Review: The Hunger (1983)

Preying on unsuspecting humans, vampires Miriam Blaylock (Catherine Deneuve) and her companion, John (David Bowie), feed upon blood in order to retain their youthful appearances. Or so John thought. Soon he discovers that he’s aging rapidly, turning into an elderly man within days. John seeks out gerontologist Dr. Sarah Roberts (Susan Sarandon) who is researching the effects of rapid aging on primates. Believing him to be another “crank”, she dismisses him. When he visits her again, she realizes that he was serious as he now has apparently aged at least 50 years in the short duration since he last approached her. In one final attempt to stave off his affliction, he feeds upon Alice (Beth Ehlers), a young girl who was studying classical music under the couple’s tutelage. When it has no effect, he begs Miriam to kill him. However, Miriam confesses that the process cannot be reversed and John cannot die. She disposes of him in the same manner as her former lovers–sealed away in an attic coffin.

Later, Sarah tracks down John’s address, only to be told by Miriam that he has gone to Switzerland. Immediately, the two are attracted to one another, leading to Miriam’s attempt to draw Sarah in as her new consort.

Though the erotic imagery of The Hunger might have led to it being described as “a modern classic of perverse fear” (at least according to the above trailer) in 1983, it’s actually pretty tame by today’s standards. Sure, there’s the racy scene between Deneuve and Sarandon, but other than that, there’s really little else that will prove to be perverse in the film.

What about the “fear” part, you might ask?

Well, maybe seeing this film upon its initial release was something to behold (though I find that doubtful) but watching it thirty two years later would be a complete waste of your time as it’s far from scary. In fact, while watching it, I couldn’t help think of a handful of other horror films whose visuals The Hunger borrowed heavily from (effects from The Beyond, The Fog, and Poltergeist immediately spring to mind) that I would rather be watching in lieu of this boring vampire outing.

The Hunger is stylish but director Tony Scott was always adept at creating extraordinary visuals. The only problem is that many of his films lack the sort of substance that makes a story engrossing. Movies like Top Gun, The Last Boy Scout and Days of Thunder are appealing to the eye but there’s little below the surface to make them timeless. I absolutely hated 1990’s Revenge and 1996’s The Fan when I saw them in the theater and, while entertaining as it might be in regards to a sequel, Beverly Hills Cop II lacked the spark that made the original seem so fresh. Of his early outings*, only Crimson Tide** stands out to me as an exceptional film and one I’ll almost certainly watch anytime its on.

*To be honest, I haven’t seen anything of Scott’s after 1998’s Enemy of the State, so it’s difficult to say whether or not either his approach had changed or his ability to pick better material was evident though I’ve heard good things about Man on Fire and Spy Game.

**I know movie fans adore True Romance and I do like it to a certain extent but, again, there’s something about the glossiness of Scott’s directorial style that’s off-putting to me. Considering it’s based on a Tarantino script, that alone elevates it a bit above his other fare, but there was always something about Scott’s style that consistently reminded me I was watching a movie rather than being immersed in the story. I suppose in the end, the look of his films distanced me quite a bit from whatever the material was.  

Anyway, The Hunger was a film that I was most likely not permitted to see back in 1983 and missed when it made the rounds on HBO in the middle of the decade–and it appears I didn’t miss much.

The Hunger grade: D+

Review: The Taking of Deborah Logan (2014)

In exchange for money to help prevent their house from being taken away, Deborah Logan (Jill Larson, All My Children) and her daughter, Sarah (Anne Ramsay, Mad About You), allow a camera crew to document Deborah’s struggle with Alzheimer’s disease. Though her physician attributes Deborah’s increasingly erratic behavior to the aggressiveness of the disease, Sarah and the crew begin to realize that something much darker has taken root.

The premise of The Taking of Deborah Logan is pretty standard–patient exhibits signs of an illness which is eventually revealed to have more of a supernatural origin. Even the execution of the film, which is a variant on the “found footage” genre, has been done countless times. So how does The Taking of Deborah Logan distance itself from other horror films of a similar nature?

First of all, the acting is top notch, particularly from soap opera veteran Jill Larson. Her convincing portrayal of a woman burdened with a degenerative condition that segues nicely into a form of demonic possession is amazing and could stand up to any performance in or out of the genre. Secondly, first time director Adam Robitel displays the deft touch of a filmmaker who has several films under this belt. It’s easy to see that Robitel is both a fan and student of horror because his ability to infuse genuine creepiness into a relatively stale subgenre is something even directors that have been around the block have difficulty doing. Finally, The Taking of Deborah Logan has a pretty solid script by co-writers Robitel and Gavin Heffernan who hit all the beats of a formulaic horror movie without completely giving the audience a “been there, done that” feeling.

Overall, there’s probably nothing new you’ll experience in terms of material with The Taking of Deborah Logan, but you should probably see it for the reasons mentioned above. There are quite a few scenes that will make you jump even if you’re a horror aficionado like me that has seen almost everything the genre has to offer. The Taking of Deborah Logan may not break any new ground, but it is a film that you might want to consider checking out when you have some extra time to spare. It’s enjoyable enough to warrant an addition to your Netflix list or a Redbox rental when you think you’ve run out of options.

