenes), special effects, model work, pacing and story.
Sidenote: Joan Collins who starred in Empire
often cites it as her worst film. This is not so. The Monster, which was made in the mid-seventies, is much worse. Here she plays a stripper who rejects the amorous advances of a dwarf! The dwarf curses her so that her baby is born evil. Also consider her films based on her sister Jackie's novels.
Review Continued: *spoilers to end*
Food Of The Gods has two similarities to The Night Of The Living Dead. The rodent siege on the isolated farmhouse is an obvious likeness. Also consider the arguments between the characters as to how to deal with the situation. Morgan is quite a gung-ho person; he likens the rat attack to some sort of personal feud or battle of wits. Concern for his fellow humans does not seem to be a priority. Perhaps Bensington's idea of escaping in the car would have been a better option than reinforcing the farmhouse (cf. Night
).
I liked Morgan's idea that the rats would not be able to swim, as they were too big. Perhaps he should have explained some tenets of biophysics to all the infected animals. The drastic increase in body size would have to be compensated by gross changes in bone structure, blood circulation, organ size and other aspects of physiology and morphology. The rats and chickens would be unlikely to support their own weight otherwise and as for the wasps flying and their nest
Finally, the film did not proceed in a direction I anticipated. The farmwife explained that the food' only effected young animals not adults. As a pregnant woman was introduced to the story, I thought she would somehow ingest the food'. This would result in her giving birth to an oversized baby as an extra shock' near the end. The strain of such an unnatural parturition would probably kill the mother. A wasted opportunity perhaps. Still, the films actual ending did raise concerns over food safety and contamination. Such issues are always topical here in Britain, land of BSE, listeria, salmonella etc.
Chrome Hearts (1989)
Mediocre (4.0-5.0/10.0)
Chopper Chicks In Zombie Town is the typical Troma mix of light horror, adventure and bad gags. Methinks the film was thought up during a heady night of boozing in front of the video recorder. Films viewed being Easy Rider, The Magnificent Seven, Faster Pussycat, Kill, Kill!, and of course The Night Of The Living Dead. However, the resultant film is no way in the same league as its 'inspirations'.
The film is about a gang of leather clad female bikers who ride from town to town to escape the grind of everyday life and their diverse pasts. At the films beginning they are riding into the dusty, desert backwater of Zariah (population 128 (no sorry 127!)) in search of `meat' (both senses of the word are applicable). After the typical cliché of the frosty reception from the locals, the girls discover that Zariah has an alarmingly high mortality rate. Yes, a 'mad' scientist is at work bumping off the locals and raising them as zombies. Cue confrontation between the 'chicks' and the shambling undead.
On a sidenote: The term chopper has three meanings. Here the usage is obviously as slang for a motorbike, but chopper also means axe and also has a phallic resonance. I think the filmmakers wasted the opportunity to make a film (the only film) about axe wielding transvestite bikers. The resulting film being a sort of Priscilla, Queen Of The Desert meets George A. Romero!
Back to the review proper: 'Chopper Chicks' also has themes/moments similar to two much better zombie films namely Dead & Buried and The Plague Of Zombies. Using the undead as slave labour, here to work in a radiation contaminated mine (hey, it's a Troma movie - they have to get a radiation link in somewhere), is lifted straight from 'Plague'. I won't mention the Dead & Buried link as it would overtly spoil that film.
*spoilers*
Suffice to say I was not particularly impressed with 'Chopper Chicks'. For starters, the film fails to make the zombies threatening or frightening. Zombies work best in claustrophobic settings, when they pop up unexpectedly and when there are vast numbers of them. They are not much good ambling down a high street or along a desert road where they just become fodder for a baseball bat. Also, the evil protagonist did not have much of an impact, being reduced to the level of a fall guy for bad slapstick humour. There isn't even a confrontation between him and the biker women.
But 'Chopper Chicks' is also a comedy-adventure so the horror aspect could take second place. Fair enough, but the film mostly fails here as well. Moments that I found amusing were as sparse as the desert setting. The characters too easily fall into the realms of crude caricature and the viewer ends up with more empathy for the cadavers. Any pretence of a veneer of female solidarity/empowerment in the film is quickly scraped away. The inclusion of a blind troupe of children adds nothing to the film. Here the potential for moments of both horror and comedy as the kiddies mingled with the undead was lost. Finally, too few of the humans die whilst the zombies are massacred. The only biker to die in battle does so stupidly, just becoming another plot mechanism for another explosion.
Still 'Chopper Chicks' does have some redeeming features. The initial victim is a child - a welcome break from the typical rose-tinted treatment of children in most horror films. The use of a stapler to seal the zombies' mouths to stop them biting is inspired. As is the fact that the local townsfolk refuse to fight the zombies as they're 'family'. The best moment in the film is the reaction of one biker to a proclamation of love from an ex-boyfriend. Her response to the words `I love you' is superb, a cinematic classic.
Vampyros Lesbos (1971)
Mediocre-Fair (4.5-5.5/10.0)
Jesus Franco is Spain's most prolific and infamous director of horror fare. Often accused of misogyny and sadism, a lot of his films are therefore unavailable/banned or cut in the UK. Vampyros Lesbos marks the fourth Franco film that I have seen. The other three are, from best to worst, The Awful Dr. Orloff, The Female Vampire, and The Blood Of Fu Manchu.
The version of Vampyros Lesbos I watched was rather odd. It was in German with English subtitles, surprising with a Spaniard as director. Apparently this is the best/most complete version available, bearing in mind that I saw a television transmission so I wouldn't be surprised if bits were edited out. Still it is a relief to watch a foreign language horror (excluding American!) that has not been dubbed into English.
In Turkey, a young woman, Linda, witnesses a strange, sapphic stage act whilst at a nightclub with her boyfriend. The act also incorporates themes of narcissism and domination/submission. Linda is fascinated with the act's protagonist - a beautiful dark-haired woman. Linda soon has strange dreams and visions about the mysterious woman, which both excite and frighten her. By coincidence (fate) a work assignment entails her travelling to a local island to meet a Countess Korody, who just happens to be the subject of her obsession.
Jesus Franco was clearly influenced in his output by the films of Hammer studios. At one point he even ended up in their employ working with Christopher Lee on two Fu Manchu films. However, from the outset with The Awful Dr. Orloff, Franco upped the ante in terms of onscreen sex and sadism. Around the time Vampyros Lesbos was made Hammer was also producing lesbian themed vampire films such as The Vampire Lovers and Lust For A Vampire. Needless to say Vampyros Lesbos eclipses Hammer in terms of salacious content, to the point of borderline softcore pornography. On the other hand, the hammer offerings eclipse Vampyros Lesbos in terms of characterisation and story, even though these films are amongst the studios lesser offerings.
