Review: Poltergeist (2015)

Several months prior to the release of the Poltergeist remake, my wife and I showed the original to our nieces. They were captivated and, at certain points, genuinely terrified of the film.

Which is a credit to the original’s power that it still is able to generate scares three decades after its release.

While they were excited to see the updated version, I had major reservations about it. Why take something that works and remake it? More often than not, updates of old films fail to capture what made the original versions special. Are there exceptions? Absolutely. 1982’s The Thing, 1986’s The Fly and even 2006’s The Hills Have Eyes are just a few examples of using the source material to make riveting films.

However, for every gem, you get a dud like 1998’s Psycho, 2006’s The Wicker Man and, from the same year, When A Stranger Calls (which, save for the original’s opening sequence, is not that great a film to begin with).

So how did 2015’s version of Poltergeist compare to the original?

It’s pretty appropriate that the remake of Poltergeist begins with the Bowen’s son, Griffin (Kyle Catlett) disconnected from the rest of his family as he plays a video game on his tablet because that’s the exact way I felt when watching this film–disconnected. There was never a moment where I felt as if I was invited in to watch a close knit family unravel as the supernatural begins to dominate their lives as was my experience with the original. In fact, the Bowens didn’t feel like a family at all, just random actors hired to stand and deliver lines.

I love Sam Rockwell but we was woefully miscast in this. Each time he was on screen, it appeared as if he culled the best parts of his better past characters (“Wild Bill” Wharton from The Green Mile in particular) rather than develop a character that would resemble anything like a father. The other actors don’t fare much better.

But I don’t blame them. I specifically find fault with the incredibly lazy effort that went into this version courtesy of the filmmakers*. There are so many inconsistencies in this tale that it left me bewildered, trying to figure out whether they chopped entire scenes or just didn’t give a damn about the overall story. I still wonder how one parent laid off from his job and the other a struggling writer can afford not one house, but two! They’re just snapping them up willy nilly I suppose. Also, there’s no slow burn as there was with the original. A few minutes in, we see things start to happen immediately**.

*Director Gil Kenan helmed a much better haunted house tale ten years ago with the exceptional animated film, Monster House. Go watch that instead. 

**I looked at the running times on each film. the 2015 version clocks in at 93 minutes while its predecessor is 21 minutes longer. That extra time makes a big difference, especially in terms of character development. Also, the remake felt as if it was longer because you just want it to be over.

The success of the original Poltergeist stemmed from the premise that this was a typical American family living in a typical suburban neighborhood. The Freeling Family could live next door or could be your own family for that matter. The Bowens? Well, they just move in and shit starts flying. We don’t get time to know them and god forbid they should have any human ties to anyone around them.

And maybe that’s what America has become–cold, isolated and lacking heart. Maybe the new Poltergeist accurately reflects how we are and that’s why it fails on every level. Give me the original any day. I still want to feel something, to be connected, and, most importantly, to be scared by a good horror film.

Poltergeist (2015) grade: D-

Poltergeist (1982) grade: A

Review: Phase IV (1974)

I’d first become familiar with Phase IV in the late 70s, a time when I would get my hands on anything remotely related to science fiction and horror films as my love of both genres began to kick into high gear. The film had been mentioned in a paperback focusing on sci-fi films and, with its “nature strikes back” premise of ants gaining intelligence, Phase IV seemed like something I would really enjoy. And, considering it was the only major film directed by Saul Bass (the man responsible for the most memorable opening title sequences in movie history with credits such as Psycho, North By Northwest, West Side Story and GoodFellas to his name), I was even more excited to see it. So, when it came on Turner Classic Movies several weeks ago, I knew I had to record it.

Turns out, Phase IV isn’t quite the classic I’d hoped for all these years.

Starring Nigel Davenport (A Man For All Seasons, Chariots of Fire), Michael Murphy (Cloak & Dagger, Manhattan) and Lynne Frederick (Voyage of the Damned, Schizo), Phase IV is a plodding film about ants developing a hive like mind thanks to some briefly mentioned “cosmic event”. Davenport and Murphy portray scientists who first seek to discover exactly what the ants are up to until finally attempting to destroy them before they overrun humanity. Frederick is the lone survivor of a local family who takes refuge with the two as the threat around them grows.

