13 Nights of Shocktober: The Fly (1958)

by A.J.

This is my favorite time of year, second only to Christmas. Autumn has arrived, the weather is cooling down, and October becomes the month-long celebration of scary movies called Shocktober. So, in the days leading up Halloween I’ll be posting some scary movie recommendations to help you celebrate Shocktober.

Night 6: Creature Feature Night

“They wouldn't harm anything, not even a fly.”

The Fly (1958)

The 1950’s saw the rise of the science fiction genre as the framework to tell both adventure stories and horror stories. Concerns brought on by the Atomic Age and sudden advances in science and technology manifested themselves on screen with stories about mad scientists, man-made monsters, and the unintended consequences of science run amok. Given its premise and its more famous, and grotesque, remake, the original version of The Fly, released in 1958, may not be the sci-fi/horror movie you would expect.

The premise is certainly schlock B-movie material, but the screenplay by Shogun author James Clavell and solid performances from the cast give this movie just enough depth to make it a step above a hokey exploitation picture. The story of a brilliant scientist that accidentally merges his body with a housefly while experimenting with teleportation checks all the boxes of a 1950’s sci-fi/horror, but this movie also works as a drama and presents itself as a mystery. The film opens with the body of a scientist, Andre Delambre (Al Hedison), being discovered in a metal factory he owns. His head and left arm were crushed in a metal press. His wife, Helene (Patricia Owens), says she murdered him but was only following his final wish. Andre’s brother, François (Vincent Price) and a police inspector listen to her tell her story.

Most of the movie is of Andre and Helene’s happy, idyllic homelife with their son. Andre is a good husband and father and an ambitious, hardworking scientist. He is nowhere close to being like the mad scientists that were common in sci-fi movies of 1950’s. The movie invests so much in Andre that it is more tragic than thrilling when he is transformed into a fly-man creature. Hedison does a good job in human form, but when he loses the ability to speak, he uses exaggerated body language to communicate and goes a bit over the top. Patricia Owens gives a great and believable performance that is the emotional center of the movie. Vincent Price is a supporting player here and does an excellent job playing the kind and caring brother of Andre.

The Fly plays like a slow burn to a big reveal. You can see that reveal coming from several miles away, but it still feels like a shocking moment. This is by no means a gross film in terms of special effects, but because the subject involves flies, which nearly every person finds repulsive, it has an icky feel. Even with dated special effects, the shock value of The Fly still works. When Vincent Price finally finds the fly with a human head and arm, it is still a creepy and disturbing sight.

The Fly became an influential film thanks in large part to its two big reveals. It would become a common pop culture reference (even parodied in The Simpsons' Halloween special Treehouse of Horror VIII) and be remade with great success in 1986 by David Cronenberg. In Joe Dante’s 1993 film Matinee, the fictional B-movie promoter played by John Goodman is debuting a film called MANT, about a half-man half-ant creature. I put off watching this version of The Fly for a long time because I wasn’t expecting much more than a hokey drive-in movie. After finally watching it earlier this year, I can see why this film stood apart from others in the genre and has stuck around for so long.

13 Nights of Shocktober: Deep Red

by A.J.

This is my favorite time of year, second only to Christmas. Autumn has arrived, the weather is cooling down, and October becomes the month-long celebration of scary movies called Shocktober.  So, in the days leading up Halloween I’ll be posting some scary movie recommendations to help you celebrate Shocktober.

Night 5: Argento Night

“I can feel death in this room!”

Deep Red     

  

Italian filmmaker Dario Argento is most famous for his work in the horror genre, namely Suspiria, but he began his career writing and directing films known as giallos, an Italian subgenre of violent murder mysteries and thrillers. This genre, which takes its name from pulp novels printed on yellow paper (giallo is Italian for yellow), often skirted the line between thriller and horror. Giallo plotlines would be murder mysteries or who-done-its but sometimes also followed the structure of a slasher movie, with the violence to match. For this reason, many, if not all, giallo films can be considered horror movies, including Dario Argento’s Profondo Rosso, or Deep Red.

