Werewolf Triple Bill – Part II

Posted on February 18, 2025February 18, 2025 by fenrisfil

The full moon is up again here at Screen-Wolf, so it’s time for another werewolf triple bill. I think I’ve finally washed the bad taste of “Wolf Man” (2025) out of my mouth, so this will be the last one for now. Here are three more reviews of this difficult to pull off sub-genre of horror. Tonight I present you with “Bad Moon” from 1996, “Wolf Cop” from 2014 and “The Wolf of Snow Hollow” from 2020. One thing these all have in common is they are all from writer/directors (In the case of Snow Hollow also the star). So these are very much one man’s vision, yet each vision is radically different. I love the posters for all three of these by the way. It’s always nice to not have to share generic giant head posters. Anyway, let’s take a bite out of these movies shall we?

The Wolf of Snow Hollow (2020)

“The Wolf of Snow Hollow” is from actor/writer/director Jim Cummings, who also stars in the movie. This black comedy horror is his second feature, after his acclaimed “Thunder Road” (2018) debut. He is supported by Riki Lindhome, Chloe East, Jimmy Tatro and Robert Forster (In his final performance). Cinematography is from Natalie Kingston and music is provided by Ben Lovett. The 2020 indie movie was made for a mere $2 million and clocks in at only 84 minutes. Cumming’s plays Jon Marshall, a Deputy Sheriff and struggling alcoholic with anger management issues and young daughter.

After a vacationer discovers the mangled body of his girlfriend at their rental house in Snow Hollow, the police begin a manhunt for her killer. Deputy Sheriff Marshall takes the lead. When a second victim is found with her head and arm torn off and wolf fur found at the scene the investigation takes a turn for the macabre. Marshall refuses to believe this can be a werewolf. He is hampered though by his struggle with alcoholism and his conflicts with those around him, including his daughter. No one seems to have faith in Marshall’s ability to solve this case, least of all himself.

Anger Management

This is one of those horror comedies that forgets to be either funny or scary. As a dark comedy, you expect this somewhat as usually the humour comes from quirky characters and odd situations. Here though it seems the comedy is meant to come from the incompetence of the police, and it just doesn’t land for me. Dark comedies are tricky though, as are werewolf movies, so they set themselves a difficult task here. The movie also falls prey to a lot of the cliches of more recent film making. None of the characters are likeable and the movie seems to be trying to present a message about toxic masculinity. It’s not preachy, but it is a bit too on the nose. Possibly the problem is the movie is a little too focused on it’s lead (and writer/director).

That said, the movie has some positives. The attacks are well filmed (For the budget). The cast is reasonable and the identity of the killer isn’t obvious. The only problem was the character wasn’t really involved in the plot much, so you had no reason to suspect them. Honestly I didn’t actually care who it was by the end. This tends to be a problem with “Guess the Werewolf” films. There is another twist in regards to the werewolf that was a bit more predictable, given the nature of the film. Ultimately the ending fell flat for me. The rest of the film I’d call solid, except for actively disliking the protagonist. Creatively that is fine, but it is harder to like a movie when you think the protagonist is a dick. Anyway, this is a solid 5/10. Not terrible, but not a recommendation.

Wolf Cop (2014)

“Wolf Cop” is a low budget Canadian horror comedy from writer/director Lowell Dean. Staring Leo Fafard and Amy Matysio. It is very much a Saskatchewan production, shot entirely in Regina, Saskatchewan, largely featuring natives of the area and with a soundtrack from “Shooting Guns”, an instrumental Metal band from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. The production budget of $1 million was granted through a canadian film contest. The concept won through social media engagements and fan votes against nearly 100 rivals.

The movie follows “Lou Garou” (Fafard), an alcoholic cop in the small town of Woodhaven. Lou is mocked and disrespected by most of the locals, especially the criminals. He spends most of his time sleeping or at a local bar (Even when on duty). After investigating a report of devil worshipers he stumbles upon the murder of a local politician and is knocked out. He awakens later with no memory and a pentagram carved into his stomach. That isn’t the only change as his facial hair is now rapidly growing and his senses are heightened. That is just the start of it as eventually Lou finds himself turning into a Wolf Man. Not a feral beast though, but one that is still very much Lou – A alcoholic and a cop. As he looks into what happens he begins to discover a vast conspiracy.

It’s the Fuzz

If the name was not a give away, this is very much on the “Fun B-Movie” side of horror films. It is fully aware of what it is, but doesn’t go so overboard. They avoid falling into the trap of trying too hard to be bad. The movie actually starts out somewhat like The Wolf of Snow Hollow, with a small town, a washed up alcoholic cop as the lead, a more competent female deputy and a Sheriff that is largely uninvolved for most of the movie. That’s where the similarities end though. The comedy in this movie is obvious, the gore over the top and the identity of the Werewolf… well, it’s in the title of the film! The film offers few surprises but generally delivers exactly what you would hope for.

Unsurprisingly they have gone for more of a “Wolf Man” werewolf instead of something more wolf-like or monstrous. That approach is usually chosen to allow a little bit more humanity in the character. This is the case here, however it’s not for sympathy but rather to allow Wolf Cop to deliver the occasional one liner and to use his gun. Yes, this film features a werewolf that shoots people. It’s also the rare situation of a werewolf that is basically good, even in monster form. The movie still provides monstrous villains however. Despite the comparatively straight forward make up job of the “Wolf” form they actually do put effort into a unique and impressive and quite funny transformation. This is a fun movie that is much better than it probably had any right to be. Shockingly, I’m giving it a solid 6/10.

Bad Moon (1996)

“Bad Moon” comes from writer/director Eric Red. Eric is best known as a writer and penned the horror classics “The Hitcher” (1986) and “Near Dark” (1987). This is another Canadian movie, this time from Morgan Creek Productions and with a significantly higher budget (Especially with inflation) of $7 million. It is based on the novel “Thor” by Wayne Smith. The movie stars Mariel Hemingway, with support from Michael Paré and Mason Gamble. All reasonable mid tier actors that never quite made it to the big time. Paré is all over genre entertainment and usually safe casting, so no surprise to see him here. Cinematography comes from Jan Kiesser and the score is provided by Daniel Licht (Who is most famous for scoring the TV series “Dexter”).

During an expedition to Nepal, photographer Ted Harrison (Paré) and his girlfriend are attacked by a werewolf. Paré survives but as a result now carries the curse. He returns home and hides away in his remote lakeside cabin to try and find a way to cure his condition or live with it. After reaching out to his remaining family, his sister “Janet” (Hemingway) and her son “Brett” (Gamble) he agrees to move his trailer to the back of their house and stay with them. While he struggles with his condition in secret, the families dog “Thor”, suspects the truth and instinctively wants to protect his family from the danger.

Man’s Beast Friend

Of this round of reviews “Bad Moon” is undoubtedly the most traditional werewolf story. We know who the werewolf is from the start and he transforms into the standard “Howling” style beast. The creature actually looks pretty good, better than I expected. But then, back in 1996 there were a lot physical effects masters around and no drive to use CGI (For this kind of film anyway). Although we see a bit of the tragedy of the cursed lycanthrope, the focus is more on his sister and nephew. It’s not really their story either though and that is the real twist with this movie. The lead of this movie is the families’ dog “Thor”. It’s a novel approach that isn’t without issues, but it did make this werewolf movie stand out from the pack.

The plot itself is stripped down and straightforward, but it didn’t really need to do anything more complicated. The characters are likable enough and have a little depth, mostly from the conflicted nature of dealing with a loved family member turning into a monster. The tragic aspect of the story could have had a little more to it. Ted flips at some point from a sympathetic character to an outright villain and the change is a little jarring. Part of the reason for this is that he isn’t the focal character. Janet fairs a little better and you do feel her internal conflict in the situation. Thor though is the star, but even this could have been explored a little more thoroughly. The truth is this straight forward movie does just enough to make it work. Not outstanding, but just about worthy of a 6/10.

