Spoilers ensue.

Jonathan Harker (Bruno Ganz, of DOWNFALL) has been sent from Wismar, Germany to Transylvania to complete a lucrative real estate transaction; the reclusive Count Dracula (Kinski), a bald, pallid, big-eared creature with clawed hands and rat-like teeth, wishes to purchase property in Wismar.  The documentation signed and sealed, Dracula sinks those teeth into Harker’s neck and leaves him to die.  The count completes his preparations to leave for Wismar, packing a number of black coffins with the cursed earth of Transylvania.

In Wismar, Lucy Harker (Adjani), Jonathan’s wife, has been having horrific nightmares as she waits for Jonathan’s return.  Instead, a ghost ship, its crew dead or missing, runs aground at Wismar, disgorging thousands of rats.  Soon, people begin to die – the Plague has come to Wismar.  As a delirious, sickly Jonathan returns, the documents in his bag allow Lucy to piece together that Count Dracula, one of the undead, is behind this outbreak of disease and mass death, and aids her in figuring out how to stop him.

This film was amazing.  I was completely and utterly blown away by it – I’ve long considered 1922′s NOSFERATU to be the finest vampire film ever made, and honestly, this film tops it for me.

A lot hinged on Kinski’s performance as Dracula.  Kinski’s known for his intensity and his propensity to fly into rages, but his performance as Dracula is remarkably subdued.  He gives the role a sense of centuries-old weariness, a sense of emotional deadening that’s progressed over uncountable years of endless predation.  He knows what he’s lost and he feels that loss acutely, even if he’s capable of feeling nothing else.  Plus, instead of slapping a bald wig on him, it looks like they actually shaved his head.  Given what I’ve heard about Kinski’s dedication to his craft, this hardly surprises me.  I also don’t think I’d be surprised if it was revealed that to get into character, Kinski subsisted on a diet of blood.  He didn’t, that I know of, but the man was intense.

Isabelle Adjani gave a wonderful performance as Lucy Harker, and in so doing definitely turned a lot of assumptions on their head.  Look at pretty much any other adaptation of Dracula – or, hell, look at the original novel.  Mina Harker (not sure why Herzog switched the names of Lucy and Mina) is generally presented as a damsel in distress, existing to be saved from the undead by the plucky male heroes – Van Helsing, Arthur Holmwood, Quincy Morris, Jonathan Harker.  Those men are the heroes of Dracula.

Except not here.  The characters of Arthur and Quincy have been excised entirely, Jonathan Harker spends most of the film post-returning to Wismar as an invalid propped up in a kitchen chair, and Van Helsing is a strict scientific materialist who gives no attention to ludicrous stories of vampires.  Thus, it falls to Lucy and to Lucy alone to save Wismar from the predations of Dracula.

This is an incredible new take on the story, and one I can’t recall having seen done anywhere else.  And it’s made even more impressive with the casting of Isabelle Adjani – she’s a very slender, wan, almost ethereal-looking woman, and this, coupled with the history of the Mina character, lures the viewer into expecting her to be a frail damsel in distress.  And then for her to turn around and be the strongest character in the film? Absolutely stunning.  Of course, I’m also a major sucker for self-sacrificing heroes (and heroines)…

The final sequence of the film…the less I say about it, the better.  It’s an incredible twist on the story which, like with Lucy’s heroics, I don’t think I’ve ever seen pulled in any other vampire film.  Let me just say that I watched this with my buddy Dan, and as it dawned on us what was unfolding on screen, we just looked at each other in shock and amazement.  We couldn’t believe what we were seeing, and absolutely gleeful that we were.  Werner Herzog, I salute you.

Final Analysis: I’d like to consider this the definitive vampire film of the modern day, and I wish it was more widely known here in the USA, because this is a beautiful, intelligent, soul-rending adaptation of the classic vampire story, and perhaps better than any other adaptation I’ve seen before.  Don’t get me wrong, I still love 1922′s NOSFERATU.  But 1979′s NOSFERATU takes it to a whole new level.  Kinski is amazing, Adjani is amazing, Herzog is amazing.  By all means, see this film.  Maybe in 2056 we’ll get a SHADOWS OF THE VAMPIRE for this version, suggesting that Kinski was an actual vampire hired for the production.  That’d be cool.

Overall, I give NOSFERATU THE VAMPYRE (1979)…

FIVE BARRELS OF TOXIC WASTE.

Spoilers ensue.

Zeus (Laurence Olivier) is furious.  King Acrisius of Argos has consigned his daughter Danae and her illegitimate son Perseus to the sea; unbeknownst to King Acrisius, Perseus is the son of Zeus.  At Zeus’ command, the casket containing Danae and her infant son is guided safely to the island of Seriphos; Argos is destroyed, no stone left standing, by the wrath of the last Titan, a monstrous sea-beast known as the Kraken (actually a creature from Norse mythology, but so it goes).

Perseus grows into a young man (Harry Hamlin), who is transported to the city of Joppa in Phoenicia by the will of the irate goddess Thetis (Maggie Smith, best known these days as Professor McGonagall in the Harry Potter films).  Here, Perseus befriends the playwright Ammon (Burgess Meredith), wins the love of the princess Andromeda (Judi Bowker), and the enmity of Calibos, a former demigod and son of Thetis deformed by Zeus for his crimes.  When Andromeda’s mother, Queen Cassiopeia, insults Thetis, the goddess decrees that Andromeda will be sacrificed to the Kraken as punishment.  Now Perseus has just thirty days to find a way to defeat the Kraken and save Andromeda and Joppa.  To accomplish this, he’ll brave the cannibalistic Stygian Witches, giant scorpions, a two-headed hound, the continued fury of Calibos, and the stony gaze of the hissing, serpentine Medusa…

This film was Ray Harryhausen’s final film before retirement, and WOW! What an exit.  Much like his Sinbad films or JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS, the film is rooted in Harryhausen’s love of fantasy and mythology, though now with a big enough budget to afford some real stars.