Had I seen Phase IV when I was younger, I might have had a better appreciation for it but I highly doubt it. Sure, it’s got some interesting imagery thanks to Bass’s influence, but it’s very slow and disjointed. Not much happens in its 84 minute running time, so even if you like movies with a slow burn, you’ll probably be as disappointed as I was. I get what message the film was trying to deliver (that the ants are preparing humanity for some future evolutionary development) but it’s a bit too trippy to do it successfully–especially if you watch the original ending.

Now that Phase IV became the latest in a string of duds I’ve endured over the last few months, it’s becoming more and more apparent that I should eschew a lot of these older films in lieu of…I don’t know…anything else. I truly love discovering old films regardless of whether they’re good, bad, “cult” classics or whatever but, as I get older, I have less time to devote to watching everything and therefore, have to be a little more discerning in my selections.

Phase IV grade: D+

Review: It’s Alive (1974)

After a two month, self imposed “sabbatical” during which I experienced some real life horrors that I won’t go into here, I wanted to select a film that would not only rejuvenate me, but also test a theory which I’ve been mulling over lately. It’s Alive seemed as if it was the perfect choice.

Recently, I’ve asked a few friends a rather odd question: What movie or movies that you missed in your childhood (which would, for most of the people I know, primarily be from the 1970s or 1980s) and saw later in life didn’t really live up to your expectations? In other words, was there a film that is beloved by many that you didn’t catch until well into adulthood that failed to live up to the hype?

I had mentioned that, while I enjoyed the animated film Heavy Metal, it didn’t strike the same feelings in me that it might have had I caught it back in the early 80s. When I saw it about a year ago, I appreciated it for what it set out to do, but I know that I would have really loved it when I used to sneak peeks out of the adult oriented magazine in high school. One friend chose The Goonies as a film that ended up being disappointing. Others had their own picks.

However, there are also many films that I didn’t see until years after their release that more than surpassed my expectations. I saw Psycho nearly 20 years after it was released theatrically and Night of the Living Dead a little less than 15 years after it terrified moviegoers. In both cases, I loved them and they easily lived up to their reputation as horror classics. I suppose that begs further questions: Does your age affect your enjoyment? What about the time in your life you happen to see it? Would I (or anyone else) be jaded now seeing either of those films because of the hundreds of other similarly themed movies viewed in the past 30 years? How does your emotional state at the time influence your enjoyment?

Maybe it’s overthinking things, but I took all of this into account when watching writer/producer/director Larry Cohen’s It’s Alive. The movie is considered somewhat of a cult classic, though I rarely hear much chatter about it anymore. Pretty simple plot, really. Couple has a child. Child turns out to be a monster. Chaos and death ensue.

I know trailers were different in those days, but that editing is at such a languid pace, I almost wanted to fast forward through the whole thing. Ten cops too many ran down those stairs and that conversation in the hospital hallway isn’t exactly an attention grabber.

But I digress.

It’s Alive probably would have been more enjoyable for me had I seen it closer to its release. It’s paced more like a melodrama than a horror movie with long stretches of an anguished Frank (John Ryan, who’s actually quite good in the role, especially near the film’s end) and Lenore (Sharon Farrell adding just the right amount of increased insanity) dealing with the fact that they’ve had a mutant child who murders everyone in sight. However, there’s often too much focus on Frank, his issues at work, his discussions with the police, etc. that really slow the film to a grinding halt in places.

That said, I can appreciate the fact that filmmaker Larry Cohen likely drew inspiration from horror films of the 50s and 60s when crafting It’s Alive as those are the films he grew up on, and then added his own modern twist involving a mutant killer baby. Filmmakers tended to be more willing to experiment in the 70s and 80s while still utilizing elements from films that frightened them when they were young. Sometimes the end product was successful, sometimes it wasn’t.

So where does It’s Alive fall upon that spectrum? Somewhere in the middle, actually. It’s Alive is more schlocky than shocking and that’s most likely because I’m seeing it over 40 years later. And, while the film tends to touch upon some good ideas regarding the cause of the mutant birth (chemicals, contraceptives and a few other reasons are briefly bandied about), it doesn’t fully explore them. That’s fine in a way because I don’t always need a definitive answer as the unknown is always more terrifying. But, since there’s a lengthy conversation about the possibility of pharmaceutical companies being responsible, it would have been nice to see that expanded upon.

