Dead of Winter is a thriller/horror from “Bonnie and Clyde” director Arthur Penn. It is written by Marc Shmuger and Mark Malone and is a loose remake of the film noir movie “My Name Is Julia Ross“. The movie stars Mary Steenburgen in three roles. Primarily as aspiring actress “Katie McGovern”. Katie has been hired by a “Mr. Murray” (Roddy McDowell) as a last minute replacement for actress Julie Rose, who she is told had a nervous breakdown. Desperate for the work she agrees to go out on location for a screen test.
The pair drive upstate into the midst of a snowstorm and arrive at the secluded home of “Dr. Joseph Lewis” (Jan Rubes). During her stay it starts to become apparent there is more going on than a simple screen test. What manifests is a sinister plot to have Katie replace Julie Rose in more than just a screenplay and with potentially fatal consequences.
Woman In Peril
This is a well contained small cast gothic horror. It is more a psychological thriller really, though there is a little bit of blood. Despite being presented as horror, the film is heavily influenced by “My Name is Julia Ross” (1945) and as a result has a very film noir feel. Those lady-in-peril noirs always had a leaning towards psychological horror. They always had a small cast and focused heavily on the ladies fear. This is old school and that’s not a bad thing. Of course a small cast means the performances matter much more and Mary Steenburgen actually has to play three roles here. Fortunately the twin sisters are small parts, but it makes her job harder and the weight of the film was already on her back. Happily, she does a great job.
I’m less convinced by the rest of the cast though. Roddy McDowall does reasonably enough but it’s not his best performance and often feels on the comedic side, which may be deliberate but I don’t think helps the tone of the film. Jan Rubes as the primary antagonist did nothing for me and was certainly the weak link. The rest of the cast are somewhat average. The plot is actually pretty interesting, though it feels more complex than necessary. Those complexities would be fine if they got explored properly, but they are all just a means to an end. The film does however provide some good visual ideas and moments. The chaotic final act satisfies somewhat but feels a little anti-climactic after the journey to get there.
Conclusion
A reasonable horror thriller that has it’s moments but never really excels. Steenburgen does a great job and the plot has some good ideas, but rarely makes the most of them. The film provides some spectacle and is reasonably paced. Overall the movie just about scrapes out a 6/10. If you are a fan of gothic horror or lady-in-peril film noirs this is a recommend. As a horror though, its probably not worth going out of your way for.
“A Dark Song” is an Irish independent horror from writer/director Liam Gavin. This was Gavin’s feature debut having only worked on shorts previously and is his only movie credit. Mike Flanagan (Netflix’ horror series guru) was obviously impressed enough with his work to bring him on board as a director for his second series “The Haunting of Bly Manor”. The movie stars Catherine Walker and Steve Oram. Walker has clearly caught the attention of Ridley Scott recently as she appears in both “House of Gucci” and “Napoleon”. Oram meanwhile is a prolific bit part time actor with over 100 credits to his name. For an indie movie horror these solid names and the film will need them to be solid since the majority of the movie is just them.
Walker plays “Sophia Howard”, a bereaved mother who has rented an isolated house in rural wales and hired occultist “Joseph Solomon” (Oram) to perform grueling month long ritual. The goal of which is to cause Sophia’s Guardian Angel to manifest itself and allow both of them to ask it for a boon. The ritual requires total isolation for the pair, once started they cannot leave the salt circle that is around this isolated house for any reason until the ritual is complete. It will also push them to both their physical and psychological limits. We follow the pair as they embark on this very personal journey all the way to the end… Whatever that will be.
A Journey Into Darkness
A Dark Song has the feel of a 1960’s horror movie. It reminds me of various films of the era including “The Haunting”, “The Devil Rides Out” and “Carnival of Souls. It also reminded me a little of “Don’t Look Now” (1973) which was itself a bit of a holdover from the 60’s. This makes the style quite refreshing. Obviously when special effects are called for they are modern (Though relatively low budget), but don’t expect to see much for the vast majority of the film. Like those 60’s movies, it is a slow burn but with a thick and tense atmosphere. The small cast and the fairly contained location give the film a claustrophobic feel and no doubt kept the budget under control. When things do kick off, it is brief but satisfying.
Obviously with what is effectively a two person cast their characters, relationships and acting quality is what makes or breaks the movie. The acting was mostly good, with a couple of moments that felt a little off. It’s worth noting two people losing their minds in a claustrophobic setting is a big ask for a pair of actors to pull off. It is in that regard very similar to what Robert Pattinson and Willem Dafoe achieved with “The Lighthouse”. This pair are not as good as Dafoe and Pattinson, but to even be in the conversation with those is an achievement. Those couple of moments where it didn’t quite work passed by quickly and on the whole they were excellent. The characters themselves were very interesting and did provide a good dynamic between the pair.