Laurence Olivier as Zeus was an act of casting genius.  The man was brilliant, and brought so much gravitas and bombast, befitting the king of the gods (even if, myths as written, Zeus was more like a giant thundering frat boy than a dignified ruler), to the role.  This is perhaps the only time I’ll say this, but Liam Neeson, you’re only second place this time around.  Beyond Zeus and Thetis — and let me say, Maggie Smith brought a wonderful authoritarian menace, really capturing the “drunken parent” vibe of the Greek myths — the rest of the gods aren’t given a whole lot to do, with Hera, Aphrodite and Athena mostly just standing around looking expectantly at Zeus.

Harry Hamlin and Judi Bowker had pretty good chemistry on screen, though I thought she sometimes came off as a bit wooden.  It should be pretty good chemistry — the two were a couple off-screen as well as on.

Like most of his films, CLASH was developed as a showcase for Harryhausen’s animation talents, and it’s clear watching this film that he retired at the top of his game; there was no decrease in quality over the course of his career.  While all the monsters in the film are magnificent to behold, the Medusa scene is what everyone remembers.

Rather than go with the usual image of a woman with snakes in her hair, Harryhausen designed a much more serpentine, ugly monstrosity, something hideous enough to turn its victims to stone.  An enormous snake from the waist down (complete with rattlesnake rattle, to allow her to menace even when not being shown) and a scale-covered woman from the waist up, she’s got really sharp, angular features and a broad, fanged mouth.  The serpents composing her hair are in constant motion.  Even more impressively, her lair is lit by a handful of flickering torches and braziers, and in addition to simply animating the monster, Harryhausen applied a flickering light source to the puppet as he did so to ensure continuity between scenes shot in the prop lair and those shot on an actual set.  It’s a very memorable sequence and an impressive monster – snake-tailed Medusas have become relatively common in fantasy media since the release of this film.

In addition to the quality of the animation, the matte-work combining stop-motion footage with live-action sequences is really good – during the fight with the giant scorpions, there’s a couple spots where the scorpions appear semi-transparent (a common problem with matte effects) but the scenes with Medusa, the Kraken, Pegasus, Calibos and the two-headed dog are all top-notch.

Final Analysis: A brilliant swan song from cinema’s top fantasy animator, filled with monsters on par with or better than anything that had come before them.  In truth, I’ve probably seen this film 25-30 times in the last 20 years, and I’m sure I’ll continue to watch it over and over again for years to come.  It’s very much a comfort movie for me – when I’ve had a bad day I can pop it in the player and just decompress.  As such, of course I recommend it – and not just for the nostalgia value it holds for me.  As far as mythology films go, this is one of the best I can ask for.  Leave the 2010 remake with Sam Worthington on the shelf next to its sequel.  This is the film you should be looking to see when you want to “RELEASE THE KRAKEN!”

Overall, I give CLASH OF THE TITANS (1981)…

FIVE BARRELS OF TOXIC WASTE.

Spoilers ensue.

A pilot, Kobayashi (Minoru Chiaki, of SEVEN SAMURAI and a number of other Kurosawa productions), experiences engine trouble while searching for schools of tuna for the cannery company that employs him.  Forced to make an emergency landing, Kobayashi brings his plane down on the barren Iwato Island.  He’s soon rescued by his friend Tsukioka (Hiroshi Koizumi, last seen around these parts in MOTHRA), a fellow pilot.  During the rescue, the two men witness a giant reptilian monster which they identify as a Godzilla, identical to the creature that ravaged Tokyo a year earlier and which was destroyed in Tokyo Bay.  Godzilla is engaged in a fierce battle with another monster, an armor-plated quadruped covered in horns and spines.  The two monsters tumble into the ocean, and Kobayashi and Tsukioka make their escape.

Returning home to Osaka, the two men go to the authorities regarding what they’ve seen, identifying the second monster as an Anguirus, an ancient rival of the Godzilla species.  Among these authorities is Dr. Kyohei Yamane (Takashi Shimura, best known for his work with Akira Kurosawa, last seen around these parts in MOTHRA as well, and reprising a character he’d played in the original GOJIRA), who fears that the monsters will find their way to Japan and continue their ancient struggle in civilized areas.  Given that Dr. Serizawa, the tragic genius who saved Tokyo from the previous Godzilla, burned all his notes and took his own life rather than allow his invention, the Oxygen Destroyer, to fall into the wrong hands, this time mankind has no weapons capable of destroying or driving away these terrible monsters.  And before long, Dr. Yamane’s worst fears are realized…

While it didn’t make much of a splash with critics or audiences when it was originally released (a big part of why Godzilla wasn’t seen again until 1962), I think this is a pretty solid entry in the Godzilla franchise, and while KING KONG VS. GODZILLA was the film that truly set the template for all subsequent monster brawls, GODZILLA RAIDS AGAIN does hold the record for first monster brawl.  The monster battles here are pretty well-done too – while the suits are crude compared to what they’d become in later years (and Godzilla’s head is still a hand-puppet for close-ups), the fight scenes are impressively visceral – while mutated, Godzilla and Anguirus are still dinosaurs at heart, and claws and fangs are their first resort against each other.  While Anguirus is lacking in any sort of energy weapon analogous to Godzilla’s atomic breath, his thickly-armored hide and sense of low cunning (he’s definitely presented as smarter than Godzilla, though both are still of animal-level intelligence) seem to level the playing field to a surprising degree.

I would, however, have liked to have seen the fight scenes slowed down.  In the original GOJIRA, Godzilla’s scenes were filmed at a higher speed and then slowed down when shown, giving the monster a solemn, ponderous gait befitting a creature 150 feet tall.  Here, it feels like I’m watching the monster fight in fast-forward; even in later entries where the monsters were filmed and shown at normal speed, they don’t seem as speedy – here, Godzilla and Anguirus practically appear to be on amphetamines.