David Hemmings plays Marcus, an English pianist visiting Rome who witnesses the brutal murder of Helga Ulman (Macha Meril), a famous psychic. He teams up with a persistent reporter, Gianna (Daria Nicolodi), to solve the murder. They interview potential witnesses, collect clues, and are pretty competent detectives. The police seem to be only slightly involved in the investigation and mostly just help Marcus conduct his own investigation. At the initial crime scene, Marcus asks the police if they touched or moved anything in the dead psychic’s apartment. It’s a peculiar choice but it allows Marcus to be at the center of the action.

Dario Argento’s directorial style is, well, being stylish. The auditorium where Helga demonstrates her psychic abilities for an audience (mentioning that she can only read people’s thoughts and see their past, not predict the future... hence her bloody murder with a cleaver) has lush red curtains and table where she sits is draped in the same bold red. The production design and color palette are bold and eye catching in every scene. Blood in Deep Red, and there’s a lot of it, is actually a bright, bold red bordering on orange-red in certain scenes. It looks completely fake, but it’s stylish to the point of turning the murder scenes into gruesome tableaus. The progressive synth rock score by Goblin is creepy and thrilling in all the right ways and of course, gives the movie a stylish soundtrack. The cinematography by Luigi Kuveiller is a feast for the eyes; every shot is well composed and photographed. Even a scene with not much happening visually, like Marcus and his friend Carlo talking on a deserted street with a Roman statue in the background looks impressive. Light and shadow, close-ups, and POV shots are used to great effect. Not only do they create a distinct look, but they also create an atmosphere of mystery and suspense. In a particularly effective scene, we see extreme close ups of the inner workings of a piano as Marcus composes a song followed by a POV shot of the killer approaching Marcus. Then we see a wide shot of the room and a shadow covers Marcus and his piano.

In its best moments, Deep Red is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchcock film: an excellent blend of style and suspense. Also like in a Hitchcock film, Hemmings plays an everyman caught in an extraordinary situation that he has to solve (mostly) on his own. Like the protagonists in Argento’s previous films The Bird with the Crystal Plumage and Cat O’Nine Tails, Marcus must solve a murder by picking apart his memory. While the supernatural sets up the premise for Deep Red, the rest of the movie is a straightforward mystery. However, the gruesome deaths, an increasing body count, and creepy touches like the killer playing a recording of children singing, a random ghastly faced automaton firmly plant Deep Red in the horror genre. It is not without lighter moments, usually of Marcus and Gianna being at odds, and bizarre moments, like Gianna mistakenly stabbing a bird in midair. All of that style takes the dread out of the violence and makes Argento’s macabre mystery a thoroughly engaging picture.

13 Nights of Shocktober: The Haunting (1963)

by A.J.

This is my favorite time of year, second only to Christmas. Autumn has arrived, the weather is cooling down, and October becomes the month-long celebration of scary movies called Shocktober.  So, in the days leading up Halloween I’ll be posting some scary movie recommendations to help you celebrate Shocktober.

Night 4: Haunted House Night
“A House That Was Born Bad”

The Haunting (1963)

The 1963 version of The Haunting ranks among the top of haunted house movies. Based on the novel by Shirley Jackson and directed by Robert Wise, this horror classic remains just as moody, atmospheric, and scary for viewers today as when it was first released. It is also a great example of a horror movie proving that less is more. You won’t find spectral apparitions or bleeding walls or creatures locked away in hidden rooms, but there is plenty to put you on edge in Hill House.

A prologue explains the dark history of Hill House. It was built in the 1870's by a tyrannical man named Hugh Crane, whose first wife died when approaching the house by horse. His second wife and daughter lived longer but fared no better. It is a spooky sequence that effectively sets the tone of the film. It also efficiently, and spookily, gets a lot of exposition out of the way. The prologue is narrated by Dr. Markway (Richard Johnson), who is investigating the paranormal nature of Hill House with the help of two women, Eleanor (Julie Harris) and Theo (Claire Bloom). Both women possess psychic abilities to some degree. Also with them is Luke (Russ Tamblyn), a member of the family that now owns Hill House. Eleanor, or Nell, as Theo calls her, is the central character and we hear her narrate her thoughts in a thin and distant voice. She feels a connection with the imposing mansion right away and says she feels like she is home. Other times she cannot stand the effect the house has on her. As their stay in Hill House goes on and the paranormal activity increases, it becomes clear that the house has targeted Eleanor.

