Category: General Horror

It seems like it was only a little over a year ago (because it was) that I was catapulted head over heals into the Halloween spirit by a DVD box set of Mexican horror films presented under the title CRYPT OF TERROR VOL 1. Naturally I would have gotten into the spirit eventually anyway but it never hurts to have a turbo boost speed ya there. I realize that lightening rarely strikes twice and that thunder only happens when it's raining and that players only love you when they're playing, but how could I resist purchasing another CRYPT OF TERROR offering when I spied it in the used bin, especially when the film they were pimping was entitled CURSE OF THE DOLL PEOPLE? I had to yell "YOLO!" even though for me that acronym stands for "You Only Lose Ordinarily."

I wasn't so crazy about the sloth-like CURSE OF THE DOLL PEOPLE. Maybe I was in a jittery mood but it felt repetitive. I may have even said to myself, "Self, if I have to hear one more fruitless conversation about science vs. magic I'm going to flip over the non-existent coffee table." I mean, I totally believe in magic but not when it's used as a trapdoor to escape from explaining things. At least "science" stands its ground and doesn't mumble while hoping you'll just give up and accept it. I give the film mega leeway for the limitations of the time period in which it was spawned but even I have my limits when it comes to tail-chasing dialogue drudgery. I'll give the film props though for having a lady person who is smarter than everybody else and a bad guy who dresses like a gay wizard. I think it even has some agreeable atmosphere, but I get the feeling that this may be due to random circumstances rather than artistry. So there- that's the bad news. It's off my chest. This is all kinda about waiting for a bus outta bores-ville until…

…the Doll People show up! Yay! Alright, I have to admit, as much as this movie made me want to pick up a pen and a crossword puzzle and then put down the crossword puzzle and shove the pen in my eye, there's no getting around the fact that the titular Doll People were worthy of embarrassing air guitar solos. Here is the deal. When a person is killed in this movie (a bunch of them are cursed for stealing a voodoo statue- whatever.) they are turned into a doll man and that doll man is represented by a little person wearing a paper mache mask of an awkward likeness of their face. The masks kind of look like the original person but they also kind of look like that old lady who screwed up the restoration of that Jesus painting had a hand in them. I should also add that the Doll People kill with giant needles and I'm pretty sure a decapitated head's eyes glowed. The movie, as a whole, may not be much but whenever these dudes show up it's DAVID LYNCH meets DEVIL DOLL. So you know what? I recommend just looking at pictures of the doll people instead of watching the movie. I have a feeling if I came across this one late at night and just caught a few scenes out of context I would have been much more satisfied. Standing alone without a tired story to drag them down, the Doll People seem to loom much larger.

I was flipping through channels the other day and I came across the original AMITYVILLE HORROR, precisely the scene where a nauseated nun, having just fled 112 Ocean Avenue, pulls her car to the side of the road, opens the door and heartily vomits. Naturally I was trapped watching the rest of the film to its conclusion, even while that meant suffering through commercial breaks brazenly more nightmarish than the movie itself. Truth is, the 1979 cinematic depiction of the alleged haunting will always be slightly lackluster compared to my pungent memories of lying on a shag carpet and braving the book. I do adore the actors involved (KIDDER & BROLIN) but not how the astonishing events in the film unfold as if they were routine chores. Time is kind to movies from the seventies though, and now I find even the static scenes hold fragments of my youth I had forgotten. Am I imagining the strange depressive drabness that hangs over the film or am I mixing the movie up with my own recollections of the time period in which it was shot? Yikes, how familiar is that puke green wallpaper?

Later that night I decided I needed to see the 2005 remake again. Once upon a time, the gritty preview trailers had convinced me that it would right the wrongs of the first attempt but I was newly left somewhat entertained yet duly disappointed. Again I appreciated the company (RYAN REYNOLDS has some convincing bite, MELISSA GEORGE is heartbreaking and aw look it's lil' CHLOE GRACE MORETZ!) but in this take, things are so off the charts fantastical and excessive in places that it hangs toward spook show burlesque. There appears to be phantom hands flying out of every corner and who needs CGI flies? Oh, and don't get me started on turning Jodi the pig into a then-trendy ghost girl, it's blasphemy. Not that the super-slick version doesn't have its strong suites, the revamped house is impressively intimidating and the Indian head television test pattern routine is semi-genius. (Plus I'm bestowing it the award for "Best Use of a Roof in a Horror Film Since HALLOWEEN 4!") I've got a hunch there's a superior film hiding under the heaps of tension dissolving subterfuge. If I could just grab some scissors and lop off every annoying chic-edit and brown-nosing jump scare I'm sure I could find it.