A Path To Redemption
One of the impressive elements of this movie is the details of the ritual. These are legitimate rituals as practiced by Aleister Crowley and the Golden Dawn and that authenticity really assist with setting the dark atmosphere. It pushes the unreal to a place where it feels like it could be real. There were obvious challenges to how to represent this kind of realistic occult activity in a horror film and I feel they tackled this well. When the movie switches from subtilty to pure chaos it is at a point beyond what poor Sophia can handle. She is broken. So you are left with the question of how much of what the pair suffer is hallucination from a fevered mind and how much is real. Ultimately it doesn’t matter because it works as a great horror story either way.
The atmosphere is milked to perfection with touches of music that underscore the scenes but don’t overwhelm them (The opposite of something like “The First Omen” where the music IS the atmosphere). The vast majority of the film is deliberately subtle and there are nice little touches that not everyone will pick up on. For example in a later scene there are some ghostly headlights on the road, implying that a car is travelling on the deserted road but Sophia is no longer in that reality. The best thing about the movie though is you really feel the character journey Sophia goes on. The ending is somewhat of a twist I suppose, but it feels absolutely natural.
Judgement
If you are into more subtle horror, especially the character and atmosphere based horrors of the 1960’s then this is definitely one for you. On the other hand if you want a fast pace and brutal murders, you need to look elsewhere as this has neither. It is a clever and emotional horror. It’s not the most visually stunning, though the visuals work fine. The same goes for the soundtrack. Everything is subtle and understated. That’s not for everyone, it’s certainly not a Friday night drive in movie. But if you like claustrophobic character stories with a minimal cast and creepy atmosphere, you will love it. For me this is an easy 7/10. I hope Liam Gavin gets a chance to helm and write another horror some time.
“One Dark Night” was the directorial debut of Tom McLoughlin. The director is perhaps most famous for providing one of the best Jason Voorheese movies, “Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives” (1986). The screenplay was put together by McLoughlin and Michael Hawes. The pair had been trying to sell the script for about four years before they found a group of investors will to put up one million dollars for the film providing they start filming within three weeks.
The movie stars Meg Tilly as “Julie” a young girl determined to prove herself above a group of college mean girls by passing their initiation into their club called “The Sisters”. The club is led by “Carol” (Robin Evans) who holds a grudge against Julie since she is now going out with Carol’s ex boyfriend Steve (David Mason Daniels). Carol tasks Julie with spending a night in a mausoleum, but intends to make be make it as uncomfortable as possible for her. Unfortunately for the girls the mausoleum currently houses occultist Karl Raymarseivich Raymar, rumoured to be a psychic vampire with the powers of telekinesis. The only person aware of the danger they are in is Raymar’s daughter Olivia (Melissa Newman), but can she save them?
Pranks and Perils
As with a lot of horrors of the early 80’s, this is actually fairly slow to start. Things don’t actually kick off until the last 30 minutes and the rest of the film is pure set up. This is an approach that can work very well and can certainly cover for a lower effects budget, but it does ask more from the actors and script to make it work. If you are killing teenagers in the first ten minutes you have your entertainment factor. If you aren’t getting dirty until the final act you need to keep the audience entertained via other means. One Dark Night takes a two pronged approach to this. We have a story with college teenagers playing cruel pranks and walking blindly into the hands of the movies antagonist. But we also have Olivia, the antagonists estranged daughter learning via audiotape just what her father was capable of.
First thing I have to say here is I quite like exposition via audio tape in a horror. It works and doesn’t feel as awkward as having a character turn up mid way through to do a big exposition dump. Indeed, because it’s one sided and not a conversation it cuts the time needed for exposition right down. Of course you can’t do that in every film, but it works here. This exposition is spread out a bit as we see the events develop with the rest of the cast. The plot design here is pretty solid, the only downside is none of these characters are interesting. The antagonist, Raymar, is silent and sort of dead. The generic final girl is basically useless, her boyfriend is brave but also useless and her bullies are generic bullies. Well outside of one girls weird thing with her comfort toothbrush.
The Final Act
When it comes to events kicking off in the final act we have a lot of zombie like creatures, but because they are animated via telekinesis instead of being actual zombies they just sort of float into people instead of attacking them. Raymar is mostly motionless but occasionally fires out bolts of electricity at people. Ultimately it’s kind of goofy. But it is a pretty original idea. I’m not sure I’ve seen zombies created through telekinesis before. Maybe skeletons, but not flesh covered zombies. It occurs to me that saving these zombies until the final act was probably a good idea. The long build up and relatively brief time they are around for means they just about get away with it. Only narrowly though.