The human cast was excellent here, with Hiroshi Koizumi and Minoru Chiaki giving fantastic performance and playing off each other nicely.  They really sell the conceit that their characters are best friends and have a long history together, while Takashi Shimura, of course, was an absolutely brilliant actor in every role he took, with his performance as Dr. Yamane being every bit as solid and memorable as his turn as the world-weary Kanbei Shimada in SEVEN SAMURAI.  Unlike far too many films these days, writer, director and actors come together to give us a cast of characters we can lose ourselves in and believe in, which is always appreciated.

For the purposes of this review, I watched the original Japanese cut of the film – the recent DVD release contains both the Japanese cut and the American cut, with the Japanese cut being slightly longer.  I prefer to watch the Japanese language version of kaiju films because so often the dubbing is so horrendously bad. In the case of GODZILLA RAIDS AGAIN, they went so far as to rename Godzilla as Gigantis, and release the film as GIGANTIS, THE FIRE MONSTER.  This is, however, better than it could have been:

Initially, Henry Rybnick and Edward Barrison of AB-PT Productions intended to buy just the special effects footage from GODZILLA RAIDS AGAIN, shoot new footage around it featuring American actors, and release it as THE VOLCANO MONSTERS.  Given that this eventually happened with VARAN THE UNBELIEVABLE, I’m glad it didn’t happen here as well.

Final Analysis: A solid entry in the Godzilla franchise, while not the best GODZILLA RAIDS AGAIN is far from the worst of the bunch.  Motoyoshi Oda stepped in for Ishiro Honda in the role of director, and is more than capable in the role, his only time directing a giant monster movie.  The cast is good, the monster action largely worthwhile (other than my earlier note on how strangely fast the monsters move here), and it’s one of the only films to show any continuity with other films in the series.  I think the pacing is a little slow at times, and I don’t think I would recommend this for the casual viewer wondering what all this Godzilla stuff is about.  However, for people who know what they’re getting in to and want to see Godzilla’s first fight, it’s an afternoon or evening well-spent.

Overall, I give GODZILLA RAIDS AGAIN (1955)…

THREE BARRELS OF TOXIC WASTE.

Spoilers ensue

At an old cabin in the woods, five young people gather; David, his sister Mia, and three of their friends, for the purpose of helping Mia break her heroin habit.  After David’s dog uncovers a trap-door in the floor of the cabin, he and friend Eric go exploring.  They discover a secret basement room furnished in early Leatherface, with dozens of dead cats hanging suspended from the rafters by coils of barbed wire.  They also discover a book, bound in human skin and carefully wrapped in garbage bags and barbed wire to discourage anyone from opening it.

Eric, naturally (being the scholar of the group), clips through the barbed wire, opens the book — the Naturem Demonto — and begins reading.  Specifically, he reads a passage which the owner of the book had tried to censor, and over which had written – “DON’T READ IT – DON’T SAY IT – DON’T THINK IT.”  But, Eric does think it, read it and say it, and all Hell breaks loose.

If asked to sum up my feelings towards this film in a single word and I was feeling charitable, I would call it underwhelming.  If I were feeling uncharitable, I would call it disappointing.  Let me discuss what I liked about the film before I get into my disappointment.

I liked the new set-up.  I like that, instead of five friends going up to a cabin in the woods for a vacation, they’ve come for a serious purpose – helping Mia go cold turkey.  And I liked that they’re not all one big happy family, but that there’s some animosity and tension between them from the start.  And the gore was not bad, though I felt like they could have used a better red dye/methyl cellulose mix – maybe it was my theater, but I thought the blood seemed distinctly watery and in some scenes appeared more orange then red.

My favorite part was also the biggest disappointment: There’s a pre-credits sequence featuring the previous owners of the book in action, and I really liked where they were going with this – Dan described it nicely when he said this sequence felt like they were taking it for granted that the events of the original 1981 film had taken place, and the revelation of the existence of the supernatural had spawned a cottage industry of deadite-hunting exorcists.  But once the opening credits roll, they forget all about this subplot and launch right into what people are going into EVIL DEAD expecting.  Yawn.

While I must give kudos to the filmmakers for taking the chance of breaking away from doing a direct remake and telling a new story from the same elements, I have to kind of boo them as well for the amount they lifted from other horror films.  While the Evil Dead was always a story about demonic possession, the Deadites here have more in common with Regan Macneil then with Cheryl and Linda.  Their overall appearance, behavior, and the fact that while possessed, Mia vomits copiously into friend Olivia’s face and snarls at her brother, “Let me suck your cock, pretty boy! Your little sister is being raped in Hell!” all scream Pazuzu rather than Necronomicon.  Hell, there’s even a shot of the possessed Olivia urinating on herself and the floor exactly like Regan did!

Speaking of urine and vomit, I was disappointed by the fluid discharges in this film.  In the original 1981 film, Deadites fountained not just red blood, but black blood, green slime, unidentifiable white fluid (played convincingly by milk), suggesting that being possessed by Kandarian demons alters the host’s biology.  Here…other than the piss, it’s all blood.  Copious, highly-pressurized blood, but blood nonetheless.  The vomit? Blood, or at least a substance nigh-indistinguishable from blood in terms of color and viscosity.

The film is littered with call-backs to the original – the chainsaw, the blood dripping on the light-bulb, the little magnifying-glass necklace, here given to Mia by David as a totem of will-power.  I could take them or leave them.  They appease the fans, I’m sure, and as Dan observed to me while the credits rolled, if they’d left out the chainsaw people would have rioted, flipping cars and setting fires in response.