*spoilers (to end)*
The film has similarities to other vampire films outside Hammer. The ubiquitous Renfield character here takes the form of Agra, a woman at the asylum. Also the fate of Morpho is identical to his counterpart in the modern vampire tale Nadja.
Of the handful of Franco films I have seen Vampyros Lesbos is most similar to The Female Vampire, which could be seen as its companion piece. Both films explore themes of frustrated sexuality, loneliness and unrequited love. Both films contains copious amounts of nudity, sado-masochism, and could be considered as cheap exploitation. The central vampire figure is similar in terms of appearance, social standing and sexual appetite. Also in each an educated man desires to cross over to the 'darkside'. However, I would rate Female Vampire as the better film. It's take on vampirism is quite novel with the Countess subsisting on a far more intimate bodily fluid than blood. Vampyros Lesbos does not add anything to the vampire mythos save an unorthodox method of undead slaying.
A central problem of Vampyros Lesbos is that the vampire is not at all horrific or evil, even though she is named `The Queen of the Night'. The only frightening aspect of the film comes in the form of the hotel valet played by Franco himself. When his character explains his motivations to Linda, the statements could easily be construed as the director's own outlook on women and sexuality judging by the content of his flimography. None of the male characters are shown in a decent light. Linda's lover and Morpho are both 'inadequate' and the rest mistreat women (the doctor and his assistant, the valet). No wonder Linda escapes into the dreamlike, homosexual world of the Countess.
Some aspects of the film quickly start to grate. The music, a mix of Euro pop, psychedelia and jazz, although initially absorbing is repeated ad nauseum. Also the crude animal symbolism is a bit overdone. The dog being Morpho (a bit of self-referencing here as it is also a character in 'Dr. Orloff'), the lacewing being Linda and the scorpion being the Countess. The arachnid is seemingly drowned towards the end for real - not right.
Redneck Zombies (1989)
Fair (5.0-6.0/10.0)
Although distributed by Troma studios Redneck Zombies was made by Full Moon and is thus not a bona fide Troma film. This is to its benefit as all of the Troma films I have seen are far from good. The best of a bad bunch is Class Of Nukem' High. The others being its sequel Subhumanoid Meltdown, Surf Nazis Must Die, and A Nymphoid Barbarian In Dinosaur Hell. In all cases the title is better than the film itself. Imagining your own film just from the title would probably produce a better film. Having said that, Redneck Zombies is comparable to the first Nukem film overall.
Redneck Zombies begins in a mental institution with two doctors 'musing' over a patient, a young woman named Lisa, in a catatonic state. The rest of the film details the events that caused her to end up in such condition. Lisa and a group of friends are backpacking across a rural backwater of Maryland. At the same time a soldier is transporting a barrel of radioactive waste in the vicinity (cf. Return Of The Living Dead). Needless to say the transportation does not go to plan (what plan?). The barrel ends up in the hands of a family of hillbillies who use in to distillate alcohol! The resultant 'green' moonshine is dispersed among the redneck yokels, who upon drinking it are transformed into the titular zombies, all with a penchant for backpacker blood. Hey, the whole film is a treatise on the void (social, economic etc.) between country and city folk.
Redneck Zombies is a stupid, stoopid movie. Stupid characters, stupid special effects, stupid dialogue, stupid music, stupid camera trickery, everything. However, the stupidest thing by far is that Channel 4 decided to edit out any bloodshed. The film was broadcast in the small hours and it's cheap and cheerful/tongue in cheek nature negates any violence (cf. Bad Taste, Braindead etc.). This is an example of a broadcasting station treating its audience with contempt.
*spoilers*
There was actually one disconcerting moment. This was the video footage of chicks (as in baby chickens!) being 'processed' in a factory. Something was apparently being down to their beaks. The footage was both bizarre and slightly worrying (Channel 4 should have cut this out instead (joke)).
Towards the end the film loses any pretence at cohesiveness, which could be due to our nannying censors. Two of the three main zombie characters disappear altogether, as does the soldier, and the ending at the house is non-existent.
The films saving grace (which bumps my opinion up a bit) is its humour. Admittedly the vast majority of jokes and caricatures fall flat on their face, but some moments I found genuinely amusing. These include: the soldier tuning into the gospel sermon on his radio, the kung fu fighting, the Deliverance reference, and the human pretending to be a zombie so that they ignore him and go after his friend.
The film could be interpreted as having an anti-drugs and anti-alcohol stance, although I doubt the filmmakers had any such intention. Anyone who drinks is either zombiefied or killed, whilst the victims were all smoking mj the previous night. Such 'deviant' behaviour is punished, and in this aspect the film conforms to the moral norm of horror movies.
To summarise, Redneck Zombies is a difficult film to rate due to the bloodless nature of the version I saw. I feel as if I've only seen half of it. Nevertheless it was fun and a reasonable example of amateur low-budget filming.
The Beast in the Cellar (1971)
Fair (5.0-6.0/10)
The pre-title sequence shows army vehicles on manoeuvres across Lancashire moorland - for a moment I thought I'd taped the wrong film. A Landrover breaks down so the driver has to trod back to base. He does not get there (right film then). His body is discovered the next day with extensive claw wounds and the pathologist's initial prognosis suggests an animal attack, possibly a large cat such as a leopard. The film focuses on two elderly sisters, Joyce and Ellie, who live on a smallholding on the moors. They are both concerned about the murder (and ensuing bodycount rise), perhaps a bit too concerned.
The main problem with The Beast In The Cellar is its title. It tells the viewer more than they need to know from the outset and immediately makes you suspicious of the two sisters. A better title would be, say, 'The Beast On The Moors'. It still has the sensationalist promise of a beast but removes any emphasis away from the sisters and their house. Thankfully the fact that the beast is in the cellar is well established in the story about halfway through the film. The questions thus raised are what/who is it, why is it there, why is it killing and what is its connection (if any) with the sisters?
A major component of the film is the military and the 'horrors of war'. The beast's victims are all low ranking soldiers from the local army base (as in warfare it is the common soldiers who suffer most). The soldiers all looked as if they had all been sequestered from Jon Pertwee era Doctor Who and their survival rate was certainly comparable (something actress Beryl Reid is familiar with). The two sisters' father was an officer in WWI and they frequently refer to him and seem very proud. The older sister even dresses up in his uniform. Does she have a uniform fetish or is there a more sinister reason?
*spoilers*
The film could initially be described as having an anti-military pathos. This is surprising since part of the British army helped in making the film. However the ending reveals that there are worse things than being sent to war and the military is overall treated in a friendlier light. The fact that the 'culprits' were acting for what they believed to be the greater good makes the final revelations especially chilling.