It’s Alive didn’t really live up to the expectations I had when I was younger, but since it’s a film that’s been off the grid for a while now and not oft discussed, it didn’t completely disappoint me either. It’s a relatively solid little B-movie that might make for a decent first film in a B-movie marathon.

It’s Alive grade: C+

Review: Night of the Lepus (1972)

When rancher Cole Hillman (Rory Calhoun, Motel Hell), discovers that his land is overpopulated with rabbits, he turns to local college president (?) Elgin Clark (DeForest Kelley, Star Trek) for a solution. Clark recommends seeking the help of researchers Roy (Stuart Whitman, The Monster Club) and Gerry Bennett (Janet Leigh, Psycho) who suggest controlling the rabbits’ breeding cycle using hormones. The unorthodox experimentation, accompanied by an old switcheroo pulled by the Bennetts’ precocious daughter, unwittingly leads to a “growth” in the animal population.

That might be one of the greatest all time trailers, only because it’s so completely ridiculous and doesn’t appear the least bit scary.

Though I was alive when Night of the Lepus was released, I was much too young to remember the trailer, much less be able to see this “terrifying” film in the theaters. At least that’s one thing I can be thankful for. As solid as the cast is, even they can’t salvage this mess. Director William F. Claxton made his bones in the Western genre and it shows here because as a sci-fi/horror film, it makes a decent Western. But when you add banal dialogue, horrible special effects and nature run amok into the mix, it makes for an incredibly bad film.

Now aside from all that, Night of the Lepus is basically right up my alley. Next to my absolute favorite horror subgenre–the haunted house film–nature seeking its revenge upon the human race is probably in my top five. I’ve always loved Frogs and Empire of the Ants and Jaws is near the top of my list for the best all time horror film, so Night of the Lepus is completely enjoyable as long as you see it for what it is–a fifties style movie made about a decade and a half too late. It’s a film that’s now best enjoyed with a group of fellow bad movie fans with whom you can sit around and trade sarcastic barbs with while watching the insanity unfold.

Pair Night of the Lepus with another 70s “nature strikes back” film like The Swarm, Tentacles, or even the aforementioned Frogs and remind yourself: “It’s only a bad movie”.

Night of the Lepus grade: D+

You can grab a copy of Night of the Lepus or any of the other films from Amazon.

Review: Torture Garden (1967)

 

“It will show you nothing but what is in your own heart.”–Dr. Diabolo

When I randomly selected Torture Garden as the final film in my 31 Days of Halloween movie marathon, how could I have known that it would come from the same team that created a movie I saw a week ago today (The Psychopath)?

Director Freddie Francis (Tales From The Crypt), writer Robert Bloch (Psycho), and producer Milton Subotsky (The Monster Club) came together again in 1967 to make the anthology film starring Burgess Meredith (The Twilight Zone, Batman) and Jack Palance (City Slickers, Shane).

Torture Garden follows the same basic structure as other Amicus anthologies such as The Vault of Horror, Tales From The Crypt, and From Beyond the Grave in that a mysterious main character allows several individuals to obtain a glimpse into their very often ominous futures. In this film we meet:

• A man who finds himself driven to murder by a mesmerizing, man-eating cat
• A Hollywood actress who will do anything to become one of the top 10 stars
• A famed pianist whose grand piano holds an evil sway over him
• An Edgar Allan Poe collector (Palance) who murders another collector (Peter Cushing) to gain access to his items and uncover dark secrets

None of the segments are particularly bad. However, none are particularly memorable either. They’re basically watered down morality tales you might find on TV shows like The Twilight Zone or Thriller (both of which were far better at executing this type of material).

If you’re looking for something to pass the time on a gloomy afternoon, you could do a lot worse than Torture Garden, but I would recommend checking out one of the later Amicus anthologies–they had a bit more flair and the twists were a little more creative. Seek this one out only for a rare villainous turn by Burgess Meredith, a great character actor whose performance always elevated any story.

Torture Garden grade: C

[AMAZONPRODUCTS asin=”B000AM6OOY”]

Review: The Psychopath (1966)

When I have to repeatedly pause a film to determine how much time remains and I discover myself thinking “Too much”, it’s never a good sign.