Everyone in the house believes in ghosts or the supernatural, but Dr. Markway comes across as the skeptic since he has an academic approach to investigating Hill House. Russ Tamblyn as Luke isn’t exactly comic relief but his character breaks the tension and lightens up certain scenes. Claire Bloom and Julie Harris have great chemistry together. As Theo, Bloom exudes a cool, easy confidence that is a perfect compliment to, and exact opposite of, Harris as the meek, insecure Eleanor. Harris does an especially good job portraying a put-upon person that draws as much sympathy as annoyance.

If acting is reacting then the cast has a lot to react to and does so quite well. A lot of horror movies from the classic era have over time lost the full force of their original scare value (though not their overall effect), but the scare scenes in The Haunting hold up to say the least. Using little more than sound effects and well-chosen camera angles, The Haunting creates some truly chilling and scary moments. There are a few well timed pop-up scares, but the scariest scenes involve the characters being menaced by eerie and violent sounds. In one scene the characters are huddled together as loud banging sounds grow closer and closer and the door bulges unnaturally from whatever is on the other side.

From the outside, the imposing Victorian style manor house is shot in just the right ways to make it look like a house that was born bad. Well framed shots of the garish ornaments and statues that decorate the inside of the house add as much to the film’s unsettling atmosphere as its creepy sound design. The film's pacing allows the scary moments to sneak up on you. This is a subtle but frightening film that is perfect to watch late at night with the lights off (and preferably without any interruptions or distractions). Once you watch it, it’s easy to understand why The Haunting is a horror classic.   

13 Nights of Shocktober: The Hitcher

by A.J.

This is my favorite time of year, second only to Christmas. Autumn has arrived, the weather is cooling down, and October becomes the month-long celebration of scary movies called Shocktober.  So, in the days leading up Halloween I’ll be posting some scary movie recommendations to help you celebrate Shocktober.

Night 3: Rutger Hauer Memorial Night
“I’m going to sit here, and you’re going to drive.”

The Hitcher (1986)

The great actor Ruger Hauer passed away earlier this year after a long career delivering great performances in a variety of genres. He played heroes and romantic leads in Paul Verhoven’s European films (Soldier of Orange, Turkish Delight), but in American films he usually played a villain in thrillers, action movies, and horror movies, like one of my favorites, The Hitcher. This horror-thriller has a simple plot (a young man picks up the wrong hitchhiker), follows slasher movie tropes, at times goes over the top, then way over the top, but works, even when it doesn’t, thanks to a steely, menacing performance from Rutger Hauer—one of his best in my opinion, after his most famous role, the replicant Roy Batty in Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner.

C. Thomas Howell is the young man, Jim, who on a rainy night driving through West Texas, picks up a hitchhiker played by Rutger Hauer. The Hitcher says his name is John Ryder, the perfect name for a psychotic hitchhiking killer. He does not put up any façade of normality whatsoever; right away he acts totally creepy and intense. Jim escapes only to be relentless pursued by Ryder and his trail of murder and mayhem. Jim befriends a waitress at diner named Nash (Jennifer Jason Leigh), and she, naturally, gets dragged into the pursuit. The picturesque West Texas landscape provides a desolate and picturesque backdrop for the suspense and carnage that ensues.

There is no reason why the Hitcher latches on to Jim to hunt and torment. The Hitcher has no motivation, ethos, or history; he exists only to cause mayhem and murder. Originally, the screenplay by Eric Red explored the Hitcher’s origin, but Hauer thought explaining what warped and twisted the character into a killer actually made him tragic since that kind of thing, unfortunately, happens in real life. Hauer said he wanted to play the Hitcher like he was the human version of the shark from JAWS. At one point, Hauer hums “Bicycle Built for Two,” like another famous nonhuman villain, HAL 9000 in 2001: A Space Odyssey. When Jim asks the Hitcher why he is doing this, Hauer takes two pennies, licks them, and places them on Howell’s eyes. Then he gives Howell bullets for an empty revolver so they can continue their deadly game. Allegedly, Howell was legitimately afraid of Hauer on set.