The cast is adequate enough, though I never felt anything for them.  They were too ill-defined, too nebulous, to the point where I didn’t actually catch half the characters’ names until the end credits rolled.  The film tried to create something where David was effectively estranged from the group by his own actions, but it never went anywhere and just gave us little glimpses of why we, the audience, are supposed to care about these characters getting possessed and dismembered, and I for one just couldn’t force myself to give a damn about any of them, making their deaths relatively meaningless and without emotional tension.  And while much the same could be said about the original THE EVIL DEAD, at least that film gave us vignettes – Ash giving Linda the necklace, Ash and Scotty horsing around in the basement – to give us a sense of them as real people.  Here they just bicker and argue and point recriminating fingers at one another, and it’s exhausting.

Overall, just watching this film felt like an ordeal.  The listed run-time is 91 minutes, and it felt like a solid 120+.  I just felt pummeled into submission by the film, sinking deeper and deeper into my chair as the movie wore on, silently asking, “is this ever going to end? Almighty God, enough! Enough!”

Final Analysis: The most terrifying film I’ll ever see? Not by a long shot.  However, the original tagline of “the ultimate experience in grueling horror” does come to mind, because it felt more like an endurance test than a film.  It lacks the joi de vivre of the original film, and the manic energy that was the hallmark of the original is likewise missing.  My friend Dan summed it up best, I think: If your local multiplex doesn’t charge too much for a matinee ticket and you’ve got a rainy afternoon to kill, 2013′s EVIL DEAD is suitable.  I don’t see myself going back and rewatching it any time soon, or possibly even ever again.  As burned out as I am on the 1981 original, I still think I’m more likely to go back to that before I’ll watch this one again.  ALSO, for those of you reading this, if you haven’t seen the film yet and your friends tell you, “You have to stay through the credits, there’s a scene at the end” you should seriously reconsider whether these people are truly your friends or not.  There is a short sequence at the end, yes, but it doesn’t add anything to the film, is a pointless shout-out to the fans, and I was actually genuinely pissed off that I’d waited through the credits and instead of getting a pay-off I got, effectively, a loogie in the eye from Bruce Campbell.

Overall, I give EVIL DEAD (2013)…

TWO BARRELS OF TOXIC WASTE.

Spoilers ensue.

Jonathan Harker, an English real estate agent, has come to Transylvania at the behest of Count Dracula (Jack Palance, last seen around these parts in ALONE IN THE DARK), who is looking to purchase property in England.  The locals try to dissuade Harker from traveling to Castle Dracula, though he dismisses their fears as simple peasant superstition.  To his chagrin, he soon learns how wrong his dismissal was…

Count Dracula soon arrives in England, taking up residence in the dilapidated ruin of Carfax Abbey.  Friends of Harker’s, including his betrothed Mina, her friend Lucy, and Lucy’s husband-to-be Arthur (Simon Ward, of FRANKENSTEIN MUST BE DESTROYED), begin to investigate, and are soon forced to call upon the expertise of Dr. Abraham Van Helsing (Nigel Davenport, of the 1977 adaptation of THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU) when it becomes apparent that Dracula is more than just an oddly-compelling foreign aristrocrat…

This was good.  The story of Dracula is probably one of the most filmed horror stories ever (The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is, I believe, the most filmed), and everyone has their preferred version of the tale and of Count Dracula himself.  Max Schreck, Bela Lugosi, Christopher Lee, Frank Langella, Gary Oldman and Klaus Kinski have all made memorable turns as the character, and for my money, Jack Palance deserves major kudos for his performance as the undead Count.

At 6’4″, Palance towered almost as tall as Christopher Lee, allowing him to loom menacingly much more believably than shorter men like Lugosi would be able to, and Palance’s deep-set eyes gleam with a feral, predatory hunger throughout the film.  While Lugosi’s Dracula was a decadent aristocrat and Lee’s was a wild animal (most especially in 1958′s HORROR OF DRACULA), Palance’s Dracula reminds me more than anything of a tiger – confident in his strength and power, he knows full well that he is the apex predator of his environment and this confidence allows him the freedom to be casual about his power.  He’s clearly so used to having his way that once he’s threatened by Van Helsing’s knowledge of the vampire, his rage at having his plans disrupted is absolutely palpable.

According to film lore, Palance was relieved when filming wrapped; a Method actor, Palance was growing uncomfortable with how deep he was getting into the role, and disliked being inside the character’s head.  When I first read this anecdote, I considered it a Liberty Valance moment – if the legend’s better then the truth, print the legend.  However, in the bonus materials included on the DVD, there’s an interview with Palance in which he confirms it.

The rest of the cast around Palance is solid, though Nigel Davenport seems very young for the role of Van Helsing; he was 45 at the time of the film’s release, whereas I have trouble envisioning Van Helsing as any younger then his late-50s, given the character’s breadth of knowledge and experience.  Simon Ward radiates energy as the fiery young Arthur Holmwood, and makes a more than suitable heroic lead to the film.

One of the issues I have with Stoker’s original novel are the characters of Arthur Holmwood and Quincy Morris; in the novel, they’re largely extraneous and interchangeable, with the largest difference between the two being that Quincy has a Texas accent and carries a Bowie knife.  They don’t really play a big role in the novel other than to give Mina blood transfusions to keep her alive, and many productions omit them entirely.

Here, Quincy is left out while Holmwood is expanded to fill the heroic role left behind when Harker is prevented from returning to England – a change that likewise occurred in 1958′s HORROR OF DRACULA, and in some ways Matheson’s script here started with Jimmy Sangster’s screenplay and was then revised to include more of Stoker’s novel as well as elements of vampire lore from Curtis’ Dark Shadows.  In fact, some of what’s on display here – especially making Count Dracula explicitly Vlad II Dracula, aka The Impaler, and having him become a vampire in his grief over losing a loved one and seeking her reincarnation – would later be included in the 1992 BRAM STOKER’S DRACULA and become accepted canon for the character.