The Taking of Deborah Logan grade: B-

Review: April Fool’s Day (1986)

April Fool’s Day is a classic “whodunit?” in the vein of Agatha Christie’s And Then There Were None. Muffy St. John (Deborah Foreman, Valley Girl) invites several of her classmates to a weekend getaway at her family’s isolated island mansion. At first, the group is treated to a light series of pranks courtesy of their host. She proposes a dinner toast where all the guests have been provided with dribble glasses instead of real ones and there are whoopie cushions and chairs with rubber legs–all to heighten the fun.

As time progresses, the weekend turns dark and the “jokes” become a little more ominous, harmful…and even deadly. One by one, Muffy’s guests disappear or are found murdered and there’s no way off the island until Monday. Will anyone survive?

I hadn’t seen April Fool’s Day in over 20 years and recall it being a pretty entertaining, albeit unspectacular, horror film. I was curious to see if it stood the test of time or, in the case of a lot of old films I’ve revisited after a few decades, perhaps remembered a little more fondly than it really was.

To its credit, April Fool’s Day does hold up pretty well, even with both the premise and twist ending having been done to death by now (pun completely intended). It’s a pretty crisply paced film with a better than average screenplay and the cast (filled with mid-1980s engaging actors like Foreman, Clayton Rohner, Deborah Goodrich, Thomas F Wilson and genre vet Amy Steel) all have a lot of fun with the material which elevates April Fool’s Day above standard horror fare. Director Fred Walton* superbly ratchets the tension as the mystery deepens and the bodies pile up, never sacrificing or completely abandoning the underlying sense of humor pervading the tale.

*When I happened to see his name in the credits, I couldn’t believe that this was the same person who helmed the woefully overrated (save for the first 20 minutes) When A Stranger Calls. Working with an overall story that’s much more solid is definitely beneficial to creating a stronger final product.

April Fool’s Day isn’t perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it’s a pleasant diversion that will entertain both aficionados of 80s films and maybe even the most jaded horror fan. Give it a chance because if you don’t go in expecting a gore laden horror classic, you might just find that, after an hour and a half, you’ve had a pretty good time.

April Fool’s Day grade: B-

Review: Grave Encounters (2011)

Lance Preston (Sean Rogerson), host of the popular TV ghost investigation show Grave Encounters, leads his team into the abandoned Collingwood Psychiatric Hospital where they plan to investigate paranormal occurrences over the course of one night. Thanks to the introduction from producer Jerry Hartfield (Ben Wilkinson), viewers learn that the footage has recently been found after having been missing for some time.

The footage at the beginning shows Lance interviewing a caretaker, a gardener, and even medium Houston Grey (Mackenzie Gray), the latter of whom is a fake psychic that lends an air of authenticity to what appears to be little more than a staged show. As the team begins to explore the hospital, however, they begin to have strange experiences like doors slamming shut, rooms where temperatures drop below normal, and some odd noises. In the morning, when they are supposed to leave after the outside doors are unlocked, they realize that there is no way out. Walls appear out of nowhere and doors that previously led to an exit now only lead to other hospital corridors preventing any hope of escape. Now, Lance and his team must struggle to survive against an increasingly hostile haunted environment.

I first saw Grave Encounters on cable a few years ago and, to be honest, I didn’t expect much out of it. In fact, I put the movie on intending it to be nothing more than background noise as I surfed the internet after a long day at work. Within the first few minutes, however, the film caught my attention and never let go.

Since The Blair Witch Project ushered in the whole “found footage” craze back in 1999, there have been dozens upon dozens of these types of films, all trying to capitalize on its success. Though there have been a lot of interesting horror films that use the “found footage” theme as its gimmick, most amount to little more than a cheaply made knockoff in a well worn genre. However, Grave Encounters has a lot going for it and feels like a cross between 1999’s very underrated House on Haunted Hill remake and the aforementioned The Blair Witch Project.

Grave Encounters wisely builds to a slow burn, allowing the dread to mount rather than revealing its horrors all at once–a technique that serves to enhance its realism. In fact, the first real sign of terror comes in a quiet moment nearly a half an hour into the film with just the slightest movement of a wheelchair sitting in the middle of a hallway. The remainder of Grave Encounters continues to increase the scares incrementally with some pretty nifty special effects. Considering the film’s budget couldn’t have been that high, it’s pretty impressive that Grave Encounters is able to generate some genuinely terrifying frights with minimal effort.

Perhaps what really makes the film truly believable are the performances by the talented ensemble cast. All too often, even the best premise can be undermined if you can’t identify with the characters and that’s especially true in the horror genre. The audience has to empathize with the characters in order to make certain the world the filmmakers created seems even more realistic. In the case of Grave Encounters, each performance hits the right note to lend credibility to the unfolding chain of events.

With a long list of films released each year, it’s inevitable that some will fall through the cracks. Grave Encounters was, unfortunately, one of those films and undeservedly so. There was no gargantuan viral marketing push behind it as there was for Paranormal Activity and it certainly didn’t have the backing of a major studio release. As a result, Grave Encounters didn’t register on most peoples’ radar and that’s a shame because it’s one of the most competent, scary, and entertaining horror films of the past decade.

Grave Encounters grade: A-