Review - Who Slew Auntie Roo?

WHO SLEW AUNTIE ROO? (1971)
The plot: Kindly widow kidnaps an orphan girl who reminds her of her dead daughter, while the girl's brother tries to rescue her and steal the widow's jewels. From the director of Devil Dog: The Hound of Hell. Merry Christmas!
The poop: Here's another buried gem from the vaults of American International Pictures. From the opening moments, where Shelley Winters holds the mummified remains of her daughter in an immaculately maintained playroom, you know you're in for twisted nonsense of the first order.

All you really need to know is that Winters plays Auntie Roo, a rich widow who yearly hosts Christmas for local orphans. One of  the new orphans, Katy, reminds Roo of her dead daughter, and Roo decides to keep Katy, who she locks in the playroom from the opening. Katy's big brother, Christopher, sneaks back to rescue her and maybe pinch some jewelry from Auntie Roo, as a nest-egg for himself and his sister. Then it gets weird.

But it's a low-key weird, aside from Shelley Winters, who ham-bones the hell out of this thing. The motif is "Hansel and Gretel," and the movie plays it up one side and down the other. I'll keep spoilers out of it, but once you watch it, see if you can figure out if Christopher; A) is a vicious little bastard, or B) he actually believes the story he feeds Katy.
Deal-breakers: Not really any likable characters. I'd say the orphan girl, Katy, comes the closest, but she really isn't terribly bright.

I suppose some could accuse the movie of being a bit slow, but that's the name of the game in the "crazy old lady" sub-genre, to which this firmly belongs.
The up-side: Does any movie, set on Christmas, that features a little mummified girl need any further up-sides?
Makes a great double-bill with: Any of the "crazy old lady" movies that were made in the wake of Whatever Happened to Baby Jane. I'd go for Lady in a Cage or Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte, or even Dear Dead Delilah if you want to slum it up a bit. Or maybe pair it off with The Other for a "boys are jerks" double-feature.

Other stuff: I caught this, along with The Other, on Nite Owl Theatre's Double-Chiller Friday, and was probably about five or six years too young to see either one of them. Oh well. Shit happens.

Review - Silent Night, Deadly Night

SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT (1984)
The plot: A kid watches a robber dressed as Santa kill his mom and dad, gets beat up by a nun in an orphanage, becomes a toy store Santa, goes nuts, impales Linnea Quigley on deer antlers. Based on the Charles Dickens classic.
The poop: This is one troublesome pup, let me tell you. I'm of two minds on this film, really. On one hand, as a parent, my copy of SNDN goes on one of the tippity-top shelves, far away from little hands. So I easily understand the apocalyptic backlash SNDN provoked upon its original release, and I'm actually sympathetic toward those who stood out in the cold to picket and protest it's release.

But on the other hand, this is a textbook, pitch-perfect example of an exploitation film, right down to the ad campaign, which is what triggered the protests in the first place. You have the exploitable hook (killer Santa), button-pushing transgressions  (cops shooting multiple Santa's, abusive nun,  killer Santa giving a very special present to a good little girl, etc.) and nudity (hi Linnea Quigley!). From an exploitation movie standpoint, there is very little SNDN doesn't have.

And that ad campaign! It really was quite genius, in an exploitation sort of way. Show the TV-ads for maybe a week, clearly showcasing the maniac Santa, during family-friendly prime-time, and let the outraged parents of America give you an extra couple weeks of free advertising due to news coverage of the pickets and protests. And to think this came out of a major studio, Tri-Star (owned by Columbia Pictures, then owned by Coca-Cola). Of course, the Coca-Cola shareholders didn't go along and pulled the picture from release.

All well and good, you say, but how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln? Well, SNDN is pretty dreadful from a quality standpoint, even from an exploitation movie standpoint. Most of the acting is distractingly bad. The direction is haphazard and lazy. The sets are cheap, including the rattiest excuse for a toy store I've ever seen outside of a flea market. The Christmas songs (all recorded especially for this movie -none of that crappy public domain junk) are bizarre at best, headache-inducing at worst. And whenever legitimately transgressive subject matter is introduced, it's rendered null and void by everything I've just listed, and probably more.

So, needless to say, I'm vastly and consistently entertained by SNDN. It's a train-wreck, yes indeed, but it's such a stupid and consistently goofy train-wreck that it's impossible to take seriously. The incompetence on display makes even the most offensive moments seem silly. I can't explain it and I won't apologize for it, but I have a serious sweet-tooth for junk like this.
Deal-breakers: Yeah, I don't think I really need to spell it out for you any more than I already have.

The up-side: Ditto.
Makes a great double-bill with: Booze.