Ultimately this a pretty average 80’s horror with some interesting ideas that don’t quite work out in practice. The zombies look pretty good even if they move in a goofy way. Adam West feels wasted. The characters are generic, but the plot itself is fairly solid. A mixed bad that averages out to a 5.5/10. If you are a fan of 80’s horror it’s worth checking out, if not skip it!
If you’ve followed my past October Challenges you know I always give a few days over October to checking out some golden age horrors. This year is no exception and I’ve decided to finally check out the American independent film that predated and influenced “Godzilla” (1954). That is “The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms”. Directed by Eugène Lourié and is very loosely based on the Ray Bradbury short story “The Fog Horn” (Ultimately just one scene). Paul Hubschmid stars as “Prof. Tom Nesbitt”. Paula Raymond, Cecil Kellaway and Kenneth Tobey provide support.
Far north of the arctic circle, a covert nuclear weapons test awakens an ancient beast from it’s frozen slumber. The loan survivor the monsters rampage, professor Nesbitt finds himself in the position of having to prove an ancient Rhedosaurus dinosaur is roaming the earth and poses a very real threat to America. He finds allies in paleontologist “Thurgood Elson” (Kellaway) and his young assistant “Lee Hunter” (Raymond). Eventually they convince “Col. Jack Evans” (Tobey) to investigate. They find the creature, but now the question remains: How to stop it.
The Beast Awakens
Much like Godzilla, this beast is awoken by nuclear testing. However, unlike the famous Kaiju, the Rhedosaurus doesn’t have a direct connection with the radiation. Indeed, it is definitely not immune to it like Godzilla is. However, it does spend half of it’s time in the ocean just like Zilla. Another similarity is unknown virus spread from the creatures blood. In Godzilla, survivors of his attacks tend to suffer radiation sickness, presenting largely the same way. There are enough similarities that it seems unlikely this film didn’t influence the more successful piece. There is debate on the subject though and maybe this is just another one of those coincidences. Personally, I doubt it. However, Godzilla is the better movie.
That’s not to say “Beast” is bad. It is a little straight forward, but it was the first of it’s kind. It’s safe to say they were more concerned about how to put a believable giant dinosaur on the big screen than coming up with a layered plot. The effects are really worthy of praise too. Yes they have of course dated (After 70 years, that is a given) but they haven’t dated as much as you may think. The animation is jerky at times and the transition from model to set is occasionally jarring. Overall though, I was impressed. In it’s day, this must have been stunning. It (Along with a re-release of King Kong) did spur a spate of giant monster films in the US. That’s not a bad legacy.
Conclusion
There’s not a huge amount more to say about the movie. It was an effects and spectacle movie and it provided that. Impressive for its age and for the fact it was independently created. The rest of the movie is average. The plot is divided between proving the monster exists and then trying to destroy it. The first half is solid, but not what anyone watches this movie for. The second half is very basic, but provides most of the spectacle. There’s not really anything I consider bad here, it’s just I know you can do a lot more with a giant monster. I’m going to settle on a 6/10. Your enjoyment may depend on how well you handle 70 year old effects, but if you like Kaiju’s, you owe this film a viewing.
Shortly after I was born, the world was introduced to the ultimate devil child. Not me though, this was 1976 and June (November in the UK) of that year saw the release of one of Richard Donners masterpieces of cinema, “The Omen”. A movie that terrified me as a child (Not sure how old I was when I saw it, but far too young to be watching). The movie expanded to a trilogy (In 1978 and 1981) that told the entire story of the antichrist. The final part was the weakest but did take the story to it’s logical conclusion. This was followed by an ill advised fourth movie in 1991 that was universally panned and a disastrous remake no one asked for in 2006. After an even longer hiatus the franchise finally returned in 2024 for another ill advised entry. This time a prequel.
The First Omen is directed by Arkasha Stevenson in her feature length debut, based on a story by Ben Jacoby. Stevenson, Tim Smith and Keith Thomas provide the screenplay. All relatively new but not totally inexperienced talent. Nell Tiger Free (Servant, Game of Thrones) plays the protagonist “Margaret”, a novitiate awaiting to take her vows. She is sent to an orphanage to finish her training but is caught up in a series of unexplained events and disturbing visions while there. A priest, “Father Brenan” (Ralph Ineson), explains to her that something nefarious is going on here and that the fate of the world may be at stake. However not even Brenan fully realizes the entire truth of the situation.
