Monster Mash Movie Marathon Month 2014 - Week 4

We are moving through this nicely, folks! Another week down, and only six movies left to finish her off.

Le rating scale:

A = Excellent, a must see

B = Very good, I’d watch it again

C = Worth Seeing

D = Maybe don’t bother

F = Worthless

+ = Superior for this grade

- = Just barely makes it into this grade

This week was a sad change from last, as we got a few more Fs. In fact, nothing except for the Vincent Price sequel, Dr. Phibes Rises Again got over a C+. But that's the nature of the genre. I've got to contend with both quality AND quantity here, and unfortunately, those two things often don't go hand in hand.

Nevertheless, I've written a little something about each movie, and now it's time to read. 

Pumpkinhead (Stan Winston) - C+

Ed Harley is a single father, whose son, Billy, means the world to him. One day at their rural store while Ed is out on emergency business, some city folks hit Billy with their dirt bikes. Not long after, Billy dies and Ed tries to take the body to a local witch, hoping the crone can bring his boy back to him. She can't, but she does have access to a certain gourdy demon that will surely destroy Billy's killers, for a price. Ed performs the ritual, but quickly discovers he has gone too far, and attempts to undo the deed he has done.

Pumpkinhead is a traditional horror film of the 80s, combining a slasher-style revenge story amidst breathtaking locations. Director Stan Winston, who used to work closely with James Cameron on films such as Terminator and Aliens, borrows more than a couple images from the latter of those films. Indeed, Pumpkinhead (who I like to call PH) looks more and more like Geiger's Alien with every scene. This is to say as a central special-effects antagonist, PH is most effective in his earliest scenes. The second half of the picture, when PH is on his rampage, gets  old pretty quick. It's nothing you don't expect, either. Bad people will die, good people might make it.

Despite these shortcomings, there's plenty to like about Pumpkinhead. As mentioned, the sets, and found locations are breathtaking. With the proper lighting, the woods that the film's action occurs in are just creepy enough. In fact, many of the quiet details of what's in frame (such as when Ed visits the witch's cabin) are what makes Pumpkinhead an enjoyable watch. While the city kids that are considered the antagonists of the film aren't worthy of mention, Lance Henriksen (also a carryover of Aliens) stars as Ed, and turns in a very powerful performance of a jilted father with nothing left to lose. You really hurt when Ed loses Billy, but interestingly, you do not share his guilt in siccing PH on those city chumps. While the message that revenge is wrong is a good one, it may not belong in the horror genre.

Dr. Phibes Rises Again (Robert Fuest) - B-

Three years after the goofy adventures in the Abominable Dr. Phibes, the good Doctor revives himself, and his servant, Vulnavia. Though he's been in suspended animation, Phibes immediately hatches a plot to go to Egypt by sea in order to uncover the fountain of youth. Phibes' wife, Victoria, remains suspended, pending Phibes succeeding in his task. The plot thickens, however, when Phibes comes to learn that another eccentric with a need for the fountain is hunting for it. Darrus Biederbeck is hundreds of years old, and without the water from that fountain, will surely perish.

This continuation from one of my favorite entries of last year is a proper return to form. Vincent Price silently hams it up through the film, masterfully delivering one-liner after one-liner. Though fairly similar to its predecessor, the film abandons the curse of the pharaohs motif, and instead allows for Phibes to dispose of his enemies in new, inventive ways (such as trapping a victim's arms in spikes, and then tricking him into unleashing many scorpions in an attempt to gain his freedom). Also, much like its predecessor, Dr. Phibes Rises Again has wonderful sets and props, including the return of Phibes' robot band, Dr. Phibes and the Automatons.

If Dr. Phibes Rises Again had a fault, it would be its narrative format. It gets pretty repetitive after a while, and the kill scenes, while inventive and fresh, don't quite hit the same mark as the first film. While Phibes was seemingly the antagonist in the original, he is undoubtedly the protagonist in the sequel. The only real possible antagonist this time around is Biederbeck, who isn't even aware that Phibes exists until after they are in Egypt. As a result, there's very little tension. But that's well in keeping with the ultra campy tone the film has, so you can't really fault it. I'd say I marginally enjoyed the first more, and only then because of the storytelling.

Frogs (George McCowan) - F

Pickett Smith is a freelance photographer that has been hired by an ecology journal to study the lake area near the Crockett summer home. While he is canoeing around, taking pictures of wildlife and pollution, he is knocked in the water by the churlish drunkard in a powerboat Cliff, one of the Crocketts. Cliff, and his younger sister Karen feel bad for Pickett, and invite him to stay for lunch at their estate. Pickett agrees, and is soon introduced to the entire Crockett clan, including ultra rich patriarch, Jason Crockett. Jason, who is wheelchair-bound, belligerent and senile, begrudgingly accepts Pickett's presence, but warns Pickett that there can't be an environmental problem. There's more frogs on his property than ever, and they're bigger than usual too. Not long after, it becomes all too apparent that not only frogs are in large numbers this year. There's a veritable invasion of lizards, snakes, tarantulas and other creepy crawlies. The animals are inexplicably hellbent on killing any and every human on the island, and perhaps beyond.