One shot I wouldn't touch comes near the end when for a millisecond an unidentified figure is shown through the front door crossing the lawn. It's subtle and bewildering and it's a welcome respite from all the wanton showboating. I'd share a screenshot, but it's so vague that it's impossible to capture. I tried.

Who needs words though? All you have to do to fully understand the differences in approach of the two AMITYVILLE flicks is check out a side to side comparison of the way the hapless babysitter who gets locked in the closet is presented… nuff' said.

If you're keeping score that's two movies based on the same story and I'd say both are passable and neither are as good as they could be. (PART II: THE POSSESSION remains the best in the series and that's because it's not afraid to lose its mind.) So my question is, why do I remain so infatuated? Why do I keep returning to this same address when I know I'm never fully satisfied with what I find there? As an adult, I don't even buy that the place was truly haunted anymore so why don't I move on? So much of my original gullibility was chained to my need to believe that part of religions function was to dispose of evil but now that I essentially believe the opposite is true, most of the tale turns to dust. I can now distinguish the difference between windows and evil eyes so why does that house keep staring at me!!!

Then it hit me, much like the foolish HEIDI KLUM, I had been battling my damaged hair from the WRONG END! Religion needed to take a hike, what role did it play in the drama besides as a failed remedy? No seriously, religion, "GET OUT!" as usual, ya just muddy the waters! Also, all you ghosts? Disappear. If you're not going to actually do anything that can be recorded, vamoose! Now we're the heart of the house and I get it now. Do you know what's scarier than hearing bossy voices, getting welts on your hands, finding strange cubbyholes and suffering swarms of houseflies? I do! I know something scarier! How about having a trusted member of your family grab a shotgun and blow the brains out of you and the rest of your family while you sleep? The flies, the ghost swine, the Devil & God are idle bystanders; the horror of Amityville is the horror of domestic violence.

In DANSE MACABRE, STEPHEN KING cites "economic unease" as a timely factor responsible for the tales' popularity and while that's probably true, I'd blame at least some of its staying power on a demon similar to the one that steered his THE SHINING. Children relate to the fear that their parents might change faces and crush them and parents squirm at the thought that they could snap and clobber their offspring. No such events occur in either Amityville telling, but the threat that the family's paternal anchor could repeat the original slaughter (whether via possession or not – who cares when you're dead?) stalks every hall. (Thank you, supernatural forces. Your services here are no longer required.)

Remove the magical "evil" and THE AMITYVILLE HORROR is still the ultimate American nightmare. By rights, when one moves up in the world and achieves a higher standard of living, happiness and contentment are promised to follow. Only in the case of the Lutz family (whose dream becomes accessible thanks to another family's tragedy) some kind of cosmic error has occurred because having more brings them dysfunction and unhappiness rather than joy. Shoo away all the superstition (and the merited anxiety that the church might abandon you when things get hairy) and we have a story about a family that can't enjoy their good fortune because mom's second husband is a moody dickweed with a potentially lethal temper. (That may not have been the case in reality, but it comes across in both films. In fact, the real George Lutz attempted to sue the remake for depicting him among other things, hacking up the family dog.)

For all the wild distractions of the redo it may hit the crux of the problem with a sharper blade. An attempt is made to tag blame on a phantom catch-all villain but who needs invisible bad guys when you've got George? After being called an idiot by her husband for realizing that they are "losing each other" and refusing to be satiated by "everything they ever wanted," Kathy vocalizes the essential truth; Yep, it's an amazing property but it has no worth if the family itself disintegrates. What good is achieving a dream when you are too filled with hate to enjoy it? Suggesting that happiness can't be bought (or won at the expense of others) makes her a traitor in George's eyes.

Maybe THE AMITYVILLE HORROR remains relevant not because of its success as a ghost story, but because of its success as a cautionary fable about hanging your "high hopes" on a house rather than the people inside it. If after all is said and done, under the floorboards, what we're talking about is the realization that living under the threat of violence can turn even the dreamiest home into a doorway to hell, then sadly it's not based on "A" true story, but many. People can argue the authenticity ‘til the cows (and the invisible pigs) come home, ghosts or no ghosts, there's enough horror under this roof to go around.