Head to Head: Wolf Man (2025) & The Beast Within (2024)

Posted on January 23, 2025January 23, 2025 by fenrisfil

Today I have a Werewolf double bill for you, checking out the just released “Wolf Man” from Universal/Blumhouse and “The Beast Within”, an independent release, directed by Alexander J. Farrell, from last year. I’m going to put these two wolves head to head. These movies are pretty similar so it makes sense to make a comparison. Wolf Man though has the backing of two of the biggest players in the horror field in Universal and Blumhouse and is of course part of Universals ambition to make use of the classic Universal Monsters they are associated with. A while back they wanted to establish a shared universe for these characters, but a real clanger of a “Mummy” movie cause a rapid re-think. That rethink has seen director Leigh Wahnell tackle “The Invisible Man” and now “Wolf Man”.

Really, the whole Universal Monsters thing is a fools errand for the studio. Almost none of those monsters are IP’s owned by Universal and are almost all public domain, or generic enough (I.E. Werewolves & Mummy’s), that anyone could make a movie. This is a similar situation to a lot of Disney’s classic line up. What the studios actually own is their own take on the products, some of which will be under copyright but all thick with trademarks. But if that is the case, what is the benefit of doing entirely new and modern takes on these products? Perhaps an attempt to try and claim the public perception of ownership? Certainly the shared universe plan made some sense (Especially given the Universal Monsters were the first shared universe). Anyway, let’s dig in.

Two Wolves Inside You

The plot for both movies is similar. Both feature a small family of husband and wife and one daughter. In both it is the families’ patriarch that is the wolf of the story. There are a few key differences though. In Wolf Man, the male lead “Blake” (Christopher Abbott) doesn’t start off as a “Wolf Face” and instead is infected. Meanwhile in The Beast Within, “Noah” (Kit Harington) is implied to always have been the monster. Both films end up with the wife and daughter desperately battling for survival against their father/husband at a remote location. The Beast Within tells the entire story from the point of view of the daughter “Willow” (Caoilinn Springall). In Wolf Man, the daughter “Ginger” (Matilda Firth) is the focus but the film is from a more neutral perspective. The name of course is a reference to “Ginger Snaps” (2000), a much better movie.

The other main difference is in the look of the character. Both productions opted for a 100% practical effects, which I definitely approve of. The Beast Within went with a traditional Werewolf design, but Wolf Man went in a very different direction. The idea seems to be to modernize the look of the “The Wolf Man” (1941), but in practice there is little resemblance. Really the beast looks more like some kind of sasquatch. The transformation is also very slow, so you don’t see much of the full transformed monster. The Beast within saves the Werewolf’s appearance until near the conclusion too and both films work a very, very slow build up.

Werewolves For Modern Audiences

Perhaps disappointingly, the themes for both movies are exactly what you’d expect in the current year. That is, both basically tackle “Toxic Masculinity”. The difference though is that Beast Within is far more clear cut. That is really about how families stay with an abusive man and make excuses for them. That is a genuine problem, so while it is obvious, I can’t complain about it. Also portraying that from the young girls perspective opens up a lot of creative avenues. Ones we’ve seen a few times before, in better films. It’s not a bad take though, and I appreciate the attempt, even if it is at times clumsily implemented.

Wolf Man however tackles a far more debatable version of “Toxic Masculinity”, suggesting that masculinity in general is a problem and that one may inherit this toxic behaviour from your father. I don’t want to use the “W” word here, but lets just say it reminded me a bit of a certain Gillette advert. The thing is the behaviour the movie paints as negative is entirely protective in nature. The leading man’s father shouts at his son for wandering off alone in a forest full of bears and that he knows has at least one Werewolf in. This is portrayed as an abuse of some kind. Later Blake shouts at his daughter for tight rope walking on a concrete barrier by a main road. The movie suggests he learned this bad behaviour from his father and similarly…. well, there’s an obvious plot twist down the road.

Style And Atmosphere

As far as atmosphere goes, I find myself favouring Beast Within. It’s notably cheaper, but it is creatively put together and provides a constant atmosphere of tension. Wolf Man relies on the a lot of jump scares, but does have some moments of good cinematography. The music wasn’t especially notable in either case. All the actors are reasonable in both movies, perhaps a little stronger in Wolf Man. However, the dialogue is better in Beast Within. Honestly a lot of the dialogue in Leigh Wahnell’s movie felt clunky and forced.

Special effects is a trickier one to rate in a head to head. The design for Wolf Man is not very good, but it is well executed. The slow transformation provides a lot of interesting moments, making this movie a bit of a body horror. While Beast Within punches above it’s budget, the final act provides a good few shorts of the monster that don’t look particularly realistic. The design though is solid. You don’t see the werewolf until very late in the movie, but there are a few good dream sequences featuring transformation effects. I’m favouring the underdog (Pun intended) again here.

Werewolf Vs Wolf Man

So in conclusion… Well, I don’t recommend either of these movies really. But let’s tackle them one at a time. If you like slow burn horror with an unreliable narrator then you may enjoy The Beast Within. But it’s not something worth going out of your way for but personally I enjoyed elements of it and didn’t feel like I wasted my time watching it. It is however not really what most people want from a werewolf movie. That it the metaphor is so obvious doesn’t help it either. It’s not particularly clever, even with the use of the child’s perspective and there is no fun here at all. It is passably average so I give The Beast Within – 5/10.

I have to be honest here and tell you that Wolf Man was a very disappointing movie for me. Leigh Wahnell made a very good low budget movie with “Upgrade” (2018) and provided a solid if somewhat obvious take on “The Invisible Man” in 2020. Here however, he’s made an absolute clanger. Clunk dialogue, bad creature design, slow to the point of boring and a frankly cringe subtext. Indeed given that Invisible Man was also basically about toxic masculinity, I’m starting to wonder if Wahnell actually has more than one idea in his head. That also means currently the entire new body of Universal classic monster movies is about modern identity politics. Lame and disappointing. I give Wolf Man – 3.5/10.

Review Roundup – December 2024

Posted on December 5, 2024December 5, 2024 by fenrisfil

It’s been a while since I did a review roundup. But I’m back with three movies from this year to check out. These are basically family/kids movies. Seems appropriate for the holiday. All three of these movies will entertain kids and may entertain adults too. First up we have that other Ryan Reynolds movie that came out this year “IF”, then we have the first Transformers animated movie since the 80’s with “Transformers One” and finally I have “The Wild Robot”, you won’t want to miss that one I promise.

If

First up is the imaginary friend comedy “If”, also known as the other movie with Ryan Reynolds that came out this year. This is the latest release from Writer/Director John Krasinkski, so I’m not the only one switching from horror to family movies. Krasinki of course was the man behind the “Quiet Place” franchise. While Quiet Place had a relatively small cast, this one is exploding with named talent including Reynolds, Louis Gossett jr., Steve Carell, Emily Blunt, Blake Lively, Matt Damon and others. The leads though are Reynolds and Cailey Fleming as young Bea, the films protagonist.

12 Year old Bea moves into her grandmother Margaret’s apartment in New York while her father waits for heart surgery in the same hospital where her mother died of cancer years earlier. Naturally she is worried, but her father uses humour to try and raise her spirits. On her way home one day she spots a strange creature and follows it to another apartment in the same block. She discovers a whole load of strange creatures and a strange man that lives there called “Cal” (Reynolds). Bea learns these are imaginary friends that have been shed by their child and that Cal is trying to find them all new children to attach to. Bea as someone able to see all of them is the perfect person to help.

Then

This is a visually imaginative and interesting movie. Each imaginary friend is distinct and unique and their world is weird and wonderful. Unfortunately, most of this was shown in the trailer and the movie itself adds almost nothing. If you have seen the trailer, you have seen pretty much all the characters. Each basically comes with a joke and so you’ve seen that too. They are all painfully one dimensional and frankly so are most of the human characters in this story. That said, it does have heart and maybe that is enough for some people.