The Devil’s Greatest trick
Okay, so the first thing that comes across to me with this film is that it is really, really, boring. Not much of anything actually happens throughout the entire film and the plot twists are so easily guessed that there is very little pay off. The entire story of the Omen has run it’s course, a prequel was always an ill advised concept, especially since it was effectively done to absolute perfection decades ago with Roman Polanski’s “Rosemary’s Baby”. Not technically of the same franchise, but the best telling of the antichrists birth you are likely to see on screen. If the idea behind a prequel was to avoid comparisons to the original they failed as with this the movie will be compared to both The Omen and Rosemary’s Baby.
But this isn’t the only problem. like many demon/devil related horrors of recent years the makers have tried to steer the story into a somewhat anti-Christian frame and this is something that always works against the impact of this kind of horror. Demonic possession and the rise of the antichrist are Christian fears first and foremost and as such work best when the Christian element is leaned into instead of shun. This is the very reason why I felt “Nefarious” worked so well. That film was as biased towards Christianity as films like this and the recent Exorcist sequel are against it, but the simple fact is being biased towards it makes the film work! If you don’t want to lean into that, don’t make demon/devil films! H.P. Lovecraft is always a viable alternative as are Pagan deities or aliens.
Final Judgement
Tonally they did try and make the film at least feel like an Omen movie. In practice though, that mostly meant playing heavily discordant choral music over scenes of… well, not much at all. There were some references to events of The Omen but these didn’t serve that much purpose on their own. Mostly the film tries to create an uneasy atmosphere through the music and occasional unrelated visuals instead of from the plot itself. That plot involves a twist that is so painfully obvious that the swerve is really more irritating than anything else. This is no Angel Heart. The plot here has very little wriggle room due to the constraints of the other entries in the franchise and where they have found room for originality the directions are all disappointing.
Ultimately this is a confused offering. Politically speaking it is a very right wing franchise (Given the Christian element) taken in a very left wing direction. Which means the fears it tries to reflect are left wing fears, specifically female body autonomy and the danger of Christian fundamentalism. That couldn’t contrast more with the originals very Christian fear of the rise of the antichrist. As bad a fit as that is, my main issue with the film remains that it was just boring! This is a 4.5/10. Go and watch Rosemary’s Baby or the original Omen instead of this.
Many horror films have been made based on true stories. Usually these are embellished and sometimes end up having very little in common with the true story. In the case of 10 Rillington Place from 1971, an attempt was made to present the story of serial killer John Christie as accurately as possible. The focus of the story though isn’t so much on the horrendous crimes of Christie but on the travesty of justice that saw an innocent man hanged for some of his crimes. The movie was directed by legendary director Richard Fleischer, with a screenplay by Clive Exton. It is based on the novel by the same name by Ludovic Kennedy. Screen legend Richard Attenborough takes on the role of serial killer Christie and John Hurt plays unfortunate scapegoat Timothy Evans.
10 Rillington Place is part psychological thriller and part court room drama. The primary purpose of the movie is not to scare the audience so much as to lay bare the travesty of justice of the real life case involved in the story. It is effectively a drama designed to expose the great flaw of capital punishment. Despite that, there are definitely horror elements to the story. It is after all about real life serial killer and rapist John Christie, that murdered at least 8 people including his own wife and one baby. The film shows a few of those murders and while they are not especially graphic they didn’t need to be.
The Case That Shocked A Nation
The story starts when Timothy Evans, his wife Beryl and their baby move in to one of the apartments in Rillington Place. By this point Christie has already actively murdering women and burying them in his garden. It’s not clear how many he has killed, but we see one murder at the start of the film. Christie sets his sights on adding Beryl to his collection. Here I’m torn between not spoiling too much of the film and recognizing this is all real life events so a lot of people will already know what happens next. Suffice to say Christie ends up framing Timothy not just for Bery’s murder but also for their baby’s. However Christie’s bloodlust means he doesn’t have the sense to quit while he is ahead.
The movie doesn’t really have a main character though since it is more concerned with showing the historic events. At times this can make the film seem a little dry. There’s no mystery to it either, but then when dealing with a real life killer any attempt at mystery would be futile. Instead the film needs to build the suspense of impending doom for those living under the roof of 10 Rillington Place and it doesn’t always manage this. This is probably intentional though since the movie wasn’t meant to be a horror as such. It’s hard to dramatize these characters without delving into horror a little though and that is largely down to some impressive performances from the two leads.