POLTERGEIST II: THE OTHER SIDE falls apart like a subpar paper towel on several occasions and yet it somehow sports a scene so acutely chilling that it leaves most other cinematic depictions of evil looking hopelessly impotent. That it achieves that transcendent point without the aid of special effects (save a rain machine) compounds the impressiveness of what's been captured. If you've seen the movie you know the bit I'm referring to. In it, JULIAN BECK as the reverend Henry Kane attempts to gain entrance into the home where the ill-fated Freeling family has taken up temporary residence. The day is bright and gorgeous and watching cadaverous Kane making his way to the front door is like witnessing a skull-faced wrecking ball rolling through a flowerbed leaving a trail of smoldering ash behind it. At the time of filming BECK was reportedly gravely ill and I can't help wondering if his proximity to death allowed him to relay his grim tidings in a frighteningly unmodified manor. We peg Kane at once as a manipulative liar but wince at the base truth he dispels when he very nearly looks directly into the camera and bellows, "You're all going to die in there!" The scene, taken alone, remains as ghoulishly powerful as it ever was and I know I'm not exaggerating its impact because we've received a slew of Traumafessions certifying its indelibility.

Running not so close behind is a lesser showstopper involving lovable (mostly due to cues provided by the impossible to argue with JOBETH WILLIAMS) dad Steve Freeling (CRAIG T. NELSON) getting trashed on tequila, gulping a possessed worm, and transforming into the antithesis of the good natured man we've come to know. NELSON mimics BECK's mannerisms with wild gusto and even purses his lips to mime his facial structure and the result hits my favorite note of being both legitimately disturbing and borderline embarrassing. Love still holds some power in the POLTERGEIST universe so when Diane states her unconditional devotion to her hubby, he has no recourse but to puke up the demon, which then squirms and flaps about on the floor like a giant maggot. The slimy bastard even has the cheekiness to grimace like a Kane-o-lantern before hobbling out of the room! I am giving this scene less laudation because some of its success hinges on somewhat dated special effects but like the one previously mentioned, it hits a bona fide nerve. Vomit creature (as it's listed in the credits) aside, Steve's loathsome, post-possession behavior replicates that of an abusive alcoholic in a squirmy, uncomfortable way (not much of a leap considering the instigator he ingests is found at the bottom of the bottle.)

So with not one but two highly memorable, if not classic, scenes like these what could possibly be wrong with POLTERGEIST 2? Well, a lot. Director BRIAN GIBSON is fine when dealing with consummate professionals like BECK, NELSON and WILLIAMS, but every other cast member is left looking humiliatingly amateurish and hung out to dry. Matters are made worse by a title that sparks the imagination with a promise of revealing the afterlife when all we are delivered are poor blue screen flying effects, a badly realized miniature representing "the beast" and a too corny for even this cornball glowing grandma angel who saves the day to a furiously trying to pick up the slack JERRY GOLDSMITH score. In fairness, P2: TOS experienced more than its share of behind-the-scenes setbacks including the already mentioned death of its ace in the hole baddie BECK but that hardly explains all of the lack of creativity shown depicting the titular "Other side." In addition, it's a little difficult to buy the "We must do this as a family" schmaltz when the Freeling's eldest child has disappeared and it's deemed not worth mentioning why. The fact that DOMINIQUE DUNNE who played daughter Dana, was murdered shortly after the first film makes the mass denial all the more crass…or maybe it's just sad.

Oh hell, you know what I have to do? I'm going to do it. I'm stamping this movie with my slightly unflattering but ultimately affirming GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME stamp! There. Bang. I just did it. Parts of it are crap and it reeks of negative energy but when it shines it shines and maybe there are better sequels out there but do they boast such monumental take away moments? Not much can alter the fact that THE OTHER SIDE is the least fun film of the trilogy (PART 3 is hilarious) but that's the price you pay for raking up unpleasantries like spousal rape, alcoholism, child abuse, religious fraud and suicide cults (not to mention granny death) in a would-be summer blockbuster. Hey, at least it's ambitious. People can go ahead and claim this is a retread of the first but its actually following its own dark guide. If the first film secretly worried about the teacher student relationship children have with their television this one boldly wonders if Sunday school was ever any better. I love the first movie, it can't be beat, but one thing it doesn't have is JULIAN BECK as Kane. If his character was all that this movie offered that would still be good enough for me. Yep, heaven is a let down but should anyone be surprised? Here's hoping BECK is somewhere enjoying something grander than a blue screen cloud.