Other stuff: Everyone relax, I don't plan on even telling my daughter this film exists, much less letting her watch it before she's twenty-five.

Update

My laptop died, but I have a temporary PC to use until such time as I can get another laptop.

I've decided to back-burner the killer mummy script. Coming off three horror scripts in a row, I was getting dangerously close to burning out on the genre. I've decided to go back to comedy, or in this case comedy-drama. More details to follow.

I'll have a review up later today, with another one or two up before Christmas.

And that's about it for right now.

So here's the thing... I threw my back out last weekend, and today's the first day all week I've been able to comfortably sit in order to write. And on top of that, finances decree that I watch my 4-year old daughter at least most of the week. Which would be fine, except she does not like it when I write, which she makes very, very clear.

Which leaves me with very little writing time. Which makes me prioritize what gets written. And I know having a blog is supposed to help get my writing out there, but I just do not have the time to regularly post on this thing. If it comes down to writing a blog post or working on a story or screenplay, there ain't no competition.

If I get the (office) job for which I interviewed the week before last, I will ironically have more free time to write because of the work schedule and because we'll be able to afford babysitting all week.

So that's what's going on. Today I plan to proof-read the short story I just finished, go through 'Mythos' one last time before I submit it to Joe Bob Briggs' production company, and go back to working on 'Artifact.'

Review- Wolfen

WOLFEN (1981)

The plot:  Urban renewal threaten the feeding grounds of a race of super intelligent -and possibly supernatural- wolves living in the slums of New York, and they ain't havin' it.

The poop: 1981 was the year of the werewolf picture, and in addition to 'Wolfen,' we had 'An American Werewolf in London,' 'The Howling,' and Larry Cohen's 'Full Moon High.' But no one remembers 'Full Moon High,' at least until Michael J. Fox was in it's half-assed remake. Well... no. No one remembered it after that, either.

In any case, 'Wolfen' was the only 1981 werewolf offering that played it completely straight. Sure, there's some gallows humor here and there, but compared to the other werewolf pictures that year, it was the only one that didn't openly rely on humor to get the job done. Not that there's anything wrong with humor in horror in general, or anything specifically wrong with the humor in the other 1981 werewolf pictures. 

So, yeah, 'Wolfen' is a pretty serious movie. It's also a pretty respectful movie. It respects wolves and their place in the world. It respects Native Americans and their traditions, and the idea that magic exists in the word, whether or not you see or even believe in it.

Deal-breakers: The main Native American character is not played by a Native American, but on the other hand he's played by Edward James Olmos. And he's naked in one scene. Which probably should be a separate Deal-Breaker.

I don't think this is a particularly lefty movie, but I lean that direction anyway, so maybe I'm missing something. But, again, on the other hand this is a movie about wolves who eat the homeless, so how lefty could it really be?

The up-side: Fantastic performances all around. No a single weak-link in the bunch.

This is the first werewolf picture that goes out of it's way to separate genuine wolf behavior from all the myths and misconceptions.

Makes a great double-bill with: The other werewolf pictures of 1981, which would actually be a triple-bill. A quadruple-bill if you count 'Full Moon High.'

Other stuff: The studios releasing 'Wolfen' -Warner Bros.and Orion- were disappointed that the finished product wasn't a straight-forward exploitation picture. They recut it, and recut it and recut it again, and none of the recut versions came close to what they wanted either. So what did they finally release? Basically the same version that director Michael Wadleigh handed in originally.

Still sorta bombed, though. At least compared to 'The Howling' and 'American Werewolf.' 

Review- Count Yorga, Vampire

COUNT YORGA, VAMPIRE (1970)

The plot: Centuries old vampire in modern-day (1970) Los Angeles. Hijinks ensue.
 
The poop: This is some brutal shit. It's not especially gory, mind you, it was released as a 'GP,' which became 'PG' later in the seventies -though not without issues. It was sent back to the MPAA six times, who requested cuts to the violence, nudity and even the sound effects in order to secure that important 'GP.' No, it's brutal because Count Yorga is one of the few cinema vampires of the seventies that seemed to be a genuine threat.

Keep something in mind here. Since roughly 1958, when Hammer's 'Horror of Dracula' was released, the vampire film was generally filmed as a gothic period piece. Which is great, stylistically, but keeps the audience at arm's length. Because of that distancing, the vampires created by Hammer Films rarely felt like much of a threat, even Dracula. Of course, it didn't help that, except for 'Horror of Dracula,' Hammer never gave Christopher Lee a Dracula script worthy of his abilities, but I suppose that's neither here nor there.

But there is no such distancing in 'Count Yorga, Vampire.' The