Star Performances
Richard Attenborough plays murderer Christie and he plays it with cold calculating calmness that makes the character that much more terrifying. He rarely seems flustered and even when he is, he still has a coldness about him and a politeness. I can’t help but see an element of Attenborough’s performance in Anthony Hopkin’s portrayal of Hannibal Lecter 20 years later. Of course Hopkins was playing a fantasy character and so could ham it up a little and have a bit of fun with it, but underneath that you can definitely see Attenborough’s Christie. The two were friends and collaborated many times, so it makes sense.
Attenborough wasn’t the only big name actor in this movie, we also have John Hurt showing his flexibility as the somewhat simple minded man scapegoat, way out of his depth, Timothy Evans. Hurt won a BAFTA nomination for his role and it was well earned. Evans is a man with a certain amount of pride and an equal amount of hubris and yet is played the most tragic of hands. His wife and child murdered and he takes the blame. It is too much to deal with and Hurt puts it all into his performance without overdoing it.
The Verdict
Overall this is a pretty strong telling of a tragic and horrifying series of events. It makes a good argument against capital punishment as well as the failure of a police to spot a killer with no clear motivation. It is however a little too dry for my liking, even for something based on real events. That leaves it a little short of a 7 for me but it’s still a recommendation. This is a strong 6.5/10.
The big debate about this film is if Hannibal Lecter should ever have had an origin story/prequel movie. The answer in my view is: Probably not. That said, an origin for the character is absolutely consistent with Thomas Harris’ writing style. Every other character in his novels have their motivations and psychology examined closely. Often, by Dr. Lecter himself. Harris style of writing largely relies on the realism of these characters. What made Hannibal stand out so well was because he was the enigma, the one unexplainable evil. Harris edged into explaining a lot of Lecter’s thought processes in “Hannibal”, his third novel. That novel was less warmly regarded and the film adaptation skipped most of those elements. To be fair, it’s hard to show thought processes on screen. For this reason, they were correct not to have Clarice take Hannibal up on his offer and go off with him.
But if you have read the novels, it was always clear that Harris wanted to explain Hannibal to us. He just wasn’t sure if he should and I have heard that he did need his arm twisted somewhat to finally set to work on a full origin story. Supposedly it was producer Dino De Laurentiis who told Harris that if he didn’t write the origin story, someone else eventually will. Horrified by this prospect, Harris set to work. As I mentioned though, if you read the books you know Harris does try and help the reader to understand Lecter. He’s not entirely the enigma he is in the movies. To make sure his message wasn’t lost this time he insisted on writing the screenplay to the eventual movie himself. For better or worse director Peter Webber has provided a fairly faithful adaptation of the source material.
Dark Origins
The film begins with a young Hannibal (Played by Aaran Thomas), with his loving family and young sister Mischa (Helena-Lia Tachovská) living in a castle in Lithuania. This is not a good time to be in Lithuania though as the Nazi invasion of Russia has turned the area into part of the bloodiest front line in World War Two. As Hitler and Stalins forces clash, the Lecter family is caught in the middle. The parents are killed and Hannibal and Mischa are left to fend for themselves. Matters get worse as a group of ex-Nazi’s now just trying to survive as Russian forces take over the region hold up in their castle. With it being in the thick of winter and no food available they take drastic action.
Many years later, the story picks up with an adult Hannibal (Now played by Gaspard Ulliel), who has made his way to his last surviving relatives home in France. After settling in, he sets out on his mission to extract vengeance on the people that murdered and ate his sister. Gong Li plays his aunt “Lady Mursaka”, who understands Hannibals drive but can’t stand by who he is becoming. Dominic West (McNulty from the TV series “The Wire”) plays Inspector Pascal Popil, a detective that specializes in bringing war criminals to justice. He too understands Hannibal’s desire for vengeance, but won’t let him get away with taking the law into his own hands. Rhys Ifans plays “Grutas” the head of the gang that murdered Hannibal’s sister.
A Man of Exquisite Taste
The most obvious issue with this film is that Hannibal Lecter is not a character that any actor can play. The gold standard is obviously Sir Anthony Hopkins, who elevated the character into the movie villain hall of fame. Before Hopkins took on the role Brian Cox put in an impressive performance in the movie “Manhunter”. After the release of this movie a third actor, Mads Mikkelsen would take the role and make it his own in a way that arguably even outdid Sir Anthony. With that in mind, perhaps my view of Gaspard Ulliel is a little unfair. However, I was not impressed. It’s not that his acting was bad or anything. It’s just we’re dealing with a complex and chilling character at a time in his life where he is perhaps the most conflicted he is ever likely to be and he felt… generic.