A handful of final musings: Ellie goes around in a child-like state of denial whilst Joyce, the older of the two, is more responsible and therefore more strained and serious. They obviously have something plaguing them. It is interesting to see who will 'crack' first. As the beast supposedly dug out of the cellar why are its claws/talons so long. Wouldn't they have been blunted and broken from the work. Speaking of work, the amount of slogging about Ellie does for a sixty plus year old is remarkable. There are some neat moments of irony. These include Joyce finally receiving her prescribed medicine and the constant appearance of the young corporal, who must continually remind the sisters of their past.
Gojira (1954)
worthwhile
**SPOILERS**As a child in the early eighties my first experience of Godzilla was the cartoon. It was similar to Scooby Doo (but not as good) save that a boat replaced the camper van and the monsters were real instead of being a caretaker dressed up in a luminous deep-sea diving suit. A few years later and I saw the Eighties remake of Godzilla but was nonplussed. In the early Nineties and beyond I have seen a veritable menagerie of proper' Toho productions from the Sixties and Seventies. They all featured Godzilla and other giant monsters scrapping and stomping on cities. The best of them was Destroy All Monsters for the sheer range of monsters on display. Now I have finally seen the original film which spawned all these aforementioned sequels and spin-offs.
Merchant ships are mysteriously vanishing of the coast of Japan. Any rescue ships dispatched also disappear. Next a coastal village on the island of Odo is flattened. The scientific expedition sent to investigate hears local tales of an ancient sea monster called Godzilla. Initial scepticism turns to horror as they encounter the beast a giant carnosaur from prehistory that leaves a residue of radiation in its wake.
Godzilla is easily a better film than any of its descendants. The film's tone is a lot darker and more serious than any of the light-hearted sequels. Only Godzilla Vs. Hedora, of the films I've seen, approaches the same depth, but is let down by its childish and heart-on-sleeve execution. More fitting bedfellows for Godzilla are films such as King Kong (easily the best giant monster movie ever made), Them!, The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms and Gorgo. Indeed as Godzilla is a parable for the dangers of radiation it has much in common with the slew of American sci-fi/horror films of the Fifties.
The shadow of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki pervades the entire film. The scenes of the ruined city, the victims crowded into hospitals, the young child contaminated with radiation all recollect the horrors of nuclear warfare. The heroine even mentions that she was at Nagasaki. Dr. Serizawa's development of the `oxygen destroyer' and his moral concerns other its use could be seen as a mirror to the Manhattan Project or indeed the scientific discovery/development of any weapon. Scientific culpability and responsibility is a major concern of the film. Note that Serizawa is blind in one eye (represents the moral blindness/neutrality of science) and sighted (obviously) in the other (represents his humanity). The fact that Godzilla is a Japanese film gives it a palpable feeling of both anger and sadness.
*spoilers*
The scenes of Godzilla trashing Tokyo are filled with unexpectedly poignant moments. These include the journalists who continue reporting until their demise and the mother and her children eagerly awaiting death so that they can be reunited with their husband/father. The onslaught occurs at night and the lighting used is deliberately dark. This is doubly effective as it accentuates the brilliance of the explosions and fire and also hides the limitations of the model work/special effects. The realisation of similar scenes in the subsequent colour films is crude by comparison.
To its detriment the scientific accuracy of the film is somewhat lacking. According to the renowned palaeontologist Dr. Yamane the dinosaurs existed two million years ago. Two hundred to sixty-five million more like! Also would the `oxygen destroyer' (loopy idea) cause organisms to disintegrate. Wouldn't they just suffocate; unless it effects oxygen in living tissue as well as the environment. Then why didn't the scientists try to deliver it subcutaneously and thus avoid any widespread environmental damage. I thought the four protagonists would use the device secretly thus avoiding any widespread knowledge and possible misuse.
Finally, what is Godzilla (apart from any metaphorical interpretation)? According to the expert Dr. Yamane it is an intermediate form between terrestrial dinosaurs and marine reptiles. Its appearance is that of a gargantuan carnosaur (tyrannosaur, allosaur, etc.) with the back plates of a stegosaur. And it breathes fire like a dragon. No wonder the dinosaurs became extinct with Godzilla about!
Onibaba (1964)
Worthwhile-Recommended
Onibaba marks my introduction to Japanese horror. The fact that prior to this film I had not seen any is due to availability not personal choice. For a Japanese film to have sufficient exposure in the UK it must seemingly fall into one of five discrete categories. Be directed by Akira Kurosawa; be a martial arts film (specifically Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan); be a manga/anime film; involve the Yakuza/crime (especially Beat' Takeshi films or any film paid homage to' by Quentin Tarantino; finally, feature Godzilla and his chums. Horror falls into none of these four, so when Onibaba was screened recently I happily took the demon (nee bull) by the horns.
The setting is medieval Japan, a country torn asunder by civil war. Samurai warlords have conscripted most local men to fight in their personal feuds. The remaining people are forced to live off the spoils/chaos of war. The story focuses on two women, an ageing woman and her young daughter-in-law. They have found their own niche in the chaos to murder and rob any passing soldiers fatigued from battle. The armour and weaponry gained is bartered for food. The bodies disposed of in a dark, ominous hole. One day the son's companion returns, disrupting the bloody routine of the women's lives. The darkness of the hole pervades the subsequent events.
Onibaba is primarily a drama concerning the inter-relationships between the three protagonists. The horror component is less explicit. It exists in the film's atmosphere, spreading outward from the hole, and manifesting in the supernatural' events that gradually unfold. The repeated shots of grasses blowing in the wind, the crows that have picked clean the bodies in the hole, and the expressionistic music add to the dark ambience.
*spoilers*
Of the four film types mentioned initially, Onibaba is, by far, closet in spirit to the films of Akira Kurosawa. The medieval setting, the samurai, the sharp b/w cinematography, are all reminiscent (and I assume influenced by) Kurosawa films such as Seven Samurai and The Hidden Fortress. But in such films the main characters (and samurai) are typically people of honour and decency. The characters in Onibaba are their antithesis. No one is honourable or moral; all have been corrupted by the war. Butchery, theft, deceit and exploitation (note how the man gets a much better deal from the trader than the women) are commonplace. The samurai are referred to as warmongers and murderers rather than men of chivalry.