The plot though is paper thin and none of the characters (Even the usually charming Reynolds) bring much vitality to the story. The story features a twist at the end that everyone will have predicted by the time it is revealed. That isn’t a deal breaker though, not all twists fail just because you guessed them. That said, this movie is more interesting for the vast list of actors that Krasinski convinced to do voice cameos than for the story itself. You won’t even be aware of many of cameos until you see the credits. But it’s still impressive, as is Krasinski’s imagination. But imagination alone doesn’t create a good movie

Ultimately this is a kids movie. As such it may entertain young children on the strength of the visuals alone. It is heartwarming in places, but offers very little in the way of memorable humour or compelling storytelling. . This is a 5.5/10, recommended only if you have kids and want a heartwarming, visually interesting movie. Everyone else should probably just skip it.

Transformers One

Next up is the new Transformers animated movie. The first such release since the original Transformers movie from 1984. While that film was a huge success, this one didn’t do well in the box office. It did however garner good reactions from those that went to see it. I was always going to be a lot harder to please however, since I grew up in the golden age of Transformers and am very much a G1 Purist. I had all the comics, a huge amount of the toys and of course watched the cartoon. This film however is technically in the Michael Bay continuity and that’s already a mark against it. This time around they’ve drafted in a formidable voice acting cast including “The Avengers” Chris Hemsworth and Scarlett Johansson.

Set an undisclosed amount of time before the Michael Bay transformers movie, the story depicts the origin story of Optimus Prime, Megatron and many others. In this world Cybertronians are forced to live beneath the surface of their planet and mine for Energon. Supposedly because the Matrix of Leadership has been lost and without that the energon seas have all dried up. The alleged loss happened during a battle with the Quintessons, where all but one of the “Primes”, the most powerful cybertronians were slain. Two friends and lowly miners without transformation cogs Orion Pax and D-16 stumble upon the truth behind the story and their fates and the rest of Cyberton’s are forever changed. But while their stories began on the same path they will diverge radically and the friends will become the bitter enemies Optimus Prime and Megatron.

Teenformers

This is very much Transformers for teenagers. Some reviews are suggesting the characters are deeper and more nuanced than ever, but that is nonsense. These characters are generic MCU type characters. Ironic, considering the voice cast. Every male character starts as goofy comic relief with the exception of Alpha Trion. The only reason he isn’t goofy is because he’s the wise old mentor and exposition guy. By contrast all two female characters (Always a minority in this franchise) are overly serious and efficient. This is almost exactly the same set of characters as we saw in the D&D movie and any number of other action based films since the rise of the MCU. It’s a cliche, We really need a lot more variety with movie characters in action/adventure type stories. Especially when it comes to the women as this archetype has literally no charm.

Now one odd thing with the goofy characters is this makes the film a comedy and yet I don’t think the Michael Bay movies were meant to be comedies. Sure they had humour to them, but for the most part they were serious. But that’s not the only reason they don’t fit together. There’s also a second origin story for the Decepticon insignia. I don’t get the obsession with making a Transformer with the insignia for their face but this franchise has now done it twice. First with “The Fallen” and now with “Megatronus Prime”, which is bad twice over. Not only is it explaining something that didn’t need to be explained (Twice!), it means Megatron was just a fanboy for Megatronus Prime. It wasn’t even his name. Definite negative for me.

‘Till All Are One

Despite those negatives, the movie is amusing in places and the action is solid. The voice acting is fine, but really didn’t need the big name actors. The movie probably would have cost a lot less had they just stuck with the same voices that have been playing these characters for decades. The Megatron turn is not out of the blue but it’s not as nuanced as reviews would have you believe. He’s just angry. That’s it. Angry. It works better as an Optimus Prime origin, but not by much. The biggest positive is it does look good visually. I especially liked the Quintessons brief appearance. All told, it was entertaining but it’s not great. 5.5/10. Worth it if you are already a Transformers fan. If not, it won’t win you over.

The Wild Robot

The final movie of this family friendly round up is a “The Wild Robot”, from Chris Sanders and Dreamworks. Sanders previously gave us “Lilo and Stitch” and “How To Train Your Dragon”, so it’s reasonable to have high expectations for this one. The voice cast here is headed up by Lupita Nyong’o, Pedro Pascal (Because it’s mandated by Hollywood that he must be in everything), and relative newcomer Kit Connor. The rest of the voice cast is full of recognizable names. Too many to list, but you’ll likely recognize a lot of the voices. The movie is based on the children’s novel of the same name by Peter Brown.

When a storm causes a Universal Dynamics cargo ship to lose five ROZZUM robot, one unit “7134” finds itself washed ashore of a remote island inhabited by a variety of wildlife. Following her build in directive she sets out to find how she can assist someone. To do so she has to learn their languages, but even then they react with hostility so she decides to return to her factory. After accidentally destroying a bird nest she discovers an egg and decides her task is to protect the egg. When the egg hatches she intends to return to the factory, but is convinced to raise the hatching until it can migrate. Of course things won’t be that simple. She is at least assisted by a Fox, in it for the luxury afforded by befriending a robot helper.

Mother Nature

This is a surprisingly good movie. In some ways it reminds me of Wall-E but this time with anthropomorphic animals. But these animals are only able to talk because Roz learned their languages. It’s obviously a leap to expect the animals to suddenly have human personalities because the robot now can communicate with them. That doesn’t really matter though, it’s still a clever way of reaching the main setup of the movie. But while a robot talking to animals may sounds like childish, it’s worth noting that the cycle of nature of very much at the forefront of this story. Quite a few of the jokes are actually about the reality of predators, prey and the chances of surviving as a wild animal. Playing these for laughs is actually very effective, because it tends to catch you by surprise. But it’s also fundamental to what the story becomes as Roz effectively learns to be a mother.

The Wild Robot has a great flow to it. The funny moments and the emotional ones are well balanced and the occasional action scene maintains a pace. The movie basically keeps you interested the whole way through. While the story has a primary three characters, it gives you just enough personality with the supporting animals and robots for them to feel like genuine, interesting characters. The truth is they are all at their core very simple. Their motivations and personality are somewhat one dimension because they are animals and robots, so of course they are. But the voice acting is able to raise this to a level where they still feel genuine and you actually care about them. The praise for that must be shared between the writers, animators and voice cast.

Conclusion

I delayed watching this movie because frankly I’m bored with Pedro Pascal being in everything. Lupita Nyong’o meanwhile, I was aware of but, largely indifferent to. Her roles in Marvel and Star Wars movies never really gave her a chance to shine. I have to admit though, both did a tremendous job with the voice acting here. Kit Connor I didn’t know at all, but he impressed me too . The animation is top notch as well, but then this is Dreamworks and they tend to put out quality looking features. There’s not really any weak links that I could find.

But while the cast and animation are solid, it is the story that makes the film work. The most important thing is it has heart and is also very funny. It will entertain the kids, it will entertain the adults and some may shed a tear or two along the way. Dreamworks have outdone themselves here. I’ve got to give it a 7.5/10. Highly recommended. So that’s it for the wrap up, two situational recommendations and one must see. Not bad. See you next time!

Review Roundup – Film Noir

Posted on December 1, 2024December 1, 2024 by fenrisfil

November is over, but I have three more Film Noirs I watched this month to review. That means you get another triple bill review round up! These reviews don’t get as many views as the horrors or recent releases, but that’s not why I do them. I do them because Film Noir is great and I want more people to watch it! Some of the best film makers of the last 40 years were influenced by these movies. That influence is starting to wane and it shows in the movies being released. Another factor is a lot of people just won’t watch black and white movies. This is a shame because some of the best films ever made were black and white.

So for your consideration, I give you the movies “Slightly Scarlet” from 1956, “The Fallen Sparrow” from 1943 and “Murder By Contract” from 1958. This is an interesting mix. We have a Film Noir actually in colour and we have a movie shot in 7 days. We have spies, we have assassins, and we have kleptomaniacs. These all score a 6 or above so are all recommendations. But you’ll likely notice I rarely score a Noir lower than 6. There are bad ones of course, but time has not been kind to those, so chances are if I’m watching it, it is at least above average.