Written by Robert Bloch (Psycho), directed by Freddie Francis (Tales From the Crypt, Torture Garden), produced by Milton Subotsky (The Monster Club, From Beyond the Grave), and released by Amicus, The Psychopath should have been a solid film considering the level of talent involved. In fact, as it started, I found myself acting like Flounder from Animal House when, excited, he said “Oh boy! Is this GREAT!”

Sadly, The Psychopath is not great.

Men who investigated a German millionaire after World War II are being systematically killed with the assailant leaving a small plastic doll that resembles the victim as a calling card. Inspector Holloway (Patrick Wymark) turns a suspicious eye toward everyone, including: Mrs. Von Sturm (Margaret Johnston)–the millionaire’s widow, her son Mark (John Standing), and several other players.

For the majority of the film, The Psychopath is more crime drama than horror film as the Inspector tracks down the killer while suspects are murdered. And it’s quite a dull murder mystery at that. Even clocking in at 82 minutes, The Psychopath feels longer with a plot no more elaborate than an episode of Castle. Though the ending does provide a bit of a shocker, it’s also indicative that Bloch went to the whole “mommy issues” well one too many times.

The Psychopath grade: D+

Review: Dementia 13 (1963)

The first mainstream film directed by Francis Ford Coppola (The Godfather, Apocalypse Now), Dementia 13 is an interesting little horror movie.

Set in Ireland at the Haloran Castle, Dementia 13 opens with a couple rowing on a lake. The husband, John Haloran (Peter Read) dies from a heart attack after informing his wife, Louise (Luana Anders), that should he perish, any family money would be completely out of her grasp. She covers up the accident by tossing his body into the lake and hatches a plan to insinuate herself into the graces of John’s mother (Eithne Dunne) by telling her that the woman’s deceased daughter is communicating with her.

The story then takes a strange twist when fate intervenes and prevents Louise from following through with her plan after she has an interesting run-in with with an axe wielding maniac.

Produced by Roger Corman, it’s easy to see that Dementia 13 was heavily influenced by Hitchcock’s Psycho, but it’s by no means a complete knockoff. Yes, it is very cheaply made (a Corman staple) but it does have moments that allow it to stand apart from what was one of the best horror films of all time. Some of the choices Coppola made were interesting, though it doesn’t give any indication whatsoever that he was destined to make several of the most well known, classic films in history.

Would I recommend Dementia 13? My first inclination is to say no, but I guess if you have about an hour and 15 minutes to kill, I suppose you could give it a look. Like discovering where zombies began in 1932’s White Zombie, Dementia 13 is probably going to be of interest mainly to film buffs to see where Coppola got his start. Other horror fans would probably only enjoy this as part of a cheesy old black and white lineup that they can poke a little fun at.

Dementia 13 grade: C-

Review: Fright Night on Channel 9: Saturday Night Horror Films on New York’s WOR-TV 1973-1987 by James Arena

It might be difficult for those born after the late 1980’s to comprehend, but there was a time when you were limited in terms of the availability of television programming. Viewers had a handful of options then as opposed to thousands now (not even counting internet content). Until the advent of cable, local stations and three major networks reigned supreme and your UHF stations pulled in signals from only a few hundred miles away (which is why, in Pittsburgh, we had the great WUAB out of Cleveland).

When cable arrived, more stations became available but it was still a far cry from what we have today. One of the blessings we received in Pittsburgh was New York’s WOR-TV which was one of the first cable “superstations”. WOR will always hold a special place in my heart for its broadcasts of King Kong and Godzilla movies on Thanksgiving as well as the various afterschool movies (one of which was Psycho, scaring the hell out of me at an early age) that kept me company until dinner time. So when I became aware of James Arena’s Fright Night on Channel 9: Saturday Night Horror Films on New York’s WOR-TV 1973-1987, I knew that it was a must read.

Fright Night on Channel 9 is a labor of love for Arena, a horror film junkie who was weaned on WOR’s late night offerings of lurid tales of monsters, murderers, and mayhem. In an exhaustively researched and documented book, Arena not only details the programming evolution of WOR but also provides his own insight in regard to each and every offering of the entire Fright Night lineup from its inception to its demise in 1987.