The protagonists lead a monotonous life of scavenging, eating, sleeping and daily chores. The only respite from this materialises in the form of sex. The films attitude towards sex and nudity is refreshingly mature compared to Western films of the same period. The exception being the black circle censoring the woman's crotch in one scene. Apparently the Japanese censors have a continuing problem with pubic hair (on film that is!). The film explores the themes of desire, repression (from both religion and society), the loss of desirability due to ageing, and sexual frustration/denial. At one point sexual frustration culminates in an act of dendrophilia (note the tree used is dead and barren).
The inherent social and personal malaise of the story takes form towards the finale. The moral bankruptcy of the characters is epitomised in the films final line of dialogue. The hole wins.
Chamber of Horrors (1966)
Fair (5.0-6.0/10)
*spoilers*
In the pre-credits sequence the viewer is given a stern warning about the gruesome nature of the subsequent film. For our benefit the filmmakers have added two features which alert viewers to the four horrific moments in the film. The two delightful features are the `Fear Flash' (the screen flashes red) and the `Horror Horn' (self-explanatory). The gimmicks are worthy of William Castle - the viewer has the option to `turn away' or `close their eyes' to avoid the onscreen terror. Problem is only one of the four moments is the least bit bloody, the rest are rather anaemic. Although the Horn and Flash certainly add to the film, they make a predictable moment even more so and also falsely raise your expectations about the ensuing scene. Still, the introductory warning is the highlight of the film.
The film opens promisingly with a macabre wedding ceremony. A priest is being forced at gunpoint to marry a couple. The bride is a corpse and the groom the gun wielding murderer, Jason Cravette. Afterwards the priest flees to the police whose subsequent investigations are fruitless. That is until they are forced to enlist the help of a pair of `amateur criminologists' who also run a morbid waxworks exhibition - the titular `Chamber of Horrors'. The duo, the elderly and urbane Englishman Harold Blount, and the 'suave' Frenchman Anthony Draco, pursue the case whilst in tandem exploiting it to the full in their waxworks exhibition.
Chamber Of Horrors wants to be like the Fifties classic House Of Wax so much it hurts. From the villain donning a black cape and hat, the 'living' head on a shelf holding wax busts, to the cinematic style and period setting. Even the sets used for the exhibitions foyer/exterior and its main display room look identical (including the camera perspectives used), and probably are. Although Patrick O'Neal has the best role as the villain, he is not as memorable as Vincent Price. Although at the finale I was 'cheering' on the villain. The remainder of the cast, especially veteran British actor Wilfred Hyde-White, camp it up admirably.
Some of the films clichés certainly grate. These include the inadequacy of the local constabulary, and Draco having an old flame in practically every bar. Happily, the film never takes itself seriously and the plot is, overall, much different from House Of Wax. The killer has an interesting murder weapon(s), a range of detachable hooks, saws, etc., on the stump of his right arm. He is a progenitor, of sorts, to Trap-Jaw in the Masters of the Universe cartoon.
The waxen murders on display in the 'chamber of Horrors' is, however, more interesting than the killer's. Initially I suspected the murders would mimic them. The fact that the 'heroes' have a replica of the various murders on display before the body has had a chance to cool in the morgue is totally unrealistic. Wouldn't the police, media, and relations of the deceased object to this tasteless exploitation. The criminologists are more like ghouls (just like me, the viewer, then).
*Big spoiler for both this film and Tenebrae (1982)*
Finally, the killer's fate reminded me of a similar death in Dario Argento's Tenebrae. Cravette is skewered on the weapon held by a waxen replica of himself. In Tenebrae a novelist is skewered by a piece of ornamentation/modern art. There is a certain irony and poetic justice in the artist's inspiration and a novelist (considering literature as an artform) being killed by a work of art.
The Revenge of Frankenstein (1958)
Fair-Worthwhile
The Revenge Of Frankenstein is the second instalment in Hammer studio's Frankenstein series. The first film, The Curse Of Frankenstein, was the company's debut horror feature and a commercial success. It paved the way for a plethora of horror films and made 'stars' of Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. Lee is absent from Revenge. but Cushing returns in the titular role along with director Terence Fisher and writer Jimmy Sangster.
Having narrowly escaped the guillotine, Dr./Baron Frankenstein retreats to a new town to pledge his trade. Adopting the 'cunning' pseudonym 'Dr. Stein', he opens two medical practices. One serves the wealthy, financing the second which treats the poor and needy. This humanitarian/philanthropist set-up masks the fact that both practices support, in terms of money and body parts respectively, the good doctor's true interests. He has a secret laboratory in a disused wine cellar where he continues his infamous experiments. After three years in the new town his practice is such a success that the local medical council is becoming redundant. The members hold an emergency meeting to discuss the problem of Dr. Stein.
Terence Fisher's Frankenstein series concentrates on the doctor (and in turn science) as the source of 'evil'. Frankenstein's blind ambition and lack of moral code is the real source of horror. This premise is strikingly different from earlier Frankenstein stories. In the Mary Shelley original, both the doctor and the 'monster' are portrayed as victims of science. In James Whale's celebrated duet the doctor is the misguided hero. In both cases the doctor is misled by scientific ambition but retains a strong moral code throughout. The sinister Dr. Pretorius in Bride Of Frankenstein could be seen as a better prototype for Fisher's doctor.
In Revenge. rather than retreading the familiar experiment of the previous film(s), a spin has been put on events. Here Frankenstein's construction of the 'monster' has reached its zenith and is given short shrift. Instead the problem and focus of the film is that of the brain. A living brain is required so transplants are in order. Cue a bloodied brain slopping into a specimen jar. Loopy proceedings include a priceless hand-eye co-ordination experiment (every lab should have one) and a cannibalistic chimp with the brain of an orang-utan. The brain transplantation theme is taken the logical step further in And Frankenstein Created Woman, which involves the transfer of the soul.
Although it evokes some viewer sympathy, the 'monster' is not as innocent as the creations in earlier films and in a way deserves its fate. Its appearance is not that impressive either, when it goes on the rampage the facial expression and make-up reminded me of Michael Palin. The fact that the 'monster' starts to regress back to his half paralytic state suggests that the condition stemmed from the brain, Frankenstein's diagnosis was wrong.
This is the only error Frankenstein makes. His assistant, Dr. Kleve, and workers (the cleaner is an 'expert' on zoology) make them for him. Thus the experiment ends in disaster. If Dr Kleve had not helped Frankenstein with the final transplantation, he could be considered to have been a 'plant' from the medical council. The final creation is of course ludicrous. How could the body be a perfect likeness? Still, it paved the way for further sequels.
The Black Cat (1934)
Worthwhile-Recommended
`Suggested' by the `immortal classic' by Edgar Allen Poe states the opening credits. I smirk at the word suggested. It suggests' the link between the story and this film could be very tenuous. Which it is. More films should adopt the term, so you can't complain when the movie differs wildly from its source, as most are wont to do (e.g. Corman's Poe adaptations).