Slightly Scarlet (1956)

This is one of the very few film noir from the fifties that is actually in colour. That makes it somewhat debatable as a Film Noir but all the other elements are here. The title refers to the two redhead sisters the plot revolves around and so you can see why they opted for colour. The film stars John Payne, Rhonda Fleming and Arlene Dahl with support from Kent Taylor and Ted de Corsia. Experienced director Allan Dwan takes the directing chair and has the benefit of the legendary John Alton for cinematography. Alton’s impeccable eye helps make the movie still work within the genre, despite not being black and white. The screenplay is by Robert Blees based on the novel “Love’s Lovely Counterfeit” by James M. Cain.

The movie revolves around the manipulative and ambitious Ben Grace (Payne) and his attempts to manipulate his way to the top of the mob. His plan involves seeing off current boss Solly Casper (de Corsia), controlling the mayor and installing his friend as chief of police. To achieve these ends he must gain influence over mayoral candidate Frank Jansen (Taylor). To do that he targets Jansen’s girlfriend and secretary June Lyons (Fleming). His leverage there comes in the form of June’s troubled sister Dorothy (Dahl), recently released from prison for a spate of shop lifting offenses. Things go to plan up until a point, but the somewhat unhinged Dorothy can’t but avoid to throw a spanner into the works. The house of cards may then very well fall down.

Seeing Red

It is strange watching a 50’s noir in colour and outside of actually seeing the ladies red hair I’m not sure there was any benefit to it. However, Alton does make it work and there is plenty of his trademark painting with light and shadows. Plus the two ladies do look rather good. It mostly works visually. Thematically it is very much a noir though, with the ambitious schemes of a morally questionable man working towards his own undoing. Dorothy isn’t exactly a femme fatale, instead she has more in common with Carmen Sternwood from The Big Sleep. Basically, a headcase that causes trouble for everybody else. June on the other hand is the “Good girl”, though in my view is a bit too easy to be manipulated by Ben.

The story works relatively well. Ben gains some semblance of a conscience by the end and matters resolve pretty much how you would expect. The big problem with this though is none of the characters are really that likable. This is a common problem with modern movies, but in this era you could usually find some degree of charm. June comes close, but I never felt that invested. The performances from the cast are decent, especially from Payne, but nothing really elevates the movie. Ultimately this is a fairly average noir that just happens to be in colour. Fortunately, average for a noir is still worth watching so this is a 6/10.

The Fallen Sparrow (1943)

Our second movie takes us back to the early days of Film Noir, before the end of World War 2. The war was very much on the minds of those making movies in those days (Especially with so many in Hollywood in those days being Jewish immigrants that fled Nazi persecution). So it’s no shock to hear spy movies were quite popular in the early forties. Film Noir would tend to have it’s own spin on spy stories and this is no exception. “The Fallen Sparrow” is director Richard Wallace from a screenplay by Warren Duff. This is based on the novel by the same name by Dorothy B. Hughes (Writer of “Ride The Pink Horse” and “In a Lonely Place”). Roy Webb provides the score and was nominated for an Oscar for doing so. Nicholas Musuraca provides cinematography.

The movie stars John Garfield, Maureen O’Hara and Walter Slezak. Garfield plays Spanish civil war veteran John McKittrick, returning from a period of rehab to his hometown to investigate the murder of his friend. McKittrick was imprisoned in Spain for two years and was tortured constantly but never revealed his secrets. The source of a lot of that trauma is the sound he would hear of a man with a limp, whom he never saw but was certain was his chief tormentor. Now it seems the death of his friend may be tied to the machinations of his former captors and the secret which McKittrick still holds. It seems it is time to confront his chief tormentor… If he can figure out who that is.

Drip Drip Drip

This is more of a psychological movie than a straight spy movie. Indeed the actual spy elements are somewhat disappointing. The big secret is ultimately not really important, what is important is McKittrick’s suffering while a captive and the trauma he has been forced to carry with him. This is really his story of overcoming trauma and facing those that traumatized him. This is him regaining his humanity and his masculinity. For the story to work from this angle the weight is on the shoulders of Garfield, Wallace, Webb and Musuraca. Garfield was one of the most underrated actors in the history of Hollywood and he really does sell the trauma well. Wallace, Webb and Musuraca meanwhile provide a tapestry of nightmares woven out of the reality surrounding McKittrick. Every drop of water, every footstep and every shadow seems to conspire to remind the war veteran of his trauma.

The movies weakness is in the plot. There is a bit of a muddle of characters and distractions that fluff up a very straight forward plot. The villain of the story effectively reveals himself at the start and you never really doubt where this is going, yet the film still wants you to think it is a mystery. At some points you find yourself questioning how much is in McKittrick’s head and yet that is quickly dismissed by events going on around him. The muddled plot is balanced out by how good the rest of it is landing this movie as a somewhat above average Noir. This is a 6.5/10.

Murder By Contract (1958)

For the final movie of my Noirvember Reviews, I’m covering Irving Lerner 1958 Film Noir “Murder By Contract”. I saved the best for last. This is a film with a bit of a reputation, largely thanks to Martin Scorsese citing it as perhaps his largest influence. Ben Simcoe provides the screenplay and apparently Ben Maddow had an uncredited hand in it too. Lucien Ballard provides cinematography and Perry Botkin the score. Vince Edwards stars as “Claude” the hitman, Herschel Bernardi and Phillip Pine provide the main support as his minders “George” and “Marc”. The movie was shot in just over just seven days.

Claude is a cool, yet peculiar young man with a single ambition, to buy a beach house. But he wants to achieve this in an unusual way. He wants to be a contract killer and he is cool as a cucumber about it. He has an in with a local crime boss and makes the most out of his opportunity. Eventually becoming a highly sort after hitman. When the opportunity comes up to make $5000 on one hit he jumps at it, but the job has one complication: The target is a woman. Claude doesn’t do hits on women, not for any kind of moral code though as Claude doesn’t have one of those. He just finds them too unpredictable; Women always mean trouble. This one turns out to be particularly difficult to kill.

Women Are Always Trouble

From the opening scene you know you are on to something here. A nice bit of guitar music (Reminds me a bit of “The Third Man”) accompanies a simple scene of Claude getting ready for for his big interview with the crime boss. We get a similar scene shortly after as he waits for the call for his first jobs. These are nice sections and we haven’t even started the plot yet. Actually that is one of the films trademarks, it doesn’t rush to get to any part of the plot. Instead it allows you to spend time to enjoy the characters. specifically Claude with his relaxed charm and occasional intense monologues, but also his constantly frustrated handlers, George and Marc. A good portion of the film is just the three of them hanging out. It helps the dialogue is very good. The scenes manage to be amusing and compelling.

All the characters are a little quirky, but not unbelievably so and it makes the basic interactions strangely compelling. While Scorsese may have claimed this has his biggest influence I would put money on this being a favourite of the Cohen Brothers too and perhaps It’s not just the characters though, the movie has good cinematography throughout. Most of it is actually shot in the day, but there’s a few of the trademark noir shadows. Really the visuals are particularly impressive with the short run time. The movie is sort of bare bones, but everything important is there. The back and forth with the attempts at assassination and the final moments where Claude accidentally remembers he is human are all compelling story telling and very Film Noir.

Conclusion

This is an impressive Film Noir. Not just because it is good, but because it achieves a lot with a little. Most of the action happens off screen and is implied with sound effects. The music is sparse but effective (There’s pretty much just two guitar tunes and a lot of silence) and there’s more dialogue than action. But it works. If the movie has a flaw it is in the swiftness of it’s ending, but considering the Hays codes requirements on stories about criminals, it was to be expected. They made the most out of the ending and it does work for the character. Claude ends up one of the most interesting characters from Film Noir and this is one of the genres better films. I am giving this an 8/10.