Much of the filming took place in England and Yugoslavia, and the sets – if sets they are – are breathtakingly gorgeous, with locations like the Westenra house sumptuously decorated in full Victorian regalia.  Oftentimes made-for-TV movies end up looking cheap or tawdry, budget limitations being fully on display, but that is not the case here.  I’m not sure what the budget was but I know for damn sure it was extremely well-spent on this production.

If I had to single out a flaw in this production, it would be the pacing.  The film runs 100 minutes, suitable for filling a two-hour TV time-slot with appropriate commercial breaks.  The film builds very slowly, and moves at a leisurely, even sedate pace for most of its run-time, with the climactic payoff coming almost too suddenly.  The production also saved money by simply telling us of such things as the wreck of the Demeter instead of showing them, and as such, it ends up a very talky film, with discussion replacing action.  Not that Stoker’s novel was exactly a jam-packed action-fest, but still, much of the excitement of the novel is relegated to off-camera here.  For those with the patience for such things, the film is well worth its run-time; however, I can see where those with shorter attention spans are liable to find themselves disappointed or annoyed.

Final Analysis: A sedate, relaxed retelling of one of the seminal horror tales of our time, Jack Palance makes a staggeringly good Dracula – possibly one of the best, and certainly among my top-ranked Draculas.  It’s a film that owes a lot to Hammer Studios at their best, and every scene, indoors and out, is absolutely gorgeous.  I definitely think I’ll be watching this one again and again; at this point, I think I prefer this version to Lugosi’s by a long shot.  This is a film all subsequent retellings of the Dracula story owe a debt of gratitude to, and while not perfect, I highly recommend it.  Also, I’d really love a big framed print of the portrait of himself Dracula keeps above his coffin.

Overall, I give BRAM STOKER’S DRACULA (1974)…

FOUR BARRELS OF TOXIC WASTE.

Spoilers ensue.

What you’re about to see is an explanation for why the popular paranormal investigation TV series Grave Encounters was suddenly cancelled, without warning or, until now, explanation.  What follows is the raw footage shot by the Grave Encounters team of investigators, edited only for time.

Host Lance Preston and his team (occultist Sasha, tech specialist Matt, cameraman T.C., and guest psychic medium Houston Grey) have come to the long-abandoned Collingwood Psychiatric Hospital to film a new episode for the show.  While the footage shows the team to be skeptics who are only milking the paranormal for a paycheck, as the night goes on they become convinced that Collingwood is not only home to unnatural entities, but that these entities are intelligent and malevolent.  The Grave Encounters team will not be leaving the Collingwood whole…

That was honestly pretty boring.  It was very much a “Kraft Mac ‘n Cheese” kind of movie, by which I mean it’s not that flavorful, but it fills you up anyways and if you’ve given up on yourself enough, it kind of satisfies.  GRAVE ENCOUNTERS kills 93 minutes very well, but beyond that it doesn’t have much going on in its favor.

I’ll admit, I don’t much care for the current trend in found-footage horror.  THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT was lightning in a bottle, and its success was due far more to its advertising campaign then to the film itself.  Its successors could not recapture that lightning, and are generally exercises in the crafting of jump scares intended to elicit a squeak of surprise from the audience.  GRAVE ENCOUNTERS feels like just another collection of such exercises, and indeed feels like a textbook example of how to construct a found-footage film.  It hits every note just fine, but that doesn’t mean it makes beautiful music.

While I really, really hate the crop of paranormal investigator shows on TV, I actually do like that they used it as the starting point here.  I’ve had friends yell at me for debunking their favorite ghost-hunter shows and pointing out how easily faked everything they supposedly encounter is, while the atrocious “Finding Bigfoot” show on Animal Planet is something my girlfriend and I occasionally watch for a laugh.  The first half-hour of GRAVE ENCOUNTERS follows Lance and his team as they set up, shoot their opening footage, interview witnesses…and bribe people to lie to the camera, joke around about how over-the-top the fake psychic’s “readings” are, and generally present the audience with the fact that the people who do ghost-hunting shows are as fraudulent a bunch of charlatans as any Houdini debunked.  This first act of GRAVE ENCOUNTERS is a perfect parody of all these stupid shows on TV.

Once they start to encounter the supernatural for real, however, my enjoyment of the film goes straight down the tubes.  A big part of the problem is the way the characters are written.  It’s been an on-going trend, originating in the mid-80s slashers, to have characters be complete assholes.  I actually blame this almost entirely on the FRIDAY THE 13TH franchise; a hero is only as good as their villain, and a good villain can sometimes make up for a mediocre hero, but in the FRIDAY films the heroes became entirely subsumed by the villain, until they were simply exercises in “how fast and how viciously can these assholes be killed?”

While Lance and his team are insufferable, overbearing douchebags on camera, this could perhaps be forgiven, taken as fictional persona performed to make the show more interesting.  Unfortunately, who they are under pressure is exactly who they claim to be for TV.  The ghosts and demons of the Collingwood thrust these people into the metaphorical fire to see what they’re made of, and the honest truth of it is, they’ve got no more substance than the ghosts.  There’s nothing in them for we, the audience, to care about, and there’s no room in them to grow in response to the situation they’ve been put in.  Without character growth, there’s no room for a story to be told.  All we have are set-pieces and shouting, and that’s just not satisfying to me any more.

Am I seeking the wrong thing from a found-footage horror flick? Most likely.  Am I wrong for asking for characters I can empathize with and care about? I don’t think so.

From a technical standpoint, GRAVE ENCOUNTERS is actually more tolerable for me than most found-footage films are.  The shaky-cam effect isn’t as severe as it is in a film like CLOVERFIELD, so the vomit bag by my side remained empty throughout the film.  Additionally, the lighting was a bit more generous here then it’s been in some films I’ve seen (like the abysmal GREYSTONE PARK) so while there’s not a whole lot to see, at least we can see it.