Two American newlyweds are travelling across Eastern Europe on the Oriental Express. An administrative mix-up means that they have to share their compartment with the mysterious, but urbane, Doctor Vitus Verdegast (Bela Lugosi). The doctor says he is going to visit an `old friend' from the war (WW1) having spent fifteen years in prison. The friend's house is en route to the couple's destination, so when the train journey ends they all travel together in a bus. The weather is suitably diabolic, the bus crashes, so all have to seek refuge at the friends house (cf. The Old Dark House). The `friend' is the architect Hjalmer Poelzig (Boris Karloff), who although cordial in his greetings is decidedly odd. The couple soon becomes mixed up in the sinister machinations of both Verdegast and Poelzig.
The Black Cat marks the first pairing of Universal horror icons' Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff (who is simply called Karloff in the opening credits). Their presence completely eclipses that of the other players, the viewer is far more interested in the old friends' than the newlyweds. Both Lugosi and Karloff have equal status in the film. Compare this with The Body Snatcher (a good film) made only about a decade later. Karloff has the titular role whilst Lugosi only had a minor part. Lugosi's stardom' diminished much more rapidly than Karloff's did.
*spoilers*
The American groom Peter is by profession an unsuccessful writer (how could he afford the holiday?) of mystery stories. Ring any bells? Perhaps he is meant to be a caricature of Poe himself. Neither Peter nor his wife, Joan, are particularly heroic (Peter is easily overpowered by the manservants). Escape becomes paramount for them, not solving the mystery. Thus they make a refreshing change from most screen couples in similar films, but the mystery aspect remains unanswered.
Poelzig's house, the style of which is refreshingly modern (rather than the Gothic trappings of most isolated house/castles on screen) , was built over the ruins of the military fort which the `friends' served in. The fort and the surrounding countryside were witness to countless slaughter. The corruption of both Verdegast and Poelzig could be due to the horrors of war. Poelzig, the betrayer and commandant, could have escaped into Satanism. Verdegast seeks solace in retribution. However they could have been evil' from the outset, regardless of the war. Verdegast supposedly spent fifteen years in jail. What for? A normal POW would have been released yonks ago. But Verdegast was a doctor, he could have been a war criminal. Alternatively (and more likely) Poelzig was the criminal who framed Verdegast in order both to escape and marry' Verdegast's wife. I doubt either is fully innocent.
As a result the more interesting and ambiguous figure is Verdegast. Is he a wronged do-gooder or evil? Does he have deigns on Joan? His relationship with Poelzig is mostly civil and restrained. He seems to have free reign of the house. He helps the couple escape at the finale, but does not assist or warn them earlier. He agrees to the infamous chess game to decide the couples' fate (hardly an admirable decision). Finally the nature of his revenge is bloody grisly, even when the viewer only sees the event occur as shadows.
Poelzig on the other hand is undoubtedly evil. But his motivations remain unanswered. Does he want to sacrifice Joan or marry' her'. He murders his currant wife in a fit of rage, did he intend to replace her with Joan?
Overall The Black Cat raises more questions than answers. Is it a narrative mess or deliberately opaque? Ultimately it matters not. The film is an entertaining blend of horror and adventure, highlighting the talents' of Lugosi and Karloff in their prime.
Finally the actual black cat. When Verdegast kills the cat its spirit supposedly passes into the nearest person. That would be Joan. As the black cat is supposedly a familiar of Satan, Satan subsequently favours Joan, deserting Poelzig. Therefore the black mass goes astray, Joan and Peter escape and Poelzig gets his (facial) comeuppance.
Strait-Jacket (1964)
Fair
Apparently Les Diaboliques inspired William Castle to direct horror films. His first such film Macabre, based on Clouzot's classic, was hardly in the same league. Castle's later films and antics proved him to be more of an entertainer than auteur. Pranks and gadgets, such as a `ghost' on string and electrified seats are now legendary. With Strait-Jacket Castle was obviously influenced and trying to cash-in on the success of Psycho. Both films are based on stories by author Robert Bloch and have similar themes. However Strait-Jacket is closer in spirit to Psycho 2 than the original. Perhaps Psycho 2 (a rarity in that is a decent horror sequel) was in turn influenced by Strait-Jacket. Avoid Psycho 3.
Lucy Harbin arrives home early one night and catches her husband with another woman. In a fit of rage she chops them up with an axe. The ordeal unhinges her and she is committed to an asylum. Lucy's daughter, Carol, witnesses the killings. Twenty years later Lucy is released (cf. Psycho 2) and goes to stay with her brother's family, which includes Carol, on a farm. Events do not go well, Lucy starts to relapse and there is a handy axe on the farm.
Joan Crawford (whose real name was Lucille) plays Lucy. Like her co-star, Bette Davis, in Whatever Happened To Baby Jane?, she featured in a range of horror films in the latter years of her career. This was far removed from the Thirties and Forties when Crawford was a major star. The same syndrome is also witnessed with George Kennedy, appearing here before his career `took off'. In the Eighties he appears in a range of horror movies, the best being Just Before Dawn.
Although Alfred Hitchcock described Psycho as a `comedy', it is played relatively straight and is an effective slice of horror. Strait-Jacket is too tongue in cheek to be taken seriously and hence fails as a horror. For example, when Lucy first arrives at the farm, the `warm' greeting by her relations is marred by unfortunate references to murder. These include verbal gaffs, the tour of the livestock and the ceramic bust. These are crammed together and too grating.
*spoilers*
Another major fault of the film is that its raison d'etre is a bit obvious from the outset. Therefore the film lacks mystery and meanders. On the plus side the decapitations are `fun', the film being a prototype slasher of sorts. Tobe Hooper (The Texas Chain Saw Massacre) must have seen the scene where the farmhand investigates the freezer. Crawford's portrayal of a mentally unsound person is competent, but the `youthful' attire is atrocious.
*more spoilers*
The film addresses, to some extent, the prejudice, discomfort and hostility met by people with mental illness (and also ex- convicts) trying to re-establish themselves into society (cf. Psycho 2). At the finale only Lucy is able to forgive and accept responsibility. Incidentally, the best film I have seen about mental illness is Clean Shaven, but that is principally a drama and hence an entirely different game.
The Burning (1981)
Fair-Worthwhile
When I was about twelve years old a friend's mother had a copy of The Burning in their front room. She refused to let either of us watch it (quite rightly) but my interest was piqued. Now a few' years later I have finally seen the darn thing.