Really, I should have done this as a separate review given the score, but November is already over and I had three reviews to get out, so it’ll have to make do in a triple bill. That’s it for this years Film Noir wind down from the madness of the October Challenge. December will be fairly quiet on the review front, but I will have at least one roundup and the year in review to give you. Until then, I hope you enjoyed these reviews. My hope is that I can encourage people that may not normally watch old movies to give some of these Noirs a chance.

Saturday Night (2024)

Posted on November 26, 2024November 26, 2024 by fenrisfil

This is a Docudrama retelling of the hours leading up to the debut of the comedy series Saturday Night Live. This is a show due to hit it’s 50th anniversary next year and has become an established path for comedians to break into the movie industry. Less so in recent years, where frankly it’s reputation has hit rock bottom. It’s worth noting SNL was meant to be a counter culture show, much like “The Simpsons”. But success and longevity tends to turn such shows into the very thing they were meant to culture in the first place. But the list of stars made on that stage in it’s first three decades is long and impressive: John Belushi, Chevy Chase, Bill Murray, Dan Akroyd, Eddie Murphy, Mike Myers, Chris Rock, Adam Sandler, Will Ferrell and Tina Fey to name but ten.

In the UK, we never really got to see the show. It’s only thanks to the internet that I’ve been able to watch some of the most famous sketches retrospectively. I never have watched a full show though. This isn’t unusual for people outside the US, but we all know the movies that those listed above went on to star in. Especially true for those first few. The Blues Brothers, Beverly Hill’s Cop and Ghostbusters are legendary movies. Everyone knows them. So I was definitely curious about this movie. However, I’m not going to have the same affection for a show I never actually watched. The movie is directed by Jason Reitman and stars Gabriel LaBelle as Lorne Michaels, the mind behind the show. He’s joined by a vast ensemble cast, reflecting the real life characters that made the show happen.

Everybody Who is Anybody

Since most of the characters in this story are very well known celebrities the obvious question is how well do the actors nail them? Broadly speaking, I would say very well, at least the characters I actually know (About 75%). Nicholas Braun did double duty playing both Jim Henson and Andy Kaufman. Neither had a lot of screen time, but he nailed both. He could maybe even give Jim Carey a run for his money on Kaufman. Matthew Rhys briefly played George Carlin and felt pretty accurate. The big ones though were Cory Michael Smith as Chevy Chase, Dylan O’Brien as Dan Akroyd and Matt Wood as John Belushi. These were all spot on. Belushi seemed wild and Chase and Akroyd delivered lines exactly like they would in real life. From what I know of their personalities, I feel they nailed that too.

This is a mostly factual account of events. They have squeezed several events that may have happened but not in the run up to the first night into the story. A few events such as Milton Berle getting his dick out didn’t happen at Saturday Night Live. However, he was well known for showing off his meat, so it’s not a total fabrication. That said, this is a frantic movie packed with well known actors, famous characters and crazy events and frankly a lot of it could have been trimmed. Most notably the Berle stuff (Even with J.K Simmons in the role). Possibly a reason why it is there is because he’s considered the worst host the show ever had, so maybe it makes sense to actual fans of the show. The density of the cast also sometimes means it’s not always clear who is who. Indeed I probably missed a few cameos along the way.

Curtains Up

The most important question is of course, is it actually fun. Yes, for sure. It’s not really a film I can see having much replay value though. That’s probably due to the fast pace. The character moments didn’t really land for me and the stakes were a little redundant since I think most people figured the show would make it to air (You know, given the near 50 year run it’s had). So it’s not especially emotional or edge of the seat, but it is fascinating and amusing. I think most people will enjoy it regardless of if you know Saturday Night Live or not. I suspect if you do though, you will get more out of it. Conversely if you are too young to really care about 80’s and 90’s comedy films or know the comedians involved, this may not be for you. For me it just about hit 6.5/10 and largely on the strength of how convincing the impersonations were.

Gladiator II (2024)

Posted on November 21, 2024November 21, 2024 by fenrisfil

Somewhere near the top of the list of sequels I never expected to see is Gladiator II. But Ridley Scott making a return to the Roman Colosseum was also something I wasn’t going to miss, so here we are. The unexpected sequel see’s Scott return as director but this time around the story is by Peter Craig and David Scarpa instead of David Franzoni. Since most of the characters from the original (And sadly two of the actors) are dead, the only returning ones are Connie Nielsen as “Lucilla” and Derek Jocobi as “Senator Gracchus”. They are joined by Paul Mescal as “Lucius/The Barbarian”, Denzel Washington as “Macrinus”, and Pedro Pascal as “Marcus Acadius”. Dual Emperors Geta and Caracalla are played by Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger respectively. John Mathieson returns to cinematography duties. Hanz Zimmer however is replaced by regular Scott colaborator Harry Gregson-Williams for the soundtrack.

Set sixteen years after the events of the original, the movie starts with the roman siege of Numidia and the capture of Roman refugee Lucius Verus (Living under the name “Hanno”). Lucius is enslaved and brought to Rome to be a Gladiator. Sensing something in him he can use to further his ambitions the stablemaster, Macinius promises him revenge against the general that took his city and killed his wife. Things are more complicated than they seem though. That general, Aracius, is actually a good man and married to Lucius’ mother Lucilla. Lucius is actually the heir to Rome and was sent away to protect him when he was a child. Sensing an opportunity, Macrinus tries to manipulate all the sides against each other in an attempt to seize power from the dual Emperors Geta and Carcalla.

The Gates Of Hell Are Open Night And Day

One of the things that made Gladiator so compelling was that it was actually a pretty straight forward yet compelling plot driven by superb ground breaking action and incredible performances from top tier actors, many of which were at their peak (Notable Russel Crowe). It wasn’t a perfect movie, but issues of historical inaccuracies felt unimportant next to such a triumphant performance. This was all wrapped up in one of the best movie soundtracks of all time. So we knew when they announced the sequel there were some pretty big boots to fill. Sequels rarely ever live totally up to the original, though the audiences are wise enough not to expect them to. But it is impossible not to draw comparisons especially given the trend of sequels to constantly reference the originals. This is even more of an issue for those late sequels released decades after the original.

Overcoming that comparison is where this movie fails. As I mentioned, the original had a straight forward plot. A great wrong was done to Maximus. He was betrayed and the rest of the movie is his journey towards righteous vengeance. The story for Gladiator II seems set up to be both a parallel and a subversion of this story. It’s not a bad plot, but it is far more complicated than Gladiator and this reduces the emotional impact of the story. It is a story that would be better suited to a TV series than a film. On top of this, frankly the acting is nowhere near as good. Again, it’s not actually bad and Denzel steals the show, but he had no real competition. The original had Richard Harris, Oliver Reed, Joaquin Phoenix and Russel Crowe all weaving gold. Here Denzel is largely propping the rest of the cast up.

Smooth The Descent

Gladiator 2 has another issue. Creating a story that makes sense as a follow up to one where protagonist and antagonist both died. They just about succeed. Some consider there to be a few too many callbacks, but it makes sense in context and to justify it as a sequel. Scott has taken a lot of liberties with history here, but then he did with the first film too. The story utilizes historical facts and characters, but twists them to fit his tale. It mostly works at least as an alternative history. The movie steals much of the music from the soundtrack of the original too, but this is a positive. The score for the original is famous and memorable. Referencing such music instantly evokes an emotion response. It is a reference that works and doesn’t get in the way of storytelling. Instead it enhances it.

What I can say about the plot is that it is very Roman! Remember all that political maneuvering and backstabbing from Game of Thrones? The Romans invented that. So while I do consider the plot overly complicated for an emotional character driven action fantasy, it entirely fits a story set in Rome. The characters are a bit more of a let down. Outside of the protagonist none of the Gladiators really feel like full characters. The same goes for the Roman senate and the military. Instead the film effectively hyper focuses on three characters: Lucius, Lucilla and Macrinus. Everyone else around them are pretty much just extras including the duel Emperors Geta and Caracalla and Pablo Pascal’s Marcus Acacius. None of them offer anything that memorable in their performance. Pascal seems to be trying, but the audience isn’t really given any reason to care about his character.