Wait a minute! I thought I was done with the above post but I have to add one more thing. If I had any pride in my work I'd incorporate this thought to the above text but I'm taking the easy way out and shoving this tacked on addendum here instead like a lazy bastard. While gathering the images for this pile of words I came across another scene that I'm strangely drawn to. It's right after the grandma dies and Diane goes out to the garden, she sees a rose bush and she recalls planting it with her mother in a gauzy flashback (Me = sucker for gauzy flashbacks). A wind picks up and as petals fly by, Diane senses her mother still very much with her and how sweet. Then suddenly it's night and a weird cloud is over the house. Diane gets up from bed to visit the area where she felt her mother's spirit. I think she even hears her voice. Then all of the sudden rotting dead people jump out of the ground and drag her under the earth screaming (Don't worry it's just a dream). I don't know, something about contrasting the earlier consoling scene with it's pessimistic opposite so quickly afterward gets to me. One moment it's suggested that the cycle of life is completed with one becoming part of nature and the next we're being told it ends with one succumbing to an inescapable army of rot. See, this movie is so unapologetically morbid that I must forgive its slipshod moments. I have no choice.

Hold onto your hats because I'm about to blow your minds. There's a movie about a neurotic woman spending time in a glorious gothic mansion that's haunted by GLORIA GRAHAME (BLOOD AND LACE, MANSION OF THE DOOMED) and, here's the crazy part, I don't particularly care for it. Does that even make sense? How on Earth is that even remotely possible? I've investigated this phenomenon from every possible angle and it still remains true. It's a genuine paradox. Here's another thing, and I feel justified playing this card because I rarely do, I really dislike the main character. I'd blame the actress (ROBIN GROVES) entirely, because she does get on my nerves in a distinct way, but I have to give her some slack as the script relentlessly demands that she act like a persnickety crab. She probably would work as a snide side-character but being handcuffed to this self-absorbed harpy for the entire run of the film becomes laborious. I found myself fantasizing throughout most of THE NESTING that a bus would appear out of nowhere a'la FINAL DESTINATION and just erase her from the screen in a honking blur. Is that normal? Maybe I need to get one of those EXORCIST brain scans. I'm starting to think I have contracted that mental disorder you get from cat poop.

Speaking of mental disorders, our story begins with self-proclaimed "brilliant" novelist Lauren Cochran (GROVES) experiencing a panic attack while walking the streets of a city. Her shrink says she has agoraphobia, which she has never heard of. I would have diagnosed her with whatever is the opposite of agoraphobia due to the fact that throughout the film she acts in the exact opposite way that an agoraphobic would unless agoraphobics are known for moving into towns they've never been, climbing on very high roofs and visiting people alone they are warned not to in the middle of nowhere. Truth is, I'd overlook all that contradictory behavior if our hero were capable of any facial expression besides, "I smell Limburger."

I'm not a stickler for authentic human reactions when we're dealing with a movie that focuses on fantastic events, but after Lauren is chased by a murderous bug-eyed hillbilly and is cornered and forced to murder him by slitting his head like a melon with a scythe, I expect her to respond in some other way besides running home to wearily curl up with a smoke. I also have a hard time believing her love interest when he shows up and says something along the lines of, "Don't worry, I talked to the police (about the guy you killed) and it's cool."

On the other hand there's something delicious about a movie that so steadily delivers elements to disapprove of. I derive no joy hallucinating I'm somehow superior by passively pointing out flaws from the couch and yet the mongrel in my brain can't resist gnawing on a bone this succulently aggravating. So in a way, I do somewhat enjoy NOT enjoying THE NESTING. Luckily, the already mentioned memorable house, the overall overgrown, run-down rural setting and the early eighties time period make this exasperating pill easier to swallow. It's too bad it doesn't work better though; there are worse ideas than stealing shamelessly from THE SHINING, GHOST STORY and THE CHANGELING.

The biggest sin of all has to be its squandering of GLORIA GRAHAME in her final film role. She's barely on screen and when she is, most of her quirkiness is gauzed over. They even slap her with a dubbed, ill-fitting high-pitched laugh, what a waste! Maybe I'll give it some worthless extra credit for at least trying to be more cerebral and less teen-friendly than what was popular at the time, even though it is probably that exact higher goal that allows it to fall on its face as hard as it does.