The Burning is an above par film from the slasher boom' in the early Eighties. It is probably the most famous film of its period not (thankfully) to have spawned a slew of sequels. A group of youths at a summer camp play a trick on a nasty, alcoholic caretaker named Cropsy. The prank goes wrong and the man is horrifically burned. After five years convalescence in hospital Cropsy, although hideously disfigured, is fit enough to be (literally) shown the door. No gradual reintroduction into society just seemingly kicked' out. As you expect he's soon lurking in the woods around a summer camp exacting bloody revenge with a pair of shears. With his black hat and burnt face he is a precursor, of sorts, to Freddy Kruger in the A Nightmare On Elm Street series.
The Burning was one of a few slashers to be banned as a video nasty here in the UK. As it resides on the milder end of the nasty' spectrum it has since been re-released with cuts. An odd source of contention was that the murder weapon, shears, is a common garden implement (don't ask). The version legally available, that I presumably saw lasts just over 87 minutes. 9 seconds were cut by the BBFC, with an additional 10 seconds of pre-cuts made by the distributor. However, it's original cinematic release lasts almost 91 minutes (excluding cuts). A big discrepancy exists. This could be due to an altered title/credits sequence, technical factors', the removal of an entire sequence, whatever. I can't imagine that the murders present (which were hardly anaemic) when edited could constitute almost four minutes cut (unless there was a protracted torture sequence which I doubt). Cropsy's shears go snip-snip and the censor's pair goes snippety-snip-snip.
*spoilers* don't look he'll
There are a few factors that distinguish The Burning from typical slasher fare (discussed in the next few paragraphs). Firstly, the teenagers are a mixed bunch, not the usual Aryan standard of most youth films. Also they all look roughly the right age. Secondly, the final chase/confrontation involves a male in peril not the usual female victim.
A recurring theme of the film is sexual frustration and inadequacy. The first thing we see Cropsy doing once discharged is prowling a red light zone. This terminates with a disastrous meeting with a prostitute (there are no references to his supposed alcoholism once the prologue is over). The teens are a typically lustful bunch, but none attain sexual gratification. One bloke comes on too strong; his girlfriend' is unsure and afraid. A couple of lads resort to pornography. The only couple to hit it off' are cursed by (I assume) premature ejaculation. The post-coitus' pillow talk between the pair is quite tender however. Finally the Alfred character. He should be dismissed as an oddball Peeping Tom (two instances), therefore ripe fodder for the killer. Surprisingly he survives and is a hero of sorts. Perhaps the filmmakers were being pretentious, linking his weirdness and voyeurism to that of the viewer (hey, that's way too deep for a slasher film!).
To finish, the notorious raft/canoe sequence. Easily the film's highlight (even trimmed), it eclipses the only other multiple killing (excluding people coupling) I've seen in a slasher film (the triple machete decapitation in Friday 13th Part VI). (Perhaps the shears murder in Part V was construed as homage to The Burning). Don't think too much about the ergonomics of the situation, I assume Cropsy is lying flat in the canoe, how'd he get up so fast without toppling and falling in the water? This scene is edited the version I saw kept returning, between strikes, to the impressive shot of Cropsy towering against the sky, shears raised. Is this in the proper version? Another scene supposedly trimmed is someone having his or her fingers snipped. I saw a fleeting (and nasty) image of Woodstock losing his fingers on the raft. Does someone else lose their digits, a scene excised completely? Answers to this and earlier queries on a postcard please.
Nadja (1994)
Worthwhile-Recommended (6.5-7.5/10)
At first glance Nadja is different from the conventional screen vampire. She smokes a continuous stream of cigarettes, dances at a nightclub, and converses with her victims about happiness, her past, and philosophy. But peel back the layers of this modern, chic take on the genre and all the myths and interpretations of the vampire tale are present.
To begin, the vampire as aristocrat, exploiting/feeding off the common people. Nadja is of noble' blood and the class system is mentioned in an early conversation. Second, vampires as victims of illness, contagion, (venereal disease, lust, love) is easily discernible i.e. one vampire is bedridden, the transfusion, etc. Vampirism as fear of death, ageing, mortality, is linked with the illness facet. Vampirism as sexual liberation/perversion: Nadja is bisexual and her predation technique is similar to seduction/dating, its consummation likened to copulation/orgasm (as in most vampire tales). The alienation/isolation aspect is a major theme; all its characters (both vampire and human) suffer from this. Penultimately, the vampire as the epitome of evil. In Bram Stoker's Dracula, the Count was irredeemably wicked. Some modern tales (e.g. Interview With The Vampire etc.) have toned down or discarded this trait. In Nadja only Van Helsing (who else?) regards the vampires as an evil to be purged. Finally, the vampire as entertainment, novelty, and consumer product is illustrated in the toy figure on the Christmas tree. Note that Nadja does not like it; it reminds her of her father, perhaps her true nature or even the desensitisation of the vampire myth.
As Nadja was produced by uber-weirdo David Lynch (who has a cameo appearance as a morgue security guard) you expect it to be off-kilter, dark, surreal and pretentious. It is. Filmed in entirely black & white, with the occasional lapse into blurred focus and even pixellation. Images are superimposed, the narrative is fractured, the dialogue is profound (i.e. forced and unnatural). It is also inundated with mid-nineties pop-culture: the flyers on the wall, the hip' soundtrack.
For a modern vampire tale, Nadja displays its origins with relish. A number of character names are lifted from Bram Stoker's novel Dracula. The fleeting visage of Nadja's father, Dracula, is similar to that of Bela Lugosi's Dracula. However the overall feel of the film is closer to the dream-like world of Dreyer's Vampyr.
The realisation of the Van Helsing character seems to have been inspired by the elder vampire hunter in Polanski's The Fearless Vampire Killers. Both are primarily comical figures far from the urbane and erudite professors of Tod Browning's and Terence Fisher's Dracula films. Beneath the veneer of comedy, Helsing could be seen as the most socially isolated of all the characters, obsessed with rooting out evil and unable to relate to the world in any other way.
*spoiler*
The main theme of the film is the importance of family in terms of both its good side (love, belonging, unity, etc.) and its bad (abuse, dysfunction, estrangement, etc.). Note all the main characters are ludicrously inter-related, mostly due to the presence of the Cassandra character. Also the main goal of Nadja is to be accepted by her estranged brother. However, the final soliloquy discloses that fundamentally we are all alone, fettered by our individuality
Inferno (1980)
worthwhile (6.0-6.9/10)
Suspira is easily one of the best horror films I have seen. The subsequent Dario Argento films I have watched, namely Tenebrae and Trauma, although worthwhile were disappointing in comparison. As Inferno is the sequel to Suspira, the pessimistic stance is how much of a letdown it will be.