As for the origin itself, it does make a certain amount of sense. Starting out with a trauma that desensitized him and showed him how brutal life can be. Then giving him a reason to pursue and murder those that had wronged him. After that, I guess he just kept going. But this is where the problem lies. Even though Lecter does murder one character simply for being rude there’s not really any suggestion that he will keep going indefinitely with those kinds of murders. The vast majority of his actions were motivated by his revenge. So these elements don’t totally add up. What we do see though is his casual brutality and lack of empathy for his victims. This is balanced by the fact he does not harm the children on one of his victims. So at least here we see something of the man he would become.
A Trail of Destruction
There is another problem too. All these killings are high profile. It’s hard to imagine that no one ever casually looked into Lecters past. Had they done so, he would have quickly become a suspect in Chesapeake Ripper case. In the movie, he fakes his own death too. But then doesn’t change his name after. In the novel at least he is actually arrested, but between the public support (For killing war criminals) and the lack of evidence, he is released. There was an obvious solution here in Inspector Popil. Had the story allowed for Popil to be somewhat sympathetic and realizing that the only way for these men to face justice was for Hannibal to kill them there could have been an air tight backstory for the character. Instead though Popil is totally dedicated to the law, despite his own tragedy. So much so it’s hard to imagine him buying the faked death and not flagging the name globally.
Popil’s actual role appears to be like an early version of Hannibal’s relationships with Will Graham and Clarice Starling. Someone he finds very similar to himself, but just not quite able to see the world the way he does. Sadly though the film doesn’t spend any time looking into this relationship. It’s just sort of there. Another relationship somewhat wasted is Hannibal’s odd romance with his Aunt, Lady Murasaki. We aren’t given a great deal of time to know the character except that she is the one person Hannibal feels close to. Perhaps the idea was for Popil to be a prot-Will Graham and Lady Murasaki to be a proto-Clarice Starling, but in practice neither of them really are that interesting.
Conclusion
As a stand alone movie, this is a reasonable revenge story. As an origin story for Hannibal Lecter though it is a disappointment. It’s not however a complete disaster. Things do, by and large, add up. Even the plot holes can be explained by the fact that in the novels at least, no one suspected Lecter until Will Graham. There was no investigation because Lecter, sensing he’d been rumbled, immediately attacked. While an origin story for Hannibal Lecter was always likely to disappointed, I do feel this one could have been better. Specifically with more to his relationship with sympathetic characters and perhaps a different actor in the lead. I’m giving this a solid 5.5/10. Despite some promise the movie largely just coasts along on it’s predecessors coat tails.
Over the years there have been many versions of the alien body snatcher idea. The 1951 Robert Heinlein novel “The Puppet Masters”, may well be the earliest entry in this sub-genre. However the movie adaptation comes very late to the party following in the footsteps of three versions of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” (1953, 1978 and 1993) and two versions of “Invaders From Mars” (1953 and 1986). There have also been a number of tangentially similar films such as “The Thing” (1982), “The Hidden” (1987) and “Night of the Creeps” (1986). On top of this both Star Trek and The Outer Limits produced episodes based on Heinlein’s story. Even Roger Corman ripped it off for “The Brain Eaters” (1958) and was sued by Heinlein as a result. All that considered, it is strange it took so long for a direct adaptation.
The Puppet Masters was somewhat of a passion project for Michael Engelberg. The producer had been pushing for the film to enter production since the mid eighties. He was assisted by his long term friend and Disney CEO Michael Eisner. Disney didn’t have a lot of experience with this kind of film however, as a result production was a tad bumpy. The script ended up with countless re-writes, two competing scripts were being developed simultaneously at one point. Directors were hired, minds changed, a third new script was developed and then finally a variation of the original script when to filming with a whole lot of compromise.
Invaders From Space
The Puppet Masters is directed by Stuart Orme. A strange choice given his career until that point was mostly directing made-for-TV movies (And still is). The screenplay was provided by by a combination of David Goyer, Terry Rossio and Ted Elliott. Eric Thal stars as “Sam Nivens”, Donald Sutherland as his father “Andrew” who runs a special branch of the CIA that deal with extraterrestrial activity and Julie Warner as xenobiologist “Mary Sefton”.
The team are called in to examine a site where a UFO is suspected of landing near a small town. When they arrive they quickly determine something is up with the inhabitants of this town and after a confrontation with one realise they are being controlled by an alien lifeform. What follows is a tactical battle between the two sides. The invaders do their best to take over key personnel while the humans try to detect the invaders, figure out what they want and most importantly find a way to kill them without killing their hosts.