The Hitcher aims to be a mix between an action film, a slasher film, and a Hitchcockian thriller. Though at times it is predictable, it is no less enjoyable. There are some outlandish moments, like the Hitcher shooting down a helicopter with a revolver, or wearing his duster even after the cops capture him, or the sound of lion roaring when he leaps from one car to another. Still, those scenes don’t seem too farfetched because this movie doesn’t mean to represent reality. I will admit there is one element to the story that is never convincing: the symbiotic, sadomasochistic relationship that is supposed to develop between the Hitcher and Jim in the final act.

When The Hitcher was released in 1986, it was reviled by critics for its grizzly and sadistic violence (though, of course, it seems tame by current standards of horror violence). Siskel and Ebert included it on their worst of the year lists. Ebert gave the film a 0 star review, writing: “…on its own terms, this movie is diseased and corrupt.” Hauer thought critics didn’t understand the film. In an interview he said, “Actually, the film was an allegory. The passenger represented evil. That’s all it was.” I’m not sure I entirely agree with Hauer on the allegory angle. Of course, I certainly don’t agree with Siskel or Ebert on this one. I end up watching this film every few years or so, and while it is undoubtedly violent and dark, I never get tired of watching Rutger Hauer’s incredible, enigmatic performance. He conveys so much while staying subtle. He stays quiet, moves slowly, and uses body language like stares and smirks to make his whole presence radiate evil and dread. The Hitcher is like a wild campfire story or urban legend put on film.

13 Nights of Shockotber: Freaks

by A.J.

This is my favorite time of year, second only to Christmas. Autumn has arrived, the weather is cooling down, and October becomes the month-long celebration of scary movies called Shocktober. So, in the days leading up Halloween I’ll be posting some scary movie recommendations to help you celebrate Shocktober.

Night 2: Classic Horror Night
“We accept her, we accept her. One of us, one of us. Gooble-gobble, gooble-gobble.”

Freaks

The cult classic horror film Freaks remains as controversial today as when it was first released in 1932. The film was so reviled, even by MGM, the studio that produced it, that it effectively killed the career of director Todd Browning, who only a year before directed the horror classic Dracula. Browning had directed Dracula for Universal, so MGM production chief Irving Thalberg wanted him to create a horror hit for MGM and gave him complete creative freedom. No one expected anything like Freaks.

It should be made clear upfront that Freaks is a horror movie because of its murder/revenge plot, not because of its cast of real-life circus sideshow performers with disabilities. The film opens with a circus barker introducing a new sideshow “freak.” He explains that she was once a beautiful trapeze artist, but she violated the code of the “freaks”: offend one, and you offend them all. The plot centers on Hans (Harry Earles), a wealthy little person, who becomes totally infatuated with Cleopatra (Olga Baclanova), a beautiful trapeze performer. He leaves Frieda, his fiancé, for Cleopatra, who is only interested in his money. In fact, she plots with the circus strongman, Hercules, to kill Hans. When Hans becomes suspiciously ill immediately after the wedding, his fellow sideshow performers plot revenge against Cleopatra and Hercules.

Though Freaks is a Pre-Code film (made before movies were subject to extremely strict, puritanical censorship), 30 minutes of footage was ordered cut by MGM studio head Louis B, Mayer, who hated the film, leaving the final runtime at just over an hour. Some of the scenes cut were deemed too shocking or disturbing, like the fate of the strongman, who is castrated and becomes part of the sideshow as a soprano singer. No one knows for sure the content of the rest of the cut scenes, but it is likely they were just more scenes of the lives of the sideshow performers. As it is, most of Freaks focuses on the close-knit sideshow community, with the murder/revenge plot kicking in only in the final act.