Easy Is The Way

Last but not least, let’s talk action. This was a key aspect of the original and it was always going to be vital here too. In this instance the movie doesn’t really make you feel the stakes as strongly, but the spectacle is certainly there. Of all the movies aspects this comes closest to the quality of the original. The only problem is this is 24 years later and we’ve seen a lot of spectacle since then. Indeed just recently the TV series “Those About To Die” had the Colosseum filled with water. The set piece in that series was a simple execution and not a battle, but it does make the spectacle feel less ground breaking. Still, I was happy with the quality of the action and the effects. It was as good as I hoped.

So on to the verdict then. Ultimately this is a good film, but it’s not a classic like the original. If it was a stand alone movie it wouldn’t make my physical media collection but as a sequel it is just about good enough for a double bill. While the story is a little over complicated and the acting and characters a little under whelming, I was reasonably gripped for the duration (Two and a half hours, about the same as the first film). Denzel Washington does a good job of propping everyone else up and is the glue that keeps this warship sailing. It all just about works. It just doesn’t excel. So I’m giving this a firm 6.5/10.

Human Desire (1954)

Posted on November 19, 2024November 19, 2024 by fenrisfil

I review a lot less film noir in November than I do horror in October so I have far fewer traditions to revisit. One I do seem to have managed is to squeeze in a movie by one of my favourite directors, Fritz Lang. So this year I’m checking out Lang’s subversive 1954 noir “Human Desire”. The movie brings back together Glenn Ford and Gloria Grahame from Lang’s “The Big Heat” (1953), one of my personal favourites. The cast is filled out with support from Broderick Crawford and Peggy Maley. The script is from Alfred Hayes (Not the WWF interviewer from the 80’s) and based (loosely) on the novel “La Bête humaine” by Émile Zola. Burnett Guffey provides cinematography.

Jeff Warren (Ford), a Korean War veteran has just returned home and resumed his old job as a train engineer driving streamliners. While on a train travelling to Chicago he comes across Vicki (Grahame) in a state over something and spends some time with her. The pair obviously have chemistry, however later he finds out she is married to a work colleague Carl (Crawford). There is more to it though, since Carl just murdered someone on that train out of jealousy. Vicki was sent to distract Jeff so Carl could slip past him unnoticed. Jeff starts to see Vicki regularly and becomes infatuated with her, spurning the advances of the far more wholesome Jean (Maley). Vicki meanwhile sees Jeff as as her opportunity to get away from her abusive husband or rather do away with him….

Deceiver’s Descent

The combination of Lang/Ford/Grahame is one guaranteed to bring edginess and intensity to any movie. It worked superbly in The Big Heat, but this is a very different kind of story. The great thing with combo is it feels explosive, like anything can happen at any moment. Where Hitchcock can be subtle, Lang is persistent and aggressive. Ford meanwhile is one of the most intense performers of his day (Or any day) and Grahame’s is great at not just intense but also unhinged. If “Harley Quinn” was even a thing in the 50’s, she would have fit the role perfectly. All this gives the film a great deal more impact than the fairly bland story itself could hope for.

This could be seen as a subversion of the traditional noir femme fatale but not in the way it first seems. Although Vicki is ultimately unable to corrupt Jeff and bend him to her will, that’s not really the story here. Ford’s character is able to walk away from the usual film noir spiral of self destruction, but Vicki is not. The truth is the subversion is that Vicki is the real protagonist. This is her story and like most noir protagonists it is the story of her bringing about her own undoing. The movie also has a sub plot involving good gal Jean and her crush on Jeff, but this side is far less interesting than trying to figure Vicki out.

Everyone Has A Dark Side

Despite all this talk of intensity it’s worth noting that Human Desire is actually a heavily toned down adaptation of “La Bête humaine”. In the novel (Spoilers!), pretty much everyone is a murderer and pretty much everyone ends up dying. A more accurate version would have had Jeff as a psychopath rapist and even sweet innocent Jean turning into a mass murderer by orchestrating a train disaster. It’s safe to say the Hay’s code wouldn’t have any of that. So instead Jeff and Jean and basically good. Vicki on the other hand is probably more innocent in the novel. These changes are dramatic, but it is a very loose adaptation and it does work better than a more direct approach probably would have.

Story aside, the film features great cinematography showing off the railroad in the 1950’s. This makes the movie a bit of a time capsule allowing us to glance into days gone. It should be mentioned none of this really adds much to the movie and with the rail disaster removed from the story the trains only really factor in to the story as the location of the initial murder. Still, there is nothing wrong with a scenic backdrop. Overall, this is a fairly straight forward noir ont he surface with a few surprises up it’s sleeves and great performances from the two leads, especially Grahme. Not one of Lang’s best, but a very solid outing none the less. This is a solid 6.5/10. If you like Lang or either of the leads, you’ll enjoy it.

Alien: Romulus (2024)

Posted on November 5, 2024November 5, 2024 by fenrisfil

October may be over, but I have one more horror review for you before I move on to other things. This one comes a little late, but unlike others I wasn’t overly enthusiastic about this movie. I’m talking of course about the latest addition to the Alien franchise “Alien Romulus”. The trailers had some cool visuals but I had my doubts that this would be anything but a less good version of Aliens, updated with a few modern cliches. The movie is from director Fede Alvarez and written by Alvarez and Rodo Sayagues. It stars Cailee Spaeny and David Johnson with support from Isabela Merced,

Aliens: Romulus is set between the first two Alien films, which is a little strange on the surface but does fit with the trend of going back to the original movie in these franchises. What is unusual here is it’s not a retcon sequel, everything else is still canon. The story follows colonist Rain Carradine and her friends as they attempt to escape their apparent indentured servitude to the Weyland-Yatani company at a mining colony. To do this their plan is to break into an abandoned space station that is orbiting the planet and steal the left pods so they can utilize their cryo sleep capsules and reach another colony. Unfortunately for them the space station was abandoned for good reason as this outpost has been used to experiment on the infamous Xenomorphs.

In Space No One Can Hear Your Callbacks

I predicted what this film was going to be back when it was first announced. That is basically the same as “Prey” (2022) but for the Alien franchise. A watered down less good version of the movies that worked with endless references from those better movies put in simply for the sake of it. Not a bad movie as such. but it’s like watching a tribute band perform the greatest hits of your favourite artist. The music is good, but given the choice I’d always rather watch the real thing. That’s the difference between tribute bands and this kind of safe overly meta sequel movie, you can’t always see your favourite band. You can however always see your favourite movie. So movies like Prey and Romulus are things you watch once and then go back to only re-watching the first two movies as you have been for decades.

What I didn’t realize was just how much of a greatest hits Romulus would be. It doesn’t just reference the first two movies, it throws callbacks to the more divisive ones. When it does reference the first two movies it lays it on so thick it takes you out of it. This is the very definition of “‘Member Berries”. It is not “Nostalgia done right”, these things are shoehorned in. Actually the elements from the divisive movies are actually done better than the ones from Alien/Aliens, because they do service the plot. This is not a movie created to do something new or interesting with the franchise, it is one designed to get bums on seats in the theatre with little care for if anyone will remember the movie in five years time.

Alien Queens Greatest Hits Vol 2

Nostalgia bait is one thing. But what about the movie in it’s own right? Well, on the positive the music and the sound design are fantastic. I really did enjoy both those elements. Indeed the only callbacks to older movies I liked were the musical ones. Visually the film is mostly good. I say mostly because there is one bit of horrendous CGI. Naturally, this is tied to the pointless nostalgia call backs. The characters inclusion is itself a dumb and lazy plot element but the CGI just makes it embarrassing. Unfortunately, the character is in the film throughout. One of the worst callbacks to past movies includes a particular type of Alien. While the concept is still bad, I think this version looks marginally better.