Stars And Slugs
Coming as late to the pod party as this movie does has left it in a difficult position. Trying to repackage the original body snatching story to appear fresh and unique in a sea of similar stories that came after the original novel is a difficult ask. It’s most obvious imitator “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” already re-invented itself twice and the second version of that story from 1978 is still regarded as the gold standard for the theme. The earlier 1953 movie was no slouch either. Both versions pushed the fear and paranoia to the extreme. Puppet Masters is more focused on the bigger picture, than on individual characters. This is more about the war between the humans and the space slugs, instead of the paranoia of the individuals. The result is interesting, but not especially compelling.
The cast is a relatively strong one, with the big name unfortunately being Donald Sutherland. A fantastic actor for sure, but unfortunate because he was also in the 70’s Bodysnatchers movie and as I mentioned, that is the gold standard. There was no possible way that this film wouldn’t be constantly compared to the 1978 classic with Sutherland being the face of both. His performance in the film is good, as you’d expect. But since he isn’t the lead, he is largely wasted. All his inclusion does is lead to harsh comparisons with a better movie. The actual lead is Eric Thal (When he’s not being controlled by space slugs) who puts in a solid performance. Keith David and Julie Warner are pretty good too. It’s not the acting that lets this one down.
Bad Adaptation
This is a film made out of compromises, resulting in a final product that probably didn’t please anyone involved. It’s not a fair reflection of Heinlein’s novel, it’s not that different to the various other body snatcher films it doesn’t really offer any great moments. While the screenplay gave up most of the cool moments from the novel to executive pressure, the director Stuart Orme failed to make anything that remained at all memorable. The movie is all bland and dry. There is a reason he went right back to made-for-TV movies after. The cast do their best and there are elements of the plot that are interesting but none that really make it compelling.
It’s a real shame, but that’s Hollywood. Maybe one day someone will make a better adaptation. For now we just have this. It is conceptually interesting in places, but nothing in the film really stands out and it’s ultimately a movie you’ll have forgotten minutes after watching. This is a solid 5/10. Not a total waste of time, but also not a recommendation. If you want a more fun version of the story on screen, watch the Star Trek episode “Operation — Annihilate!”
Is there any director more all over the place in quality than M. Night Shyamalan? Most of his movies are divisive with the audience, rejected by most but loved by a solid number. Some of his movies are universally panned and some are universally loved. It could be argued that he is doing exactly what a director should do (When making original content). Taking big risks and following his inner muse. However, his work always follows a certain formula, namely the big twist. As a result, he has all the hallmarks of both a good and bad director. Auteur’s do tend to have their own unique style. But when that style makes the stories predictable it does more harm than good. In many ways Shyamalan is his own worst enemy, because technically speaking at least he is a good director.
Here he has a conceptually interesting story. John Hartnett stars as “Cooper”. A family man taking his daughter, Riley (Ariel Donoghue) to a concert by “Lady Raven” (played by M. Night’s daughter, Saleka Shyamalan). Cooper though has a dark secret (Revealed in the trailer and early in the movie, so not a spoiler), he’s a notorious serial killer known as “The Butcher”. It turns out the FBI was aware he would be at the show (Though they don’t know who he is or what he looks like) and have the venue locked down. Having caught on to this it is down to Cooper to find a way out, preferably without ruining his daughters big day. He is being hunted by FBI profiler “Dr. Josephine Grant” (Hayley Mills).
Two Sides of Night
This is very much a film of two halves and it is the first half which is by far the superior. The interesting thing is this first half is entirely free from Shyamalan style twists. Sure the concept itself is somewhat of a subversion, but you find out very early that Cooper is the butcher and his attempts to escape the trap plays to M.Night’s actual strengths as a director. Scenes play out with a tension underneath where the audience understands the stakes but most of the characters on screen do not. This is classic Hitchcock style tension and Shyamalan pulls it off well. The pacing is pretty solid too leaving you on the edge of your seat. The problem is there is only really enough content here for half a movie. Horror films don’t need to be long, but all too often these days we see a horror with a cool concept that just can’t sustain itself for even 90 minutes. These ideas are better off as anthology shorts.
The second half of the movie is where we see the bad side of Shyamalan. Where the obsession with twists and subversions actually leads to the film becoming clankly and predictable. Here we see Cooper constantly outsmarted by almost everyone he comes across. He loses all ability to inspire fear and with the mask now off he turns out to be far less interesting as an antagonist/protagonist. In some ways it reminds me of the 2018 Halloween sequel since you effectively have three “Final Girls”, from three different generations taking down the villain. The difference is that none of these three are really main characters. Lady Raven comes closest but she doesn’t take a central role until the second half of the film and leaves the story a fair while before the climax. The result is a complete disconnect between the audience and these characters. It’s also a noteworthy horror for the total lack of deaths during the film.