Inferno and Tenebrae, both made/released in the early eighties were victims' of the video nasty' scare. Both are mild in comparison to other films on the list and have since been re-released. All the earlier Argento films from the Seventies escaped the list. So I reflect it was bad timing rather than content that lead to Inferno and Tenebrae (and numerous other films) being withdrawn. However the majority of Argento's films are edited somewhat in the UK. Inferno has two edited scenes both presumably due to animal cruelty. Firstly, a man knocking a cat unconscious against an item of furniture, and secondly, a cat eating a mouse. Curiously both scenes were present in the version I saw, presumably the length was trimmed. The feline's head was whacked once and the mouse scene lasted a few seconds. (any ideas?)
Inferno is the second part in Argento's proposed (presumably abandoned) three mothers' trilogy. A young poetess living in an old apartment block in New York discovers an ancient tome detailing the history of The Three Mothers'. Its contents make her very afraid and suspicious of her abode. She writes to her brother, a music student in Rome, for help. The siblings become embroiled in a dark mystery with deadly consequences.
Inferno is best described as an exercise in style at the expense of content. It is beautifully filmed at potent locales; the labyrinthe apartment and the archaic library. The colourful rooms are cluttered with antiques and/or debris, each item painstakingly set up by the film crew. The lighting ranges from musty black to gaudy red and blue. The overall effect gives a surreal, dream-like essence to the proceedings.
The film consists of a series of elegant but protracted segments culminating in a murder or escape. These segments are punctuated by brief scenes of plot' and character' development, both let down by their bereft treatment. Thus any real atmosphere or viewer empathy with the film is muted, instead you are left as the cool observer of a dream/nightmare.
*spoilers*
There are numerous plot devices that could have been elucidated. These include the submerged room, the first two keys, the mysterious woman in Rome (the Mother of Tears?), the brother's heart murmur (due to witchcraft?), the contents of the hypodermic and the medicine (their effects could explain some events as hallucination), and in particular the final confrontation. Unlike Suspira where the viewer and the protagonist unravel the mystery together, the brother in Inferno is left floundering in the main. He only deciphers the meaning of the third key, nothing else. The viewer is streets ahead of him and hence has many questions that remain unanswered after the finale. Perhaps the sequel' would have rounded things up.
*spoilers for Inferno and The Abominable Dr. Phibes*
Two moments reminded me of another of my favourite horror films, The Abominable Dr. Phibes. Firstly, the device that the old man uses to speak is lifted straight from Phibes. Secondly, the rat attack. In Phibes' the real peril of the rats is that they cause the pilot to lose control of the plane. The fact that the rats are biting the pilot is secondary and hence the scene is effective. In Inferno, the rats attacking their victim never seems real. This highlights the eternal problem of getting animals to interact realistically with actors on film. The editing and behaviour of the rats make it look too fake (cf. the cat scene later on, the dog chase in Tenebrae etc.). However, the rat scene is redeemed by the coup de grace.
Devil Doll (1964)
mediocre-fair (4.5-5.5/10)
Not to be confused with director Tod Browning's penultimate film, The Devil Doll. This has nothing to do with an escaped convict out for revenge using a device that shrinks people. Instead, Devil Doll, concerns a killer ventriloquist's dummy. Most famously associated with the final segment of Dead Of Night, dummies have also popped up in films as diverse as Magic and Humanoids From The Deep (a tenuous link) among others. Such films either concern the descent into madness of the ventriloquist or the demonically possessed doll.
Devil Doll centres around The Great Vorelli', a stage hypnotist and ventriloquist, aided' by his dummy Hugo. A sceptical American journalist, Mark English (irony?) (there is a cacophony of accents' in the film), sets out to expose Vorelli as a charlatan. English just happens to be dating one of the richest women in England (yeah right), Marianne. The guy is hardly a premiere journalist (cf. La Dolce Vita), just a low-grade hack - he gets lumbered with the Vorelli story. Anyway, English has no qualms in exploiting Marianne in trying to expose Vorelli, but his designs backfire especially when Vorelli takes an interest in the girl.
The best aspects of the film are the stage performances. The scenes of hypnosis (minus the dance routine) and ventriloquism are atmospheric and hint at the sinister psychological prowess of Vorelli. The moment when Hugo first walks is surprising. Is the doll mechanical, a human in disguise, or of the supernatural?
*spoilers*
The remainder of the film is competent but never gets into gear. There are numerous lamentable and unintentional laughs. Here are a few. Marianne's GP has the most absurd eyebrows outside of a bad satanic cult movie. The dummy has ears like those of a ferengi, just don't call him ugly. The nadir is the flashback sequence. When Vorelli first unveils the dummy to his two assistants, a woman and the original Hugo, the woman exclaims that it `looks just like Hugo'. It does not, not in the slightest. The dummy looks more like me than Hugo. Also note the bad makeup used in the flashback to make Vorelli and the woman appear years younger.
The ending is sudden and has a neat twist (which I won't mention). What is remarkable is that the supposed hero, English, has no involvement in Vorelli's comeuppance, he is down the pub instead. Therefore the film reaches its climax before you expect. Vorelli's downfall is his own libido (great minds, eh). When the dummy destroys the Marianne' doll (another cunning likeness), I assume Vorelli is weakened. All the mental energy and commitment he put into the new doll is destroyed creating a backlash. This allows the Hugo dummy to gain the upper hand, no thanks to the intrepid Mike English.
To summarise, Devil Doll has some good moments and ideas but is irredeemably flawed. You never care about the characters, especially English, and there is no sense of direction, of the journalist's investigations leading inexorably to the horrid truth. For similar themed thrills see The Possession Of Joel Delaney, don't see The She Creature.
Killer Klowns from Outer Space (1988)
worthwhile
Although clowns are commonly associated with comedy and tragedy, they make effective avatars of horror. Surprisingly few horror films employ them. There is Pennywise in the anodyne adaptation of the Stephen King novel It. The killer in Slaughter High dons a jester mask (doesn't really count) and er
answers on a postcard. Killer Klowns From Outer Space compensates for this dearth as it features a big top full of the red-nosed pranksters.
Killer Klowns
takes its heritage from the alien films of the Fifties. The plot is written in stone. Local youths are first alerted to the danger, are met with adult/police indifference, and ultimately save the day (night). The plot and characters in Killer Klowns
are likewise paper-thin, but redemption is at hand in the form of the clown aliens. They make the film.
Their appearance, activities and methods of disposing of the local human populace are original and amusing. The klowns must have attended the Dr. Phibes school of bizarre killing methods, although they lack the style and nastiness of the good doctor. Forget the `plot' and `protagonists' and just take a ringside seat at the humorous display of farcical murder and misadventure.