Arena’s assertion that he kept meticulous notes of the films broadcast during the Saturday viewings rings true in his recollection, thorough description, and insight into each and every movie. He also traces the erratic offerings of Fright Night on a weekly basis, even noting when the broadcast was delayed or preempted (there certainly seemed to be a lot of telethons back then for some odd reason).

Fright Night on Channel 9 will undoubtedly appeal only to certain readers, primarily those older TV viewers who fondly recall the bygone days when you could snap on the bulky tube televisions and be treated to either a classic film or something completely bizarre in the wee hours of the morning. However, the book’s glance at the transitional years of television at a major station will also be of interest to those who enjoy traveling back to a simpler time.

Though I don’t recall ever having had the pleasure of watching WOR’s Fright Night, I do remember both the amazing programming WOR had to offer as well as the old blocks of time local stations devoted to airing old horror movies (in Pittsburgh, it was Chiller Theater with Bill “Chilly Billy” Cardille). For genre fans like me and Arena, these broadcasts were a vital part of our childhood and provided hours of entertainment.

If you’re a horror fan, regardless of whether or not you had access to WOR, you should give Fright Night on Channel 9 a look. It will bring back a lot of memories and a smile to your face.

Fright Night on Channel 9 grade: B+

[AMAZONPRODUCTS asin=”B0070WCBQ2″]

Review: ‘What Ever Happened To Aunt Alice?’ (1969)

Nine years after Psycho and seven after What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? came the twisted horror/black comedy What Ever Happened to Aunt Alice? Starring Academy Award winners Geraldine Page (The Trip to Bountiful, Sweet Bird of Youth) and Ruth Gordon (Rosemary’s Baby, Harold and Maude), What Ever Happened To Aunt Alice? is the story of serial killer Clare Marrable (Page), a widowed woman left with nothing but a rusty dagger, a butterfly collection, and a book of old stamps after her husband dies. To survive, she moves closer to a nephew in Arizona and, unbeknownst to him, bilks elderly housekeepers out of their money before murdering them and planting the bodies under trees in her lawn.

Enter Mrs. Dimmock (Gordon), a diminutive and crafty redhead who applies for Marrable’s housekeeping position, a job left open after the rather sudden disappearance of Miss Edna Tinsley (Mildred Dunnock). We see early that Dimmock is not all she appears to be, snooping around the house and knowing a little more about Marrable than she initially lets on. Aided by her nephew, Mike (Robert Fuller, Emergency), Dimmock works hard to gain solid evidence to prove that Marrable is guilty of foul play many times over. Will Dimmock be able to expose Marrable before it’s too late? And in the end, will we ever discover who Aunt Alice actually is and what became of her?

What Ever Happened to Aunt Alice? isn’t exactly the movie I thought it would be. Amazingly enough, for a film nearly 45 years old, I managed to avoid any information about it so I went into my viewing under the assumption it would have more of either a slasher feel or perhaps something with supernatural overtones like Let’s Scare Jessica To Death. That’s not to say I was disappointed. In fact, What Ever Happened to Aunt Alice? was enjoyable on many levels.

Geraldine Page not only sinks her teeth into the role of Marrable, she uses her acting chops to chew the scenery throughout the entire film, remarkably without creating an over the top caricature as a lesser actress might have done. Ruth Gordon, on the other hand, is more restrained as Dimmock, underplaying her role with a shrewd calmness that’s a perfect counterpoint to the domineering Page. Watching the two of them circle one another as predator and prey as the story unfolds is what elevates What Ever Happened to Aunt Alice? above the normal thriller and it makes one wonder why the film has never gotten more exposure.

That’s not to say it’s a perfect film, however. Fuller’s Mike reminded me of a lesser Don Draper and the character really isn’t given much to do other than exist as a link to the outside world for Gordon’s Dimmock. His love interest, Harriet (Rosemary Forsyth, Days of our Lives) is something of a dim bulb and basically little more than a stock character. Beef up both roles and perhaps they could have strengthened the film.

Overall, What Ever Happened to Aunt Alice? is a fun little film that really showcases the talents of two great actresses. Give it a look when you have a chance.

What Ever Happened to Aunt Alice? grade: B-

[AMAZONPRODUCTS asin=”B0002V7O60″]