Final analysis: I just can’t in good conscience recommend this film.  It’s not scary, it doesn’t tell a good story, the characters aren’t likeable…it really doesn’t offer anything except yet another cash-in production of an hour and a half of footage of people running around and screaming in the dark.  For ghosts, I’ll stick to films like THE HAUNTING.  As I said, I liked the first third of the film well enough as a parody of the popular ghost-hunting reality shows on TV these days, but past the thirty-minute mark the film fell intensely short for me.  As far as rewatch value goes, I have to give this film a zero – to the point where if someone suggests a screening of this, I’m liable to glower and leave the room.  Leave this film on the shelf – life’s short, and there’s better films out there.

Overall, I give GRAVE ENCOUNTERS (2011)…

ONE BARREL OF TOXIC WASTE.

Spoilers ensue.

Meet Dave.  Dave is a struggling artist specializing in fantasy erotica – he does digital paintings of aliens banging human women for a living.  Dave lives a fairly lonely life, which is turned upside down when he has a heart attack while laying on the floor masturbating to the sound of Esther, the woman who lives below him, masturbating.  The doctors discover that Dave has poor circulation and his heart has atrophied.

As Dave lays on the couch pondering his situation, he’s approached by Satan, who offers him a new heart in exchange for his immortal soul.  The catch being that the heart (which resides in a box on the coffee table – as the oddly-Cockney Satan puts it, “everything’s wireless these days, innit?”) is a pint-sized Lovecraftian horror composed of hook-tipped tentacles and insatiable appetite.  As long as Dave keeps his heart well-fed, it will keep him alive.  And of course, the heart’s not hungry for anything so innocuous as a turkey sandwich…

NIGHT OF THE TENTACLES feels like Dustin Mills’ love letter to the works of Frank Henenlotter.  There’s strong echoes of BASKET CASE and BRAIN DAMAGE in the story, while the lighting and color palette of the film reminds me strongly of FRANKENHOOKER.  Additionally, the heart speaks in a cultured, upper-class voice that makes him sound like Aylmer’s larger brother.

Actually, speaking of the lighting and color palette, I really, really like what we’ve got going here.  Most of the lighting is harsh, fluorescent lighting that hammers home the low-rent, run-down nature of the apartment building in which the action takes place.  The fluorescent lights also throw the contours of the actors’ faces into sharp relief and gives them a cadaverous look befitting their status as the damned and doomed.  Accent lighting of bilious green and unearthly, FROM BEYOND-esque ultraviolet purple, mostly used during sequences of monster-action, amplify the Henenlotter-FRANKENHOOKER vibe.

The cast is fairly inexperienced, being made up of Dustin Mills’ friends, many of whom have only NIGHT OF THE TENTACLES listed under their name at IMDB, with others appearing in other Dustin Mills productions such as BATH SALT ZOMBIES.  While normally I would be leery of a cast like this, here it actually works very well.  Certainly nobody in this film gives a bad performance.  Brandon Salkil, in the role of Dave, is a bit over the top with the histrionics, but given his struggles with his own monstrous heart, I think it actually works.

I’d also like to single out two of the women in this film for praise.  First, Nicole Gerity, in the role of Dave’s love-interest Esther, gives a very relaxed, natural performance on top of being cute as a button.  She’s adorable as the girl next door (or downstairs), she’s believable as the slightly nerdy love interest.  I’d fall in love with her if I lived above her too.  NIGHT OF THE TENTACLES is the only thing listed under her name on IMDB currently, so I’m hoping to see more of her in future films.  Second, I’d like to praise Jackie McKown in the role of Delilah, the heinous and evil bitch who lives above Dave.  As someone who has known some truly heinous and evil bitches, let me say that I found Delilah every bit as believable as the delightful Esther, and her threats to poison Dave’s dog if he flushes the toilet again seem entirely within the realm of possibility.  Kudos to you, Ms. McKown, for so successfully selling the role of a selfish, uncaring, hateful fiend.

The heart is realized through a combination of CGI and practical effects, with about 90% of it being practical.  Only the attacks on Delilah, the couple next door, and a couple sequences calling for lightning-fast tentacle attacks are done via CGI, and I think with a budget a bit more luxuriously-padded, Mills would have found a way to do them solely through practical effects as well.  When we finally do see the heart in its entirety it’s a delightfully gruesome little puppet-beast with a single rolling eye and a vertically-aligned mouth.  Dustin had mentioned an interest in having puppets created for sale in relation to his film THE PUPPET MONSTER MASSACRE; I’m hoping if that works out he’ll add the Heart to the line, because I want one.

Unfortunately, the monster’s appearance is also its biggest weakness; because we’re seeing it in the harsh, unforgiving light of flickering fluorescent bulbs, any and all flaws in the sculpt and paint job are highlighted by the quality of the light, and while it’s an original design for the little goober, in execution it never really rises above looking like a lumpy cycloptic latex tadpole being dragged on a fishing line.  While I appreciate the effort that went into it, and I’m glad we got to see the beast in its entirety, I think the film would have worked just as well if we never saw anything except the thin, talon-tipped tentacles snaking out of the box, with the central mass left to the viewers’ imagination.

NIGHT OF THE TENTACLES is a horror-comedy, and the comedy aspect I think works best when it’s underplayed and done as satire; Dave’s Faustian bargain is, appropriately enough for the modern, wireless age, handled much the same as a cell phone or cable contract would be, complete with headaches arising from not reading the fine print.  I like this; I think handling Satan as a smirking, reptilian cell phone salesman is a great twist on the legend of Mephistopheles.  More overt attempts at humor fell flatter for me; Dave is pestered twice over the course of the film by Belial, an agent of Lucifer’s who acts almost like a telemarketer, asking Dave to fill out customer satisfaction surveys and ensuring that Dave understands and upholds his end of the bargain.  This is fine; it emphasizes the “Mephistopheles as Salesman” theme.  The part that falls flat is that Belial’s pesterings are laced throughout with offers to provide Dave with sexual satisfaction, proposing a variety of fetishistic acts to Dave’s growing disgust.  It just didn’t work for me, and it felt like a strange break from the more subtle humor carried throughout the rest of the film.