I don't mean to alarm anybody but it appears that at some point between the time I watched WILLARD back in 2003 and yesterday, somebody magically changed the tone of the entire film. What was once a quirky, dark-humored revenge flick concerning adorable critters is now a morbidly tragic character study that mercilessly kicked my heart in the crotch. I didn't even know my heart had a crotch. Now I understand why this wasn't a huge hit. Honey, I shrunk the cathartic payoff! I feel horrible right now thanks to WILLARD but that's not saying I'm not happy about it.

One thing that has not changed since my first viewing is the fact that CRISPIN GLOVER is wonderful in the title role. I'm not just saying that because he's weird and I mistake weirdness for talent. I don't buy into that stuff. I was voted most likely to feel apathetic towards JOHNNY DEPP seventy million times in a row! GLOVER just IS Willard. He's owns it like a birthright. He's fearless and gracefully awkward and heartbreaking and you want to save him but you can't. And what a face…he's like a twisted male GARBO!

Modern science will never be able to explain my penchant for stories concerning abuse-baiting social misfits failing to connect with the world but not failing to reside in big creepy houses with fantastic furniture. It's one of those mysteries that will never be solved like why does the Loch Ness monster always leave the cap off the toothpaste and how come I woke up barefoot in an alley? Focus. Poor Willard is trapped in life. In fact, there are tons of gates, bars and cages everywhere he goes. People treat him poorly and are remarkably unmoved by the fact that he has the coolest nose ever captured on film. Life pretends not to be a nightmare for a brief time when he makes a new friend in a rat he names Socrates. Unfortunately, caring for something breeds vulnerability and the road to hell is paved in cheese. Willard may be the low man on the totem pole at work but in his basement, he becomes a God or at least relatively tall in comparison to his followers. He builds an army of rats and my dream is he'll take over the world.

But then there is the problem of Ben. Ben is the shadow rat. He's dark where Socrates is snow white. The pair make like a little angel and a little devil standing on Willard's shoulders and whispering in his ears. You could say one represents good and the other evil but who still believes in such outdated things? I think Socrates represents the hopeful dream and big fat Ben represents reality. Willard goes to sleep at night cuddled next to Socrates imagining a friend-filled future free from the cage but every morning, no matter what, he wakes up with that darn Ben staring back at him. Ben reminds him of his suffocating mother (the delightfully corpse-like JACKIE BUROUGHS), his battle-axe boss (R. LEE ERMEY, you know the drill) and his absent by way of suicide Dad (an image only cameo by original WILLARD (1971) star BRUCE DAVISON). He underlines with a black marker the truth Willard does not want to face; his fate is in the hands of others and that he'll never steer the ship. Ben's not all bad news though, because he'll also chew the face off anyone he's told to. But ultimately Willard betrays Ben and, in doing so, he betrays his own dark side and his own latent power. He fails to merge and become whole. I sympathize but it's frustrating.

One thing that's nice about WILLARD the film is that it's remarkably old fashioned. It's thoughtfully shot and nobly spends quality time setting up the party and handing out the nametags to all the guests. Sadly though, I think its archaic nature also demands that Willard find comeuppance for his deeds and I'm not feeling that. I know, I sound like a hypocrite because I usually say happy endings are for cowards but in this lone case, I'm making an exception. This is my thing but it fails to be my super-thing by not doing what I'm telling it to do nearly a decade after its release. My recipe would be: more human death, less animal death! Yes, I'm proud to be one of those shameful folks who hold the lives of animals in higher regard than the lives of humans! Surprisingly that even includes rats. I'm supposed to feel bad about that? I'm sorry humanity but I think if you reflect on your behavior over the last thousand years, you'll collectively realize you're not so hot. What I'm saying is get over yourself humans and don't feel bad when I tell you that I'd rather watch a bunch of you being slowly skinned alive than witness one rat stub its toe! Gee, no wonder I have so few friends.

WILLARD was directed by GLEN MORGAN who also did the needlessly harassed BLACK CHRISTMAS remake. Both films are visually sharp, are thrown off balance by apprehensive storytelling, boast genius scores by SHIRLEY WALKER and were born completely immune to audience appreciation. I think he's really underrated and maybe just has a curse on his head, so I send out apologetic karma balloons in hope that it helps. WILLARD is a good movie, it's just not always a good time but keep in mind that's coming from somebody who would have chosen Ben over Socrates in the first place.