kindertrauma

Author: unkle lancifer

Blood Shack (1971)

Posted on By unkle lancifer

I have not watched BLOOD SHACK since I was about 15 and the reason for that is because I have always regarded it as the worst film I had ever seen in my life. Remarkably, not even 2009's THE UNBORN could alter that opinion. The other night though while perusing free viewing opportunities on CRACKLE I noticed it there, staring at me like an orphaned injured kitten and I had to see it again. Could it really be as wretched as my brain recalled? After all, my brain usually doesn't know what it's talking about. Well, it turns out it is as bad as my brain said but not nearly as painful. I've either lowered my standards considerably or developed a sense of humor. It's a terrible movie no doubt, but watching it fully prepared for the awfulness makes a big difference. What once filled me with rage now elicits only sympathy. It may be the worst movie ever made but that doesn't mean it's the least entertaining.

BLOOD SHACK is hardly a movie. It's more like a swept together pile of footage. When it first snuck its way into my life, it was wearing a nifty VHS box that made it look like a current eighties slasher flick even though the old coot had been lingering about for more than a decade. Strangely, it seems less dated now than it did back then. For instance, the weird seventies wardrobes which were so alien to my then neon MTV eyes look like standard hipster-wear now. The overall dusty drab feel of the film has benefited with age too. Back then it just read as ratty but now that gritty dustbowl esthetic is pretty much au currant. I hate to admit it but I kind of now dig the near constant horizon line and the off-putting minimalism. Really, the sun flare happy playing field here is not so far off from THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE. Of course that movie had an actual story to tell and didn't pad its running time with rodeo footage. Yes, rodeo footage.

So my problem with this film is no longer that it is scrap heap cheap and alarmingly barebones, my issue is with the fact that it is an unstructured blob of random pointlessness. It's pretty clear that there was no script involved and that the director allowed the actors to wing it and wing it poorly. One character wants to buy the shack and that's all he talks about, one character doesn't want to sell the shack and that's all she talks about and one character warns folks to stay away from the shack ad nauseam. The only break from that pattern is provided by a our wispy narrator who sounds like she is breaking out of an eleven-year coma and offers little worthwhile information, unless you felt the need to know that the pony's name at the rodeo was "Peanuts." Truth told Peanuts the pony is the lone convincing presence in the movie and I was happy to see that her or his name found its way into the end credits.(Peanuts' IMDb page HERE.)

The theoretical scares of BLOOD SHACK are provided by "The Chooper" an Indian spirit who protects the title shack with a sword and black pajamas. Chooper tends to yell as if he's stubbed his toe and is partial to flamboyant arm flailing daytime attacks. My horror starved teenage self found "The Chooper" to be unbearably lame but now I see he's pretty hilarious. In the same vein, the movie itself is not the whirlpool of depressive ineptness I once thought; it's actually somewhat lovably maladroit. It made me laugh out loud which is more than I can say for DINNER FOR SCHMUCKS.

BLOOD SHACK was directed by RAY DENNIS STECKLER who has acquired a cult following thanks to B-grade goofs like THE INCREDIBLY STRANGE CREATURES (who stopped living and became mixed up zombies) but even his most devoted followers can be forgiven for drawing a line in the sand against Chooper's lackadaisical exploits. As lousy as this movie is though, I think STECKLER should be given some credit for stumbling early upon a few elements that would later prove to be highly effective in future better films by other people.

The good news is that I finally after all these years found out what was going on with all that pesky rodeo footage. STECKLER's original cut of the film was only a merciful 60 minutes long and he was required to add ten minutes more to play the film in drive-ins and theaters. I guess I can forgive that. This is a hyper low budget movie that just barely scrambled itself into existence so no harm, no foul. It's terribly done in every possible way but somewhat endearingly so and at least it did not cost millions of dollars to make this mess. (What's your excuse THE UNBORN?).

There's no way I could recommend BLOOD SHACK and realistically expect anyone to ever take my advise again, so I won't but I will say that there are tiny sparkles of pure quaintness to behold amongst the sub par, brain numbing wreckage. It's an annoying fiasco mostly but it doesn't have a cynical bone in its body and now I find I've grown slightly and embarrassingly fond of this crappy movie that I once hated with a passion. I was warned that "The Chooper" would get me and I guess the bastard eventually did. Really, I blame Peanuts.