Final Analysis: A good main character with whom the audience can sympathize, a unique and memorable monster, a love interest to make the audiences’ hearts and genitals throb, plenty of gore, slime, and female nudity.  As far as I’m concerned, Dustin Mills has just about struck gold with this one.  My issues with the comedy end of things and disappointment at the heart’s final, fully-lit reveal knock the film down a peg a little bit, but with the strong characterizations, good satire, and bounteous female nudity (and a thousand, thousand thank-yous to Dustin Mills for casting women who aren’t twig-thin in this film) make this a film I’m glad to have on my shelf and look forward to viewing (and perhaps screening for friends) in the future.  You can purchase your own copy here.

Overall, I give NIGHT OF THE TENTACLES (2013)…

FOUR BARRELS OF TOXIC WASTE.

Convention wrangler Ken Kish has put on an incredible show as always, and the love and joy he feels for the films and the guests and the fans is palpable.  Cinema Wasteland describes itself as a convention by fans, for fans, and that truly is accurate.

A big hello to any and all new readers – I’ve handed out quite a number of business cards to people I spoke with, and had left a stack of cards on the table next to admissions – a stack that was almost gone when I passed by it again last night.

One such individual I’d given my card to was Jack Sholder, director of ALONE IN THE DARK.  I’d told Jack how much I enjoyed the film, what a grave injustice it was that it’s not more widely known, and mentioned that I’d reviewed it very favorably.  A few hours later, Jack grabbed me as I passed his table again, and told me he’d read my review and enjoyed it, commenting on how pleased he was that I really “got” the film and impressed with the level of research I’d done into the background of it.  This is, without a doubt, the single greatest compliment I’ve received in the four years I’ve been writing reviews, and I’m sure I was blushing like a  schoolgirl as I shook his hand and thanked him not just for the praise but for taking the time to read my writing.

Cinema Wasteland, in the two weekends I’ve attended, has been profoundly good to me as a film fan and as a person, and has been a more enjoyable experience then any other convention I’ve ever attended.  I’m already looking forward to next October’s show.

Spoilers ensue.

Meet Paul, (Jeffrey Byron, of METALSTORM: THE DESTRUCTION OF JARED-SYN and, most recently, the 2009 reboot of STAR TREK), a dorky guy who’s first love is his computer, Cal – to the point where he’s undergone an experiment wherein he can “link up” with the machine.  His girlfriend Gwen (Leslie Wing, of THE FRIGHTENERS and more recently, the HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL franchise) isn’t too happy with this arrangement, and refuses Paul’s requests that she marry him until she’s convinced he loves her more than the machine.

Other than his amazing sentient machine, things seem to be going downhill for Paul, and they’re about to get worse.  Gwen is kidnapped by Mestema (Richard Moll, of HOUSE, NIGHT COURT and he’s been the voice of Two-Face on every animated Batman series in the last twenty years), a demonic warlock who has spent hundreds of years searching for the right champion to challenge his evil might.  It turns out that Paul, with the aid of Cal (converted into a high-tech gauntlet) is the chosen champion, and must battle his way through a variety of nightmare scenarios to rescue Gwen from Mestema’s clutches.

You know the old saying, “too many cooks spoil the broth”? That’s really kind of what’s going on with DUNGEONMASTER.  Paul has to go through seven challenges, each of which is directed by someone different – David Allen, Charles Band, Ted Nicolaou, John Carl Buechler (last featured here with CELLAR DWELLER), Steven Ford, Peter Manoogian and Rosemarie Turko each contribute a segment, and there’s no real sense of continuity between them.

Some of the segments are really good for what they are – David Allen was primarily a special effects technician specializing in stop-motion animation, and his sequence features a Harryhausen-esque animated giant statue that’s beautifully done.  Some of the segments aren’t so spectacular – Rosemarie Turko’s segment, set in an ice-encased wax museum (what the hell is Einstein doing displayed with Jack the Ripper and the Wolfman?), is fairly boring, though sharp-eyed viewers will notice that Jack the Ripper is played by Cleve Hall, who more recently has gained attention on SyFy’s reality TV show “Monster Man.”  And quite frankly, some segments are just plain damn weird – Charles Band pits Paul against the musical fury of W.A.S.P.! Amusingly, the sequence in which Paul fights W.A.S.P. would be recycled in TERRORVISION for use as a clip being shown on TV.

The problem is, every challenge ends IN THE EXACT SAME WAY.  Paul taps a few buttons on Cal, points at the monster, and shoots a laser at it that destroys the monster.  It gets real boring, real quick.

Also of note, the line everyone quotes from the TV show Mythbusters “I reject your reality and substitute my own!” originates in this film.

Let’s face it.  This isn’t a film one watches for the story or for the acting.  This film exists specifically as a showcase for special effects.  Guys like David Allen and John Carl Buechler were and are geniuses in this regard, and their segments truly showcase their abilities.  David Allen gives us an amazing piece of stop-motion, while Buechler’s puppetry is likewise put on phenomenal display.

The film also seems like something of a test for directors – other than Charles Band, everyone was a first-time director here, and while some, like John Carl Buechler and Ted Nicolaou, went on to long and fruitful directorial careers, others like Steven Ford and Rosiemarie Turko petered out after DUNGEONMASTER, though Steven Ford has continued work as an actor, appearing in such films as BLACK HAWK DOWN and TRANSFORMERS.  I’m really not sure what to make of having six people with no prior directorial experience direct segments, even as short as they are, of a film.  Did someone have a bet or something?