It may be only an hour long, but Freaks takes its time building characters and giving them inner lives. We spend a little time with each member of the sideshow, allowing some to show off their act. The most memorable act has to Randion “The Living Torso” lighting his own cigarette despite not having any limbs. The conjoined twins Violet and Daisy get along well, but Daisy’s fiancé and Violet do not, leading to some amusing moments. The most famous scene from Freaks is their tradition of “The Loving Cup.” After Hans and Cleopatra’s wedding, the sideshow members take turns drinking champagne from a large bowl while chanting “We accept her, we accept her.” When it is Cleopatra’s turn to drink from the bowl she reveals her true nature and disgust for them.  

This was likely the first time that people with disabilities were actually cast in a Hollywood production. Some of the performers later expressed regret at being in the movie or ended up hating the film. Unfortunately, during production the disabled performers were treated nearly as poorly as their characters in the movie. Wallace Ford as Phroso the clown and Leila Heims as Venus the seal trainer, the only able-bodied circus performers that are kind to the sideshow performers, received top billing though they are more supporting players. Worst of all, the disabled performers were not allowed to eat at the studio cafeteria since their appearance might upset the other MGM staff, so they had to eat outside under a tent set up just for them.

Freaks will likely always be controversial—does it have sympathy for its subjects throughout, or does it squander that sympathy by having them be violent and vengeful? The final scene seems like it was tacked on as an attempt to give the movie a happy ending. It only half works. This is a dark film but also a very interesting one deserving of classic status.

13 Nights of Shocktober: The Mummy (1959)

by A.J.

This is my favorite time of year, second only to Christmas. Autumn has arrived, the weather is cooling down, and October becomes the month-long celebration of scary movies called Shocktober. There are a lot of horror movies out there, but as a genre, horror is still looked down upon by some mainstream critics and moviegoers. It doesn’t help that, admittedly, there are so few quality horror movies made but, like comedy, it’s a very difficult and subjective genre. So, in the days leading up Halloween I’ll be posting some recommendations for scary movies to help you celebrate Shocktober.

Night 1: Hammer Horror Night

“He who robs the graves of Egypt dies!”
The Mummy (1959)  

Beginning in the late 1950’s, the British film production company Hammer began making a series of horror films that were essentially remakes of the Universal Monster movies of the 1930’s. The Hammer films had different storylines and monster designs, however, being in technicolor and showing more explicit violence and sexuality is what made them a distinct brand. The Curse of Frankenstein kicked off the Hammer Horror cycle in 1957, followed by Dracula (released in the U.S. as Horror of Dracula) in 1958, and tonight’s recommendation, The Mummy in 1959. Each film spawned numerous sequels—some more entertaining than others—but none matched the first in their respective series, all of which were directed by Terence Fisher and paired the great actors Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee.

The plot is pretty straightforward. In the 1890’s, a father and son archeologist team discover the tomb of the legendary Princess Ananka. The son, John (Cushing), has a broken leg, so he is not present when his father reads from a mysterious scroll and witnesses something that drives him mad. An Egyptian man named Mehemet (George Pastell), a disciple of the god Karnak, follows the father and son to England to exact revenge for desecrating Ananka’s tomb. Mehemet’s weapon of choice is... you guessed it, a mummy.

The Hammer Horror films usually cast Peter Cushing as the protagonist and Christopher Lee as the monster. When Lee began his acting career, he had difficulty getting good roles because of his imposing size, a commanding 6’5”. It’s easy to understand why he was cast as Frankenstein’s Monster, Dracula (his best horror role), and the mummy. While the mummy is a thrilling screen presence, he is not a very interesting monster since he is just the tool for Mehemet’s revenge. When the mummy sees that John’s wife, Isobel (Yvonne Furneaux), resembles the Princess Ananka, he begins to act on his own will. The mummy’s silent, lumbering nature leaves Lee only his eyes to act with and he does a pretty good job when he gets a close up. In a flashback narrated by Cushing we see that the mummy was a priest named Kharis that was obsessed with Ananka and attempted to bring her back to life. Lee gets to use his voice and whole body in the flashback. It’s a brief scene but it’s good to see Lee really play a character. Thanks to Lee’s large size, it is easy to believe that this mummy could pick up someone by neck with one hand or burst through doors and windows, the only way the mummy enters a room. When he and Cushing fight, it doesn’t seem like much of a contest—thankfully, just then the mummy catches sight of Isobel.