The characters are a strong weakness for this movie too. Indeed these are just the dregs from an overly dystopian colony that is typical of the unimaginative modern view of the future. In Alien and Aliens while the company had nefarious goals, there was no indication that this film was set in a dystopian future. The crew of the Nostromo were just blue collar working Joes/Janes. They weren’t oppressed, they just weren’t pampered. Romulus though launches us instantly to a universe where the company effectively has slaves, who have no control over their destiny. The Company meanwhile have moved on from nefarious to full mustache twirling villainy. That makes the universe no longer feel real. The characters themselves have no real background to pull from and so feel generic outside of Andy the android and he’s not that much better.

Conclusion

Ultimately this is a movie that does nothing for the franchise. It is pretty, it is loud. Indeed one may say it is full of sound and fury yet ultimately signifying nothing. It has an extreme deficit of creativity and relies on nostalgia and callbacks. I originally thought this would be like Prey, but in many ways it’s more like “Terminator: Dark Fate”. It’s nowhere near as bad, nor does it remove the older films from canon. It does however repeat the same mistakes from those movies that derailed the franchise previously. That said, I did enjoy Romulus more than Prey (Or Dark Fate). That is mostly due to the visuals, sound design and music. It’s not a strong entry in the franchise, but it makes a reasonable popcorn movie. This is a 5.5/10.

1980’s Horror Triple Bill

Posted on October 31, 2024October 31, 2024 by fenrisfil

That’s right, It’s the final night of my October Review Challenge. That means it’s Halloween and *that* means it’s triple bill time. As you can probably guess, I watch the movies I review in October the day before I post (Sometimes earlier). So what I do on Halloween is sit back and enjoy three old classics without the pressure of having to review them. But this year, I’m sharing the fun somewhat by offering you a triple bill of reviews as well. That takes this years review challenge up to 35 movies reviewed. A new record (For me anyway). Anyway, tonight I’ve got a mixed bag of 80’s horror for you. Ouija boards, rats and very small demons. Let’s get to it!

Of Unknown Origin (1983)

Rats. They are creepy, territorial and hard to get rid of. Some are harmless pets, but even those creep the hell out of a lot of people. Naturally rats have always found their way into the horror genre. Tonight’s movie is the rat horror “Of Unknown Origin” from 1983. This is based on the 1979 novel “The Visitor” by Chauncey G. Parker III. The movie is directed by George P. Cosmatos and stars Peter Weller (Of Robocop fame). Cosmatos would go on to direct such smash hits as “Rambo” and “Tombstone”. His horror CV isn’t quite as impressive but “Leviathan” and “Cobra” do have their fans (Including myself for the latter). Brian Taggert provides the screenplay, René Verzier the cinematography and Kenneth Wannberg composed the soundtrack.

The movie focuses on Bart Hughes (Weller), an investment banker. Bart has just moved into a recently renovated house in New York City. His wife and daughter are due to go on Holiday, with Bart staying at home to finish work on a major project he thinks will earn him a promotion. Not long after, a flood in the flat reveals the presence of a rat somewhere in the house and Bart sets about trying to kill it. This turns out to be easier said than done, with the vicious beast not falling for his tricks and turning his life into a living hell.

Captain Ahab

At one point in the story Bart throws the book he is reading at the ceiling out of anger at the noises he is hearing from the invading rat. We get a clear shot of what he is reading and it is of course Moby Dick. This is basically all you need to know about the movies subtext. This is one man’s obsession to prove he can eliminate his nemesis. The rat doesn’t quite turn out to be his undoing though I’m sure he probably didn’t earn his promotion at work after all that.

The rat itself doesn’t look particularly good, but the movie compensates by being clever with what it shows and when.The result is we actually get some pretty disturbing visuals with glimpses of the rats teeth or eyes or a tail disappearing behind objects. It’s certainly creepy. Most often though you don’t see anything, you just hear noises. The weight of convincing the audience to buy into this movie is entirely on Peter Weller’s head. It is his performance that is the driving force behind the movie and he doesn’t let us down.

You Dirty Rat

Your millage may vary with this horror. When the focus is something like rats, obviously how you feel about those animals is going to impact if you find the film scary or even just end up sympathizing with the rat. However, I think everyone can appreciate the fear of an unseen monster running around their home and appreciate Weller’s performance. The downside is that there just isn’t anything more to the plot. Once you get the Moby Dick reference it’s basically just man vs beast to the end. Man wins, but at a cost. Because of that I can’t really give this more than a strong 5.5/10.

Ghoulies II (1987)

For the second entry in our triple bill I’m watching the sequel to 1984’s Ghoulies. This one promises to actually focus on the Ghoulies themselves instead of saving them for the final act as in the first movie. This is of course from Charles Band’s Empire Pictures (The precursor to Full Moon Features) and is directed by Charles’ father Albert. The screenplan is from Dennis Paoli and the movie stars Damon Martin, Royal Dano and Phil Fondacaro.

The setting for this sequel is a carnival fun house called “Satan’s Den”, which has found itself home to an infestation of Ghoulies. That is small mischievous psychotic demons. The funhouse is in danger of being shut down by the carnivals accountant/investor. The sudden arrival of the Ghoulies initially turns out a boon for business, but as their antics become more fatal it is down to Larry (Martin), Nigel (Fondacaro) and Nicole (Kerry Remsen) to deal with them.

Ghoulies Go To The Fair

I feel like there has been a definite budget increase between this and the previous movie. Not that it looks expensive, but we do see a lot more of the Ghoulies and they are a lot more mobile than they were in the first movie. That’s good because the creatures effects are pretty cool and their murderous antics are entertaining. One of the Ghoulies actually does get to get someone in the end… Ahem. The death scenes, including those of the Ghoulies are pretty amusing. That’s basically all they are going for here and that’s fine, this is a movie that knows what it is.

The acting quality is about what you expect for a Charles Band horror in the 1980’s. A just about passable lead and weaker performances the further down the cast you get. Nothing that really takes you out of the movie though and that is the important thing. The characters aren’t particularly compelling, but have a bit of charm to them. I love how the Fun House actually has a fully sharpened bladed pendulum as one of the attractions. Not to mention how quickly bits of it explode. Yeah, this carnival probably should have been shut down. I guess it’s part of the fun how little of this movie makes any kind of sense.

They’ll Still Get You In The End

As sequels go this is giving the audience what they want. The main complaint from the first film was the lack of Ghoulies, so this definitely addressed that. However, that film at least had a plot. This is basically just Ghoulies being Ghoulies for an hour and a half. I don’t know why it wasn’t a more direct sequel to be honest. The intro is never explained and serves no purpose. The Ghoulies were already on the loose, so they could have just turned up at the Carnival. Anyway, this is a dumb fun film. Nothing more. Effectively it’s just a B-Movie version of Gremlins (Even more so even than the first one). For the fun factor and creature effects this narrowly hits a 5.5/10. You already know if you want to watch it.

Witchboard (1986)

For the last movie of the 2024 review challenge I’m checking out Ouija board horror Witchboard from 1986. Written and directed by Kevin Tenney in his feature movie debut. Tenney would go on to direct a run of similar low budget horror movies to varying degrees of success. The movie stars Tawny Kitaen, Todd Allen and “Days of Our Lives'” Stephen Nichols.

The movie tells the story of a Linda Brewster (Kitaen) who becomes entranced into using her friend’s Ouija board alone after it was accidentally left behind at her party, resulting in her becoming terrorized by a malevolent spirit. Linda’s boyfriend Jim (Allen) and her ex Brandon (Nichols), whose board it was brings in a psychic medium (Kathleen Wilhoite) to exorcise the spirit. Things take a turn for the sinister when the psychic is murdered on her way home. Before Jim and Brandon can save Linda they have to find out just who the sinister spirit is that is terrorizing her.

Something Stupid This Way Comes

The cast and characters are not especially strong None of them are particularly likable and most of the supporting cast are given over the top personalities that just make them annoying, especially when mixed with below average acting. The worst offender is the medium Zarabeth, whose role is thankfully short. But the police detective is a close second. The leads are only marginally better. Despite that at least there are some interesting character dynamics.. The two male leads being old friends and now part of a love triangle is the most original thing, but It adds some much needed interest because outside of that their personalities suck.