Now, when I say inexplicably, I mean just that. Not once is it explained why this is happening. But you can infer, just by watching the silent opening scene of the film that the implication is that man is destroying the planet, and this is how nature is fighting back. In fact, it seems George McCowan was working along the same lines as Hitchcock with the Birds, which is famous for never really explaining what's going on. It is one of the more chilling parts of that film. Yet Frogs never comes close to the same level of terror. Or class.

You may have noticed I have talked in many of these reviews about films that suffer because of lack of exposition. I also, confusingly will say that sometimes films that don't explain themselves well are some of the best. The dividing line with these films can be summarized with the question: is there anything else about this picture that can support it despite its lack of exposition? Horror movies that choose this route need to toe a fine line. If you aren't going to tell your audience what's going on, then something like your story or monster or kill scenes or photography or excellent performances needs to be able to make them care. Frogs has none of these things. It's just confusing, predictable and boring.

Perhaps the most F-worthy quality of Frogs, though, was that between every scene - and I mean every, single scene - we are treated to roughly 10-30 seconds of unrelated footage of frogs. Not interesting, or funny footage. Just footage of frogs being frogs. There are enough scenes in Frogs that at least 30 minutes of the movie are just shots of frogs not doing anything. That's a third of this movie's run time! Even if the title of your movie is Frogs, you really can't afford to show stock footage of them for a significant amount of your movie like that. It's just insulting to your audience. It also dissolves tension, which I'm sure I don't have to tell you, is extremely detrimental to a horror movie.

Lady Frankenstein (Mel Welles, Aureliano Luppi) - F

Tanya Frankenstein returns from medical school to her father, Baron Frankenstein. The Baron is up to his typical tricks, namely sewing bodies together, popping in new brains and then blasting the poor bastard with lightning (though its not clear if he's doing this for the first time, or if Lady Frankenstein is supposed to be an unofficial sequel). Tanya keeps asking to be allowed to help the Baron and his assistant, Charles Marshall with the experiment, but is told no. Tragedy strikes when the monster rises, kills Baron Frankenstein and then goes on a rampage on the countryside, ruining sexual encounter after sexual encounter as he goes. Aghast by events, Tanya sets out to clear her father's name by making a new monster out of Dr. Marshall's brain (who admits basically out of nowhere that he loves Tanya), and the lean, muscular body of simple stable boy Robert (who Tanya wants inside of her REAL BAD).

I was hoping, at least, for unintentional laughs. Even those are hard to come by here. Billed as being a sexy, scary romp, Lady Frankenstein is a dull effort that is loaded with inane, poorly-written dialogue, half-assed special effects and awkward performances. Joseph Cotten, who plays the Baron, is the only one that does an OK job (OK, but not anything to write home about), and he's out before halfway through the movie. The scenes of the monster on a rampage are repetitive and silly, often being an excuse to see naked ladies. Now, I'm pro naked ladies, especially when tastelessly used to keep an audience engrossed in something like this, but somehow, it still manages to fall flat.

There are a couple of sex scenes between Tanya and her creation (before and after the transformation, though that hardly matters). These scenes would have been pretty racy in the early 70s, one would suppose. But to a modern audience, one that can watch any amount of depraved pornography from any computer with internet access, not even these scenes are particularly worthwhile (and believe me, these were THE scenes of the movie). All said, Lady Frankenstein disappointed me across the board.

Red Eye (Wes Craven) - D-

Lisa is a manager at a popular chain of hotels. On a return flight to Miami, her seatmate, the charismatic Jackson reveals that he is an international assassin, who knows that only she can a change to a booking at her hotel to conveniently set up a hit. Lisa must now either aid in murdering Jackson's target, or lose her father and perhaps her own life too.

There's a lot of potential in Red Eye. Cillian Murphy, Rachel McAdams and Brian Cox are all fine actors, and Wes Craven is a well-established director (in case you're not familiar, Craven got started in the 70s with movies like the Last House on the Left and the Hills Have Eyes before breaking it big with the Nightmare on Elm St. and Scream franchises). The first half of the movie is strong, and ramps up nicely. You meet many of the incidental characters who are on Lisa's flight, and you get to see some building tension between she and Jackson. Jackson drops a few subtle hints that he's dangerous, but these are mostly laughed off by Lisa. And once they're in the air, and Jackson reveals himself as an assassin to Lisa, the camera angles suddenly get very tight on scenery and close to the actors, forcing the audience to feel as trapped as she is.

But then it all falls to shit. You groan when Lisa continues to resist Jackson's wishes. You know everything Lisa attempts to do to get free will fail. And even when they're off the plane, you know they're going to end up having a showdown at her dad's place. And I'm not even going to go into how ridiculous it is when a group of assassins fire a bazooka in post 9/11 America. Red Eye gets off to a good start, but tailspins out of control quickly, leaving an all but forgettable product.