Conclusion
This is a difficult film to rate. This represents the best and the worst of the M. Night Shyamalan. The first 40 minutes are very solid and would probably have garnered a strong 6.5/10 from me. The rest of the film though is disappointing and probably would have landed a 5/10 if I was feeling generous. I’m going to balance those out to a 5.5/10. Ultimately this is not entirely bad and you won’t regret watching. However, it’s not worth going out of your way for it and it certainly won’t be bothering your physical media collection (If you have one). Slightly above average, but with the good weighted so heavily towards the early half you will likely walk away with a bad taste in your mouth. I don’t really recommend it, but if it’s on streaming and you have nothing else you want to watch, go for it.
Well that’s it, the final review of my 2023 October Challenge. This is the low budget horror comedy “Blood Diner” from 1987. The movie was the third of four movies directed by Jackie Kong in a short career likely only made possible by the VHS boom of the 80’s. The movie was written by Michael Sonye, who has had a reasonable career as an actor but only has writing credits for six movies. This is the highest rated on IMDb at 5.3/10. His lowest is rated at 2.8 out of ten. This is one of those movies where much of the cast have only appeared in this one film and many of the ones that have been in other things use shots from this movie as their bio picture on IMDb (Or have no picture). This gives you hint of what to expect!
Bon Appétit.
The plot of the movie revolves around a pair of cannibals and their “Vegetarian” diner. Two brothers and their dead uncle (Now a brain in a jar) are planning to perform an ancient ceremony to resurrect the ancient Lumerian goddess Sheetar. To do this they have to make a number of preparations that mostly involve killing young women, preparing a cannibalistic stew that will make those that consume it turn into feral zombie like cannibals and prepare the sacrifice of a virgin. On their tail are a pair of tough yet bumbling police officers, investigating a what appears to be a serial killer targeting vegetarians.
Junk Food.
Okay, so I’m just going to say it: This is a bad movie. Whenever I review a fairly average movie I usually say “It’s not terrible but…”, well this one is terrible and there is no real “But” to that. There are some good ideas, but the execution of them is so poor that most viewers likely won’t even give it that much credit. It is poorly acted, poorly scripted, badly paced (Rushing from one joke/murder to the next without giving any of it room to breath), music that seems absent half the time it is needed and overstays it’s welcome when it is not, the gore was so comical that it lost all impact and worst of all, it just wasn’t funny.
Most of the humour falls flat. Most of the jokes are either casual but cartoon like violence or general gross out stuff. There were three scenes that were sort of funny. One was the intro, specifically the radio broadcast about the psycho. Another was where one of the brothers has to keep running someone over before he actually dies and another where a woman having seen her friend being chopped up goes to run away, but then runs back because she forgot her handbag. That was it. The rival chef’s ventriloquist dummy could have been funny in theory, but didn’t really work in practice. It felt out of place and just came across as pointless and dumb.
So Bad It’s Bad.
The acting is especially bad. I’ve watched a lot of low budget B-movies, so I have a pretty good tolerance for bad acting, but this was next level bad. Pretty much all the actors playing the police were dreadful. The worst of the bunch was Sheba Jackson as “LaNette La France” and it’s no surprise to see this is her only credit on IMDB. Max Morris was almost as bad as the Police Chief and joins Sheba in the “This is my only acting credit” department. Fortunately Rick Burks and Carl Crew, who played the two cannibal brothers were just regular bad, though the script they had to work with didn’t do them any favours. Drew Godderis also managed a tolerable performance as the brain in a jar psycho uncle, though he is helped by just being a voice actor.
I get the impression half of the joke here is meant to be that the film is really bad. This kind of thing never really works for me. Things being intentionally bad always fail to reach that “So bad it’s good” category. Most humour works best when played straight, most funny low budget movies work best when the makers treat it seriously, no matter how crazy the ideas they are working on are. Here it seemed they spent too long laughing at their own jokes. Really a lot of this plays like a series of sketches haphazardly thrown together, with most of it adding nothing to the overall story.
Concussion.
Ultimately, this is one big fail. The concept could have worked, but not with this director, writer and most of these actors. Some people may be able to get a kick out of it and I think being drunk and/or high will help. But coming in dry, it’s just plain bad. I give it a few points for trying to be fun and for the half decent concept, but the most generous I can be with this one is a low 3.5/10. On a side note, I like the trailer. It’s better than the movie. That’s all. Happy Halloween and whatever your viewing tonight (If anything), I hope it’s better that this!
You must be logged in to post a comment.