Cushing and Pastell have a good scene together when John visits his suspicious new neighbor. Mehemet is the main antagonist of the movie, more so than the mummy, but his revenge is not without good reason. He is not wrong that English archaeologists are desecrating sacred tombs and disregarding another culture’s customs, just so people can stare at relics in the British Museum. John’s counter argument is that nothing would be known of the ancient Egyptian people or their culture if it were left sealed and buried. However, everything else he says is purposefully condescending and insulting as he is trying to provoke Mehemet.

Like all Hammer Horror movies, the period sets and costumes, especially the ancient Egyptian sets and costumes, look obviously fake. However, this only helps create the movie’s fantasy atmosphere. The bog nearby John’s country estate is a fun set. Seeing the mummy in the dark, soupy water is a great sight. The look of the mummy is pretty spooky—wrapped in bandages that are dirty and tattered and look a thousand years old—especially with Lee’s eyes behind the costume. Though, I’m pretty sure you can the line for a zipper on the back of the mummy in certain scenes. 

The top tier Hammer Horror films, in which I would include The Mummy, are great Shocktober viewings because they are fun horror entertainment, but not so scary as to be intimidating. Whether you are a bit squeamish or a die-hard horror fan, the Hammer Horror version of The Mummy will help you have a great Halloween.

Long Shot (2019) review

by A.J.

Long Shot (2019) 

The summer movie season is a time of big budget special effects heavy superhero movies, action movies, sequels, remakes, and reboots, but, also, a high-profile comedy or two. This summer’s high-profile comedy is the very R-rated Long Shot starring Charlize Theron and Seth Rogen. This unlikely romantic comedy is as solidly entertaining and smart as it is funny and raunchy. Movies for grownups don’t get made too often these days, so when one comes along and it is as good and funny as this it is a treat. Charlize Theron plays Charlotte Field, the popular and successful Secretary of State for idiot President Chambers (Bob Odenkirk), who won the election because he used to play the president on TV. The President tells her that he’s not seeking reelection so he can pursue a film career and he plans to endorse her for president once she gets a global environmental agreement off the ground.

After being informed by a PR firm that people find her lacking a sense of humor, Charlotte hires a crusading journalist, Fred Flarsky, played by Seth Rogen, who recently quit his job because his news outlet was bought up by an unscrupulous conservative media conglomerate to punch up the humor in her speeches. Fred and Charlotte actually grew up in the same neighborhood and she was his babysitter who he very much had a crush on. They reconnect at a fundraiser featuring Boyz II Men where Rogen takes the first of a few slapstick tumbles. Schlubby Fred is jetted of to Stockholm, the first of many global destinations, bringing nothing with him but a garish windbreaker, awkward tapered cargo pants, and some illegal narcotics. He’s a fish out of water to say the least.

Long Shot's screenplay is written by Dan Sterling and Liz Hannah and directed by Jonathan Levine. Seth Rogen is only credited as a producer, but any movie featuring Rogen, whether he wrote it or not, sets up certain comedic expectations. To be specific, an irreverent, raunchy, juvenile, foul mouthed, stoner sense of humor. That certainly describes Long Shot’s comedic sensibility, but its comedy is mostly verbal, though there is one gross out sight gag that the climax of the film hinges on (so be forewarned about that). All of the humor, even the gross out gag, is firmly rooted in the characters, so no joke or gag feels artificially tacked on for shock value

As Charlotte and Fred spend more and more time together so he can get to know her better to add more of her personality into her speeches, they begin an unlikely and entirely believable romance. "Long Shot" refers to Charlotte as a presidential candidate, but it also refers to Fred as a romantic partner for the beautiful high-profile politician. Rogen and Theron are an unlikely pair but they have great chemistry. Rogen delivers his signature clever slacker character and comedic style, but Theron is far and away the star of this picture. She’s done heavy drama, dark comedy, broad comedy, action, and now clever, raunchy comedy, and she’s done them all extremely well. Hopefully Long Shot doesn’t get lost in the shuffle of big budget summer blockbuster spectacles because it is definitely worth seeking out. This foul mouthed, big hearted romantic comedy is bound to delight.