The story on the other hand is actually pretty compelling and original. It is well paced and actually keeps you guessing at least until the final act. The layout of the three acts reminds me a bit of movies like Shocker and The Changeling where each act is virtually it’s own film. The middle act is probably the peak where the story turns into more of an investigation. Sadly the final act turns generic horror, leading to an underwhelming conclusion. There is pretty good use of sound throughout, both music and sound design in general. The visuals are not stunning but have creativity in places. .

Ouija Quit It

Overall this is a pretty average horror with a good story that unfortunately becomes silly at the end. The biggest problem is how annoying the characters are. Some, such as the police detective and the medium didn’t really need to even be in the story. The central three you could get away with providing everything paid off. Specifically, the relationship between the two childhood friends should have played a role in the finale. It didn’t though and the eventual solution was sort of dumb. While the movie is quite original, there’s a few too many flaws with this one to give it more than a 5/10.

That’s A Wrap

Well, that’s it for this years October Challenge! The top five recommendations this year turned out to be Peeping Tom, Blood and Black Lace, A Dark Song, Opera and Crimson Peak. The only clangers (Below 5/10) were The First Omen and The Limehouse Golem. The rest was generally above average. I didn’t get in any Japanese horrors this year, but covered most of my usual traditions. Anyway, I don’t know what the future holds for me or this blog, but if I am back for another round next year I hope you will join me! Don’t forget, I do post reviews and articles throughout the rest of the year too. I’m most prolific in October and more horror focused, but I think you’ll find value to checking screen-wolf out all year round. Anyway…

Happy Halloween!

1950’s Horror Double Bill

Posted on October 30, 2024October 30, 2024 by fenrisfil

Time for another horror double bill. This time we’re hitting the 1950’s for some classic horror science fiction. This was a popular sub genre in the fifties and in truth swayed more to science fiction but usually meant some kind of monster was involved along the way. No exception with this duo. So for your enjoyment I give you “It Came From Outer Space” from 1953 and “Day The World Ended” from 1955.

It Came From Outta Space (1953)

First up is the sci-fi horror classic: “It came from outta space” from 1953. This was originally released as a 3D movie as part of the first wave of that gimmick in the fifties. Indeed this was actually Universals first 3D movie. The movie is directed by Jack Arnold, often regarded one of the masters of sci-fi horror in the 1950’s. His other works include “Creature from the Black Lagoon” (1954), “Tarantula” (1955), and “The Incredible Shrinking Man” (1957). The story comes from prolific science fiction writer Ray Bradbury. It stars Richard Carlson and Barbara Rush, with support from Charles Drake, Joe Sawyer, and Russell Johnson.

A large meteorite crashes near the small town of Sand Rock, Arizona. Author and amateur astronomer John Putnam (Carson) investigates and realizes this is not a meteorite but a crashed space ship. Shortly after a landslide buries the spacecraft and as the only witness John has trouble convincing others to believe him. His girlfriend Ellen is the only one willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and helps him investigate. Over the next few days people start disappearing. Occasionally turning up apparently dazed and distant. Convinced this is something to do with the ship, John convinces the local sheriff (Drake) to assist. The question is, what do these visitors intend? Are they actually a threat?

The Night The Earth Will Never Forget

It’s worth noting this movie predates Invasion of the Body Snatchers, but not the Puppet Masters novel by Robert Heinlein. So at this point a movie where aliens assume the identity of regular people from a small town was a pretty fresh idea. Yet, through the lens of the modern day this could be seen as a subversion of that theme as the Aliens are not doing this as part of an invasion. The 50’s did actually have a fair mixture of benevolent and malevolent aliens. As is typical with the former types there is somewhat of a judgement against humanity on display here. Again, through a modern lens this is a little cliched but in the early 50’s this trope was only just starting to be established.

I’m not sure why this was a 3D movie. It’s not exactly action heavy and is actually quite slow in places. Then again I could probably say that about half the 3D movies that were ever released. While the 3D is wasted, I also don’t find too much horror in this story. The replacement of people doesn’t lead to much in the way of paranoia. The abduction scenes show very little and look dated. Last but not least, the aliens only reveal their true form once and only in a peaceful setting. They did pretty cool though and very unique. Not as good as the “War of the Worlds” aliens from the same year, but that movie had more than double the budget. The science fiction elements have aged far better than the horror ones.

Conclusion

This is a straight forward science fiction story with mild horror elements. It would have been fairly original in it’s time, but feels cliched now. Likewise the alien when it is revealed would have been a lot more impressive 71 years ago. I’m not sure the 3D would have impressed even in the day, but I can only judge that based on the lack of action on screen since I don’t have a 3D version. For the most part this feels like a decent TV movie. There’s not particularly wrong with it, the acting is fine, the directing is fine. But it’s all done without any real flourish to it. Overall this is a perfectly reasonable 5.5/10. Not recommended as a horror, but if you are a fan on old sci-fi it is worth watching.

Day The World Ended (1955)

For the second part of this double bill I’m reviewing the independent sci-fi/horror “Day The World Ended” from 1955. This is a post apocalyptic tale from the godfather of B-Movies, Roger Corman. This was actually his first full horror and his first in science fiction. Before then he’d only directed a couple of westerns and a handful of scenes for “The Beast With A Million Eyes”. The movie was written by Lou Rusoff (Who would later be a producer on another apocalyptic tale “Panic In Year Zero”). Richard Denning stars with support from Lori Nelson, Adele Jergens, Mike Connors and Paul Birch.

Set just after the events of an atomic war. A handful of survivors in an isolated box canyon find themselves cooped up in the home of former U.S. Navy Commander Jim Maddison (Birch) and his daughter Louise (Nelson). The visitors include small time hood Tony (Connors), his moll Ruby (Jergens), heroic geologist Rick (Denning), an irradiated and apparently dying man called Radek (Paul Dubov) and an old gold prospector called Pete (Raymond Hatton). They face three separate struggles for survival, the first against the dangers of radiation and the question of what the coming rain will bring. The second against the dangerous feral mutants that have appeared in this new irradiated world. The final struggle comes from inside and Tony’s plans to eliminate the other men and claim the rations and women for himself.

War Never Changes

I’ve always been a sucker for post apocalyptic fiction. Not only is it one of the great “What If”‘s of fiction, it always provides an excellent character study. Many of these films are effectively versions of the “Strangers in a room” story. These usually feature people sheltering from a storm, but this time the storm is radioactive. Usually these groups of people include at least one villain that drives a lot of the plot and this is no exception. Tony is clearly going to be a huge life threatening problem the whole way through. It’s hard not to see it as a plot hole that they don’t do anything about him until after he’s tried to take over the shelter several times, attempted to rape Louise and obviously killed his own girlfriend.

The rest of the film is focused on more far fetched science fiction elements. This is exactly the kind of 50’s science fiction that the “Fallout” video games took influence from. Indeed Radek, recovery from radiation sickness and how he now thrives on radiation is suspiciously similar to the Fallout concept of “Ghouls”. In this film, much like in the game radiation simply mutates a lot of the animals it makes contact with. The film doesn’t show us anything but sketches of most of these mutations, but the idea is to pave the way for the movies primary monster. The monster looks pretty good, but only turns up at the end and dies shortly after.

Conclusion

This is a somewhat stripped down movie that features a lot of good ideas that struggle to fit in to the run time. Certainly none of them get as fully developed as they deserve. The acting is passable, but at this point in his career Corman didn’t really direct the actors and that shows. The personalities of the characters come across as stereotypical archetypes. The monster looks pretty good for the age and limited budget and Corman certainly made the most of the sets. It’s a pretty impressive debut in the genre, but Roger would certainly do better later in his career. This ties with the other half of this double bill with a 5.5/10. If you like post apocalyptic tales and old sci-fi you will enjoy it.