Also, I'd like to throw a little horror movie wisdom your way: if you stab a guy in the throat, and he keeps coming at you, you don't have to run from him, or even look for a weapon. Hide behind a corner, and when he passes you, step out behind him, drop a witty rejoinder on him and PUNCH HIM IN THE SAME PLACE YOU STABBED HIM. Seriously. Dude might be a badass killer, but he's still going to crumble in agony when you smash the gaping hole in his windpipe.

Beyond the Door (Ovidio G. Assonitis, Robert Barrett) - D

Jessica is pregnant! But the baby isn't Robert, her husband. That baby seems to be coming faster than expected, plus it seems to be giving Jessica symptoms that cause her to act a lot like Linda Blair in the exorcist. She bugs out so hard that Robert has to send Gail and Ken, their children, away to live elsewhere while he and George (a doctor) try to figure out what's happened to her. To make matters worse, Dimitri, who is not only a servant of the devil, but also used to date Jessica, keeps turning up. Dimitri really wants that kid to be born. Almost as though his life depended on it...

This film is just out there. An Italian picture from the early 70s, Beyond the Door mashes up Rosemary's Baby with the Exorcist, and the end result is baffling. There's a lot of weird elements at play here, including:

• The opening of the movie is an ironic, self-aware monlogue from Satan
• Gail, the daughter, is a precocious elementary school tot that talks like a hippie and calls both of her parents by name (until she witnesses her mother's head turn around completely)
• Jessica puts her tongue in her son's mouth. Devil Mom of the year!
• A soundtrack that blends woodwind jazz and synthesizers

While all of these things are certainly amusing, that's the best this film can boast. Jessica pulls almost every move out of the Exorcist's playbook. The ending has no surprises, either, so you'll feel like you've seen most of the film before. The dialog, while it provides you with laughs, is vacuous. And the special effects? Just some green ooze, some levitating and a car going off a cliff. Most people could happily skip this one.

Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? (Robert Aldrich) - C-

Jane Hudson was a pretty big deal in 1917. They even had dolls made in her likeness, something her dad came up with. The darling, Shirley Temple-like Jane can sing and dance like an angel, but her younger sister Blanche seems jealous of her fame. Fast forward to 1935. Jane is washed up and can only get work because Blanche is a movie star, and forces producers to give Jane roles. One night there's an accident, that we learn in the future, has broken both of Blanche's legs. We advance further in time to 1962. Blanche and Jane now live together. Blanche has a pretty cheery disposition for a woman that has lost everything. Her fortune from her movie career in the 30s has kept she and Jane very comfortable.  Jane, on the other hand, is a miserable bitch that hates Blanche and is deeply jealous of her success. When Jane discovers that Blanche intends to send her to a doctor to "get help", Jane demonstrates she's still got some tricks up her sleeve, and can make life very difficult for poor Blanche.

Bette Davis, who plays Jane is sensational in this film. The details of her performance, from her ridiculous make up, to her volatile personality, make for a chilling rendition of a woman long past her prime desperately attempting to stay relevant. She is twisted, malicious and selfish, and Davis plays it all very well. This isn't to say, mind you, that Joan Crawford, who plays Blanche, and the other supporting actors don't do a great job. But Davis is the stand out. Jane is a crazy old woman for an arsenal of reasons. You will hate her, you will pity her, and you will ultimately be disgusted with her. In a character-driven piece like this one, Betty Davis knocks it out of the park.

On the downside, however, this film drags on endlessly. Most audiences will be sharp enough to recognize where the film is going fairly early in the story. Jane's keeping Blanche locked down, the maid, neighbor and doctor will be turned away from helping Blanche, and Jane's luck will eventually run out. Yet, despite this all being very apparent from the get go, the film takes over two hours to get there. The middle of the film is so repetitive that you wonder how any editor could have let this happen. One of the many 'Blanche almost gets help' scenes could easily have been deleted, and shaved 30 minutes off the run time. It doesn't matter how excellent the performances in a movie are, if your audience is bored. Still, this thriller is somewhat captivating early on, and definitely worth seeing for Bette Davis alone. There is a twist at the end, but that point, it hardly matters, given what's happened.

------- 

Normally, I don't know exactly what the coming week will bring, but as we are now down to only six films, I have the remaining schedule pretty solidified. Out of pure interest, here's what's left: 

Sunday, Oct. 26th - The Mummy

Monday, Oct. 27th - Jacob's Ladder

Tuesday, Oct. 28th - Tucker and Dale vs. Evil

Wednesday, Oct. 29th - Ms. 45

Thursday, Oct. 30th - the Iron Rose

Friday, Oct. 31st - Magic (Usually, I'd pick something a little more iconic, but the missus and I are thematically linked to this movie via our halloween costumes, so it must be so!) 

I will still probably release last digest on Sunday, Nov. 2nd, and take a much-needed break from Horror Movies on Nov. 1st. So, we'll see all you faithful followers then.