For example, before pursuing the lead couple who are fleeing the spaceship/tent, a klown pauses to fiddle with some balloons. He creates a balloon dog that springs to life becoming a helium filled bloodhound. Such creative moments are aplenty.
*spoilers*
The only human character of any entertainment value is the bullying, senior policeman. The guy is completely paranoid and thinks all the phonecalls to the station for help are a local conspiracy against him. He just sits back and reads his gun magazine (how apt). Unfortunately his eventual encounter with the klowns, midway through the film, ends with his demise. He should have lasted to the near-end and kicked some klown butt!
Towards the end the film does start to run out of steam. The final antics in the big top become a tad staid, whilst the giant klown is unnecessary diverting screen time away from the delightful `normal' klowns. If a monster film runs out of ideas the last resort is always a giant monster cf. Ticks, The Gate, Ghostbusters, etc. Also a few major characters who you consider irredeemably dead reappear in` the final reel. They must have attended the Michael Caine school of outlandish survival (cf. Jaws 4, no don't).
A slight theme of the film is fast food culture/globelisation. There are scenes at a burger bar and the klowns are supposedly stopping of at Earth for a quick bite to eat. Think klowns, think Ronald MuckDonald. Make what you will. Alright, I'm being anal, acidic custard pie in my face please!
Dracula, Prince of Darkness (1966)
Worthwhile
I have a confession to make. I had not seen a Hammer Dracula film for about ten years, until now. My memories of the series have coalesced, so I am unsure which I have seen. I definitely recollect watching Dracula, Taste the Blood of Dracula, and The Satanic Rites of Dracula. But the others are a blur. So I've decided to reacquaint myself with the Count, starting with his second outing, Dracula: Prince of Darkness.
Prince of Darkness is the third in Hammer's Dracula series, situated after Dracula and The Brides of Dracula, all directed by Terence Fisher. It marks the return of Christopher Lee in the title role. Lee's portrayal of the Count is a significant progression from previous actors. Cf. The grotesquerie of Max Schreck in Nosferatu, the distinct `Europeaness' of Bela Lugosi in the Thirties.
Lee's Dracula is tall, handsome, and exuding in sexual power. Even though, in this film, his role is silent it commands your attention. Indeed, Hammer brought `sex' to the fore compared to earlier films. Note Dracula's crazed pursuit of his chosen victims, his hypnotic effect on women, and the undertones of sado-masochism. Any woman who becomes a vampire is sexually liberated from the chains of Victorian society, to the extreme of a bisexual nymphomaniac. Bloodlust is equated to sexual lust.
The film takes place ten years after Dracula. (It was made about seven years after the original. The timescale is close). It is set in the Carparthian Mountains in Eastern Europe. Surprisingly, Transylvania/Romania are not mentioned. A quartet of English tourists, ignoring local warnings (as always), strays into a mysterious castle. This leads to the resurrection of the Count and bloodshed. Van Helsing is notably absent, with a boisterous abbot filling in the role of vampire hunter/expert/zealot. There is also a `Renfield' type, who eats flies and readily succumbs to the vampire's will. Thankfully there is a degree of continuity from the previous film.
The film has two distinct halves/locales. The former is at the castle, the latter at a monastery. Unfortunately, the monastic events, although reasonable, are not as atmospheric or effective as the earlier castle scenes, such as Dracula's resurrection. Hence the film loses momentum. A favourite moment is when one of the travellers predicts that none will survive to the morning. Cut to the manservant snuffing out candles on a candelabrum.
A major problem is the lighting. The indoor lighting is well done, e.g. the yellow, ghoulish light present whilst a human searches the castle. But any outdoor scenes supposedly occurring after dark are poorly realised. I'm no expert, but they were filmed `day for night' very inadequately. Thus you have scenes of Dracula outside in what appears to be an overcast day. The transition from light to dusk at the finale is so sudden as to be laughable.
Apart from the lighting travesty, I thoroughly enjoyed the film after a decade long hiatus from the subgenera. I am not entirely sure if I had seen it before, some scenes were familiar but I may have witnessed them on a documentary or in a flashback in a later film.
The Possession of Joel Delaney (1972)
Worthwhile
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Radio Times listing magazine, a misnomer of a title, likened The Possession Of Joel Delaney to The Exorcist. Fair enough, both films were made in the early Seventies and concern possession. There the comparison ends in terms of content and commercial success. The Exorcist involves a demonic spirit entering an innocent girl, resulting in a horror tour de force. It is also the most profitable horror film to date. Possession. involves the `apparent' possession of a (not so innocent?) young man by the spirit of a dead serial killer, Tonio Perez, who was also the victim's best friend. They may even have been in league together. The whole affair is understated and sedated. The most horrific thing is the white, knitted hat Shirley MacLaine wears in a few scenes.
The amiable Joel Delaney has a wealthy background and relations but chooses to live in a poor Latin American district of New York, much to the dismay of his snobbish sister, Norah (Shirley MacLaine). Trouble starts when Joel abruptly attempts to kill a neighbour and is hence committed to an asylum. Is he schizophrenic or is his madness more sinister?
Thus we have a major theme of the film, science versus the supernatural/superstition. Both explanations for the `possession' are given equal credence throughout the film (save for the closing scene) and Norah is torn between the two ideologies in her quest to redeem her brother. The relationship between the two siblings seems too close, too touchy. Perhaps on a sub-conscious level, Norah knows that Joel is `someone else' and is attracted to him
Another theme is the rift between the rich and the poor, White America and their Latin American neighbours. The initial scenes of the dinner party, with its pretentious chitchat and gossip, is in stark contrast to the scenes in the crowded, run-down `immigrant' quarter. A refreshing scene is the final encounter between Norah and her Puerto Rican maid, where they talk as equals.
*SPOILERS*
The inequality between the two lifestyles comes to the fore at the finale when the `possessed' Joel victimises his niece and nephew. Throughout the film Norah's children are quite annoying, like a pair of yapping poodles, but this makes their `torture' the more discomforting. The scene highlights the disparity between their lives and that of Tonio Perez.
*Spoiler concerning The Exorcist*
A memorable and bizarre event is the Latin American exorcism Norah attends. The strange rituals are reminiscent of voodoo ceremonies, whilst the bodily contortions the people experience are similar to those I saw in a documentary about exorcisms. As in The Exorcist, the lack of Norah's faith causes the ritual to fail. Or is it all mumbo jumbo (cf. Science vs. The Supernatural).
To summarise, Possession. is an admirable and mature attempt to bring `realism' to a subgenera typified by cod-Satanism and schlock. The pace may be too lethargic for some, as the film's focus is on the two lead characters rather than traditional horror movie scares.