Traumafessions :: Reader Francisco on Living Dolls, Killer Pigs and a Mummy Found in the Sea

Posted on By unkle lancifer

Hey I'm Francisco from Spain! I hope you excuse my poor English, I have recently discovered your site and it is the most interesting and amusing site I have read in a time. I've got not so much film or TV kindertraumas from my childhood because I was a very sensitive boy and tried to avoid those issues but reading about WHY ME? or PIGMON on your site are traumatizing enough. As a child and even as a teenager I've had fear of gore, sea monsters or shark films, other films with disfigurations or people burning…and rats.

Ok, some videos from YouTube I think could be interesting for your web page…

I'm afraid of seeing it every time I try.

It's from a Mexican film by RENE CARDONA JR. called THE BERMUDA TRIANGLE with JOHN HO\USTON and some European beauties and Mexican actors, I saw it as a child in a summer exhibition but it impresses me even more as an adult, an excellent film of psychological horror covering issues like the Bermuda Triangle, Atlantis, UFO, sea monsters and living dolls.

In the post about RAZORBACK you talk about killer pigs, take a look at minute 2.00 aprox… it's EL CARNAVAL DE LAS BESTIAS from spanish actor and filmmaker JACINTO MOLINA aka PAUL NASCHY, this horror thriller was coproduced with Japan in 1980.

More things, TV movies from the '70s and '80s, have you written about DON'T GO TO SLEEP, on the site? and do you remember, I have seen it more or less recently, but don't remember the title, a TV movie from 1978 with a passenger ship in the Caribbean that found an Egyptian mummy in the bottom of the sea?

Again a very interesting site, keep on it!

Greetings from Spain,

— Francisco

UNK SEZ: Thanks Francisco for your supportive words and for the cool and very creepy videos! To answer your questions, we are big fans of 1982's DON"T GO TO SLEEP and talked about it HERE and HERE and the movie about the mummy on the passenger ship from 1978 is called CRUISE INTO TERROR. That one sure has an amazing cast including DIRK BENEDICT, CHRISTOPHER and LYNDA DAY GEORGE, JO ANN HARRIS of THE BEGUILED, LEE MERIWETHER, JOHN FORSYTHE, STELLA STEVENS and even my favorite human RAY MILAND! You can read a bit more on that one at our pal Amanda's MADE FOR TV MAYHEM over HERE! Que tenga un buen dia!

Streaming Alert:: Black Noon (1971)

Posted on By unkle lancifer

Today's selection is not so much streaming as hiding out on YouTube like a gangster. As always, when it comes to YouTube, I suggest watching it as soon as possible for fear that it might disappear. BLACK NOON (1971) delivered your Unk some genuine willies, so it's my duty to pass the possibility of similar willies on to you. Fans of seventies T.V. movies, especially those that fret about Old Scratch coming to call, need to see BLACK NOON. Truly, it deserves to be spoken of alongside other celebrated, post-ROSEMARY'S BABY Satanic cult films of its time period. I'm thinking that the only reason it's not more notorious is because it wears the cloak of a western. As far as delivering the horror goes though, I assure you the film has a sneakily wicked scorpion tail.

A young reverend and his wife lose their way in the desert en route to their new home. Luckily before they die of thirst, they are discovered by some townspeople who take them in and as the wife recoups, the preacher finds his services much in need as the isolated town is suffering various hardships. His presence and his preaching seem to have a positive effect. A new vein of gold is found in the local mine, a crippled boy begins to walk and a bullying bandit is disposed of. Everybody is doing the happy Bible boogie except the preacher's wife who is getting sicker and sicker. As the wife begs to scram, the preacher finds himself more and more enthralled by the residents, particularly a beautiful mute named Deliverance. In fact, reverend's ego is so stroked by the townspeople that he is willing to ignore a sudden rash of vivid panic dreams and waking hallucinations of a bloody anguished man. Clearly things are not quit as they appear in the town of Nilbog San Melas. Something fishy and witchy is going on…