Final Analysis: Kind of an amusing conceit, and I’ll give the film that it’s original.  I’ve seen it twice now, though I have to admit that I don’t consider it to have all that great a rewatch value – I’d started watching it a while back, turned it off, decided to review it, watched it over.  I can’t say I’m a fan.  Even more astonishing, it got a sequel of sorts in 1988 in PULSE POUNDERS.  I think this is a film for Charles Band, John Carl Buechler or David Allen completists only, and don’t really recommend it.

Overall, I give THE DUNGEONMASTER (1984)…

TWO BARRELS OF TOXIC WASTE.

Spoilers ensue.

Paul Marnac (Naschy, looking as beefy and virile as ever) has been informed that the best course of treatment for his ill wife Genevieve would be a prolonged stay out in the country, away from the city.  Fortunately, Paul is the heir to a sprawling medieval estate, which once belonged to his ancestor, the infamous sadist and devil-worshipper Alaric de Marnac.  This would be the perfect place for Genevieve to rest and regain her strength, Paul reasons.  The estate is currently inhabited and maintained by Paul’s aunt Maville and her daughter Mireille.

While preparing the house for Paul and Genevieve, Maville relates to Mireille the legend of Alaric de Marnac; that he went mad with rage when he discovered that his wife had been unfaithful to him, murdered her bastard offspring and then chased her down and murdered her as well.  After accomplishing his bloody revenge, de Marnac turned to witchcraft and deviltry.  And supposedly, every hundred years, Alaric de Marnac’s ghost returns, clad in full armor, to continue his vengeance on any who are unfaithful to their spouses.  And when it turns out that Paul Marnac is more interested in pursuing affairs with Mireille and a floozy named Julie than in tending to his wife, will Alaric de Marnac make his fabled return?

Paul Naschy truly was the king of Spanish horror.  This film offers nothing truly original (Naschy himself admits to having been inspired by the films GASLIGHT and REBECCA in writing the script) but remixes familiar themes admirably and then injects them with a modern twist of gore and sexuality.  We have full female nudity on display before the credits even roll in a prologue depicting Alaric de Marnac’s hunt for his wife, and the brilliant Tempera-paint red blood flows like water from scene to scene.  On top of that, we have disembowelings (complete with spilling intestines), disembodied eyeballs, rotting cadavers, a leopard-print catsuit (that I’m wondering if I can get in my girlfriend’s size) and much, much more.  This is a film that shies away from nothing, and I love it all the more for it.

Spanish horror, especially that of Naschy, has always held a much stronger draw for me than Italian in the realm of Euro-Horror, and this film is a perfect example of why.  While PANIC BEATS does seem to draw some stylistic inspiration from Giallo (black gloved killers and murdered women), it’s significantly more watchable than giallo films tend to be for me, and I think it’s because Naschy is just kind of doing his own thing.  He’s not making a giallo – just borrowing elements that he likes and thinks work, and infusing them with his own powerful, energetic style.

If I may be allowed a brief tangent, films like this showcase one of the many things wrong with Hollywood these days; movies nowadays tend to be made by committee, and thus too frequently the director’s touch is lost.  Nothing coming out of Hollywood these days – well, almost nothing – has any sort of idiosyncrasy, of individuality to it.  They’re all cookie-cutter movies.  As much as I hate Quentin Tarantino’s films, at least they’re all identifiably his – full of his trademark pretentious, pop-culture-laden dialogue and fetishistic fixation on feet.  You can watch a Paul Naschy film and recognize it as a Paul Naschy film.  You can watch a Bud Cardos film and recognize it as a Bud Cardos film.  In mainstream Hollywood…not so much any more.

Anyway, back to PANIC BEATS… Once again we have Paul Naschy playing multiple roles within a film, portraying both the conniving Paul Marnac and the brutal, undead Alaric de Marnac.  However, he also plays a third sort-of-role, and one that I can’t help but see as a little bit of a wink to the audience.  At one point, Paul Marnac dresses up as Alaric de Marnac, stomping around in a suit of armor and a skeletal mask.  So not only do we have Paul Naschy playing a monster, we have Paul playing a guy named Paul who is playing a monster.  Though to be fair, Paul Marnac is something of a monster in his own right, so it’s also Paul Naschy playing a human monster playing a supernatural monster.  It’s kind of amusing.

The rest of the cast is acceptable, but pale next to the energy and exuberance put out by Naschy – Julia Saly (last seen around these parts in THE PEOPLE WHO OWN THE DARK), who plays Genevieve, isn’t given a lot to do besides be a pretty face (she’d be a regular costar of Naschy’s until the mid-1980s), while Silvia Miro and Frances (listed as Pat here) Ondiviela, in the roles of Mireille and Julie respectively, are brought on for their overall physical beauty, with both appearing nude during the course of the film.  Ah, Euro-Horror and its fixation with full frontal female nudity…

The film has a relatively slow build, which I’ll never say no to so long as the pay-off is worth it, and you better believe it’s worth it here.  I’ve not heard much about this film before, even from other Naschyphiles, and it seems like it’s only recently been made available in North America through Mondo Macabro.  Their release is beautiful, with crisp, bright colors and a flawless print, coupled with some spectacular extras.  I’d gotten this disc from Netflix, and I can see I’m definitely going to be buying a copy in the future.

Final Analysis: A vastly underrated film in Naschy’s wild and wide-ranging career, I actually found this one more enjoyable then a lot of Waldemar Daninsky/El Hombre Lobo films.  It’s a very solid film with a strong story, plot twists that keep you guessing, beautiful set-pieces (the house in which the movie was shot apparently once belonged to Generalissimo Francisco Franco!), wonderful (if cheesily-bright) gore and some stellar nudity.  This film truly does have something for everyone, and I encourage everyone with an interest in Spanish horror, or Euro-Horror as a whole, to seek this one out and give it a watch.  I’ll be picking up a copy of this to add to my collection as soon as possible, and I’ll likely rewatch it as soon as the DVD arrives.

Overall, I give PANIC BEATS (1983)…

FIVE BARRELS OF TOXIC WASTE.