If that doesn't pique your interest (and really why should it?) allow me to sell you on the cast. ROY THINNES (THE NORLISS TAPES, SATAN'S SCHOOL FOR GIRLS) plays the passionate, sometimes wild-eyed reverend, mac daddy super pimp RAY MILLAND (THE UNINVITED, THE LOST WEEKEND & THE ATTIC) is the town's head honcho, and the enticingly beautiful mute cat wrangler Deliverance who scares rattlesnakes with her stare is played by a bewitching YVETTE MIMIEUX (she of THE BLACK HOLE.) We also got ourselves some porn-stached HENRY SILVA (BUCK ROGERS, TRAPPED!), some twitchy GLORIA GRAHAME (BLOOD AND LACE, MANSION OF THE DOOMED) and even a dash of DEVIL TIMES FIVE's LIEF GARRETT. If you need more than that you are crazy and should be put down like a rabid raccoon. To be honest, GRAHAME doesn't have nearly enough to do, but it's always good to see her showing up anyway.

Now you have to be a little patient with this one; it was made in 1971 which means it does not tap dance, wave sparklers and shoot gold coins and bubble gum balls out of its mouth every five minutes to keep your attention. It uncoils slowly with a subtle foreboding but when it goes in for the kill, it's remarkably vicious. There's actually still a ringing reverberation in my psyche from the sound of its bear trap snapping shut. Furthermore, some of the visual nails that are hammered home during the finale are remarkably ahead of their time. I'll put the links in the comments section. The picture and sound (maybe use headphones?) aren't the best, but I think it's worth the extra effort. That's it. I'm saying no more. The less known the better. Hope you enjoy this grade-A 74-minute cut of lean mean Beelzebub marinated T.V. beef and do let me know what you think!

Official Traumatizer:: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (1973)

Posted on By unkle lancifer

There's a re-do of the classic 1973 T.V. flick DON'T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK right around the bend so let's say we take a closer look at the original. There's something about this relatively simple tale that allows it to forge a significant mark. The premise, a woman fighting for her existence against tiny, Smurf-sized fiends is on the surface silly and yet the minimal production hits an uncanny tone that feels as old as the hills and bewilderingly familiar. Tiny monsters aside, we're dealing with a haunted house and a haunted house is usually a prop to depict a haunted mind. There is a bounty of horror movie titles that begin with the cautionary word "Don't" but none whose suggestion is as difficult to achieve wholly. We can choose not to go in the basement, in the house or in the woods when titles warn against it but the human fear of darkness is planted in our DNA. It's primal and it's permanent even if what we dread to find in the blackness alters with age.

For many, the fear of darkness is born in their earliest of memories. It doesn't come as a surprise that this film would have its strongest effect upon those who viewed it at a tender age. The thing under the bed and the thing in the closet are both given ample room to run and play here. In fact, we have sort of an all-star cast of classic terror instigators, an old dark house, whispering voices, howling winds and ink-black shadows that could easy ensconce our worst nightmares, they all make an appearance before the curtain closes (and when this curtain closes it closes hard.) The childhood horrors traipsing around in this movie are as plain as day, they scatter like roaches when the lights go on but what I think makes the film special are the larger adult horrors that lumber in the background. They're reluctant, abstruse and somehow even darker.

Sally Farnham (KIM DARBY) seemingly has all of her ducks lined up in a row. She and her upwardly mobile husband Alex (JIM HUTTON) have recently inherited a dream home from her grandparents. While Alex is busy piling up promotions at work, Sally spends her day with her interior decorator, maid and handyman setting up house. Problems arise when Sally discovers her Grandpa's study in which lies a bricked-up chimney. The handyman warns her that "some things are better left alone," but she delves just the same. She opens the chimney's ash chute and peers into an absolute abyss. Now she has inherited something new. Demons have been freed to taunt and take down Sally. Of course nobody believes these entities are real and soon her world is in shambles. Nothing has changed but everything has. Her husband seems suddenly a work-consumed jerk and the house she once loved grows smaller and smaller and darker and darker. Her ducks are frustratingly no longer in a row.

The prune faced whispering gnome gremlins of DBAOTD are certainly memorable but if you were to edit them out of the picture you'd have a story about a woman crashing face first into a wall of denial. I'm not discounting the trolls as nuisances but it's interesting to note just where the fabric tears in Sally's life occur and the many loaded symbols the mini-goons utilize to frazzle her.

First of all, it's obvious that the Farnham marriage is not as perfect as once thought. It turns out maybe Sally isn't feeling as fulfilled in her set-up as she originally planned. Alex is never around and when he is, he's barking out orders, mineralizing her needs (and troll concerns) and critiquing her party hosting abilities. Holy crap, she's a trophy wife in a gilded cage and why did she never realize this before? Spending her husband's money to replace ashtrays destroyed by goblins doesn't even fill the void! Sure Alex is on the fast track but where the hell is Sally going? At this rate she could end up trapped, growing old in this house forever! (Note: Alex has some reasonable fears too, like that his wife will pull him into the quicksand with her.)

"Some things are better left alone." If Sally had just gone with the flow and refused to examine that which she was warned not to, would life had continued on a smooth gnome- free course? Are the walnut headed midgets that hand Sally razor blades, slip her sleeping pills and leave her with gashes in her palms the real problem or just creeps who want to accentuate those that already exist while forcing an accelerated outcome?

It's easy to conclude that Sally's "nervous" disposition masks resentment towards her authoritative husband and her unsatisfactory domestic life but that doesn't explain why her grandfather succumbed to the same demons when he retired to his study. If we are to take the little monsters at their word then they have already explained what is at stake and what Sally needs to fear losing in the dark, namely her spirit. Sally ultimately fears the same thing from her husband, her house AND the creatures, that she will be consumed and lost within them. One might assume that she has not only inherited the knowledge of her dormancy but the dormancy itself. Whose life is she living?

Hope you've seen this because now I'm going to talk about the ending. It's a favorite. Some folks might find Sally's ineffectualness annoying, but it's rather the point of the story. Sally looses. Drugged, she puts forth a somewhat valiant effort attempting to fight back by casting light (a camera flash) upon her darkness thriving tormentors and yet still she fails. She is dragged into the chimney and the aid of her husband and close friend are too little and too late. It's not unlike the conclusion of THE HAUNTING or THE YELLOW WALLPAPER and frankly, I'm all for it. Horror stories are in no way required to be tales of empowerment and conquest. It's not their job to boost your ego. Please pick another genre if you want to see your fantasies fulfilled.

DONT BE AFRAID OF THE DARK is about a woman who ostensibly has it all. She's living the dream or at least the dream of 1973 and it's not enough. The hubby is placated and the rooms are decorated just so but an emptiness, a "darkness" remains. She's sold herself out really to stand in somebody's shadow not realizing just how cold and dark shadows can get. There's a Pandora's Box element for sure with Sally daring to look where advised not to but what she finds is only the truth exaggerated (and miniaturized). In the end, Sally's voice joins the chorus of the lost; her spirit forever trapped in a house living a life that is no longer her own. In a weird way though her dilemma is solved and her feeling of disconnect is no longer an issue. Depersonalization cures all. Now she is an integral part of something.

Many who return to DON'T after being traumatized by it as kids find it less than what they remember and there are those who, having heard tale of this flick, track it down only to find it laughable. I can understand that but I wonder if perhaps they are investing too much in the micro-ghouls as literal beings. If you instead read them as representatives of a privileged woman's swept under the rug internal demons, this is an exceptionally strong outing (especially considering its 74 minute running time and two week shooting schedule.) In the alternate dimension of genuine reality, I don't believe that Sally was dragged into the chimney to disappear forever but I do believe she indeed lost her battle to find a meaningful place for herself in the world and succumbed to a suffocating status quo, trapped, diminished and ultimately snuffed out like a candle. Whether it's worse to shrink into a wrinkle-faced troll or transform into "the perfect party host" is up to the viewer to decide.

Streaming Alert:: Hercules (1983)

Posted on By unkle lancifer

We're talking about Netflix Streaming again so…woot. With so much super crappy stuff going on in the world it seems dumb to stay mad at Netflix, especially when they offer great spectacular entertainment like the movie we're talking about today, the incredible HERCULES (1983). I must thank my golden pal Kate of LOVE TRAIN FOR THE TENEBROUS EMPIRE for today's choice. It was Kate's enthusiastic review (HERE) that convinced me that I had to check it out. Her always wonderful writing and choice selections of screenshots were convincing enough but the deal was set in stone when she informed me that this opus was directed by LOUIS COATES aka LUIGI COZZI, the man responsible for one of my starving eyeball's favorites feasts STAR CRASH.

As Kate mentions in her piece, Italian director CAOTES/COZZI tends to deliver snuggable rip-offs of American hits. STAR CRASH butted in line behind STAR WARS; the sticky CONTAMINATION plopped down in place after ALIEN, and HERCULES swipes pies from both CLASH OF THE TITANS and CONAN THE BARBARIAN's window. Talent borrows, genius steals and super geniuses steal and add Christmas lights and cleavage. If you want me to tell you the plot of HERCULES, have a nice wait. All I can say is that it offers the only satisfying explanation of the creation of the universe that I have ever heard and it supports my own personal theory that if there are higher powers at work, then they totally get off on sticking invisible "kick me!" signs on all of our backs.

Furthermore, I'll take LOU FERRIGNO over ARNOLD any day of the week. They both look like clown-crafted, ready-to-pop balloon animals but only LOU has humanity in his peepers. I don't even care that his voice is clearly dubbed in HERCULES, if I had my way, we'd all be dubbed. Hey, this is not a movie to turn towards if you are looking for master acting or lucid storytelling anyway. This is the type you just sit back and bask in the beauty of. I'm sorry but this truly is my idea of lovely, everything sparkles and glows and there are a thousand clashing colors and it's like huffing at the trash dump and seeing rats as stallions and roaches as swans. It's all swimming in makeshift extravagance and tin can opulence and fishing wire prosperity. If it doesn't cure you, then you are not sick. Words, schmords, blorbs. It's better to look at the pictures….

Traumafessions:: Reader Grimpressions on Why Me?

Posted on By unkle lancifer

Some of the movies that scared me the most as a kid were made-for-TV movies based on true events. Sure many of them are corny and deviated from the actual facts, but as a kid most of the time I didn't realize it. I was fascinated by the movies that had to deal with horrible accidents or people being disfigured. I don't know if I was an insensitive little shit or if I just watched too much TV. One film I'll always remember was WHY ME?

It aired a lot in the '80's, mainly on Lifetime. I remember the first time I watched almost the whole movie was particularly horrifying. I was at my cousin's house during a summer afternoon while my Mom was working. My cousin, who was around my same age, just had surgery done to his eye and he had to wear a patch over it. I'm not sure who thought this was a good idea, but the patch his doctor made him wear was a skin-colored bandage. I guess from a distance it was less noticeable than a patch like a pirate would wear, but up close it was really off-putting to an eight-year-old kid. It looked like skin had melted over his eye. I shouldn't have been scared of him, but I was.

So as I avoided hanging out with him during his recovery, I found other things to do like watch Lifetime with my Aunt. She was watching WHY ME? It was about a nurse who's face was disfigured in a car accident. Here's another situation where I shouldn't have been scared, but I was. I remember it looked like skin had melted over her mouth after she had one of her operations to reconstruct her lips and it reminded me of my cousin's eye so I couldn't get away from it. I was also freaked out by one doctor's drawings and I wondered why he wanted to make her look as ugly as his sketch. All of the medical jargon completely went over my head at the time and I didn't realize that facial reconstruction was such a long process.

Watching parts of the movie on YouTube, I now realize that a lot of the plot is based on how controversial and groundbreaking the doctor's procedures were. He wanted to use vaginal skin to repair the nurse's lips. I was also pleasantly surprised to see BRUCE ABBOTT make an appearance as one of the patients.

— Grimpressions

Official Traumatizer :: Tom Holland

Posted on By unkle lancifer

Hey remember when we used to give out "Official Traumatizer" titles to worthy folks? Why'd we ever stop doing that? Was it because nobody cared? That's no reason to stop doing stuff! With the remake of FRIGHT NIGHT right around the corner wouldn't this be a swell time to send some gratitude toward the man responsible for writing and directing the classic original? I'd say so.

PSYCHO II

HOLLAND wrote PSYCHO II and what an incredible accomplishment that is. Personally I can't imagine a better handling of the material and stand even more impressed knowing it was done under what had to be the most cynical of scrutiny. I'd like to strangle QUENTIN TARANTINO for stating that he prefers the second PSYCHO to the first on account of I wanted to say that myself. Sure, HITCH's take is brilliant and genius and a cinematic landmark and all that but PSYCHO II is my idea of the perfect movie. People should rip it off more often. You guys know I love my semi-gothic, creepy-antique-y social reject films and you know that I love the type of movie where somebody may get a butcher knife crammed in the back of their skull till the tip of the blade appears in their gaping pie hole right? Well, you almost never see both of those wonderful elements in the same movie. Yes, a rich psychological character study with satisfying kills is doable. All you "Back Stories Ruin the Horror! " people take a hike. HOLLAND adds many a layer to our understanding of Norman while maintaining apt space for sympathy and fear (or empathy and unease) to collide like gangbusters. Respect is paid toward the original while still moving forward into fresh territory. Good sequels are possible and I present you with this "Exhibit A."

FRIGHT NIGHT

Aw, who doesn't have a soft spot for FRIGHT NIGHT? From wolf toe to burnt-by -crucifix forehead it's all about the love of the genre. HOLLAND probably had the most creative control on this picture, as both writer and director, and the outcome speaks for itself. Exemplary special effects, genuine scares and thrills, comedy that doesn't make you cringe, a notable cast of players and bad guys as intriguing as the good. It's no wonder this movie is so beloved, it's got a rare adventurous spirit, it celebrates its rag tag eccentric's foibles and as frothy fun as its willing to be, it's not afraid to go dark and get its paws messy with real horror and even pathos. Admit it, some of it is rather touching. It's a real shame HOLLAND wasn't required (or pleaded and begged with) to participate in the sequel because FRIGHT NIGHT had the makings of an epic series of films. I know the HOLLAND-less FN:P2 has its supporters but to me, it's quite the pale shadow.

CHILD'S PLAY

If public perception of CHILD'S PLAY is that it is a wacky parody cheesefest of some sort then the public have not watched the original film lately. It's mostly a restrained affair, all things considered, and boy does it know what to show, plus how much to show of it and when. The killer doll storyline is inherently humorous but that doesn't dilute CHILD'S PLAY's ability to hit the nail on the head expressing parental fears about the limits of being able to keep a child from harm and bad influences. From a child's perspective, we're talking Kindertrauma gold here. What child hasn't had the horrific fantasy of their smiling toys coming to life and isn't one of the scariest parts of growing up learning that some people may only pretend to be your friend? Chucky would go on to be a towering figure in the world of horror, but much of that is due to the fact that the first floor of his skyscraping presence is sturdy as hell.

AND THEN SOME…

As if the above three slabs of awesome were not enough, HOLLAND had his hand in two of my favorite trash treasures… CLASS OF 1984 and THE BEAST WITHIN. He wrote the little seen and underloved home invasion flick SCREAM FOR HELP (1984) (which was directed by DEATH WISH's MICHAEL WINNER and is tons of tacky fun), he directed CLOAK & DAGGER which inspired a traumafession HERE and his output includes two above average/serviceable STEPHEN KING adaptations with THINNER and the T.V. miniseries THE LANGOLIERS.

Speaking of television, HOLLAND was behind the classic made-for-T.V. movie THE INITIATION OF SARA, directed THE STRANGER WITHIN (which we received a traumafession for HERE) and has put his stamp on stellar episodes of TALES FROM THE CRYPT, AMAZING STORIES and a very Kindertraumatic killer clown episode of MASTERS OF HORROR entitled "We All Scream For Ice Cream" (review HERE.)

As an actor, TOM HOLLAND is the only person on Earth who can lay claim to performing alongside both INGRID BERGMAN (A WALK IN THE SPRING RAIN) and master thespian VICTOR CROWLEY (HATCHET II). I started this post to spotlight HOLLAND's artistry and position as a true traumatizer, but I have come to realize that he is the CHUCK NORRIS of horror. Dude even got some training from BRUCE LEE and took on THE INCREDIBLE HULK (Okay well, he didn't actually get to fight the green one in the season two episode "Another Path" but almost!) There are careers and then there are careers. He may not be the household name that some of his contemporaries are but one thing is indisputable, TOM HOLLAND has had a hulkian effect on cinema and consequently, the pages of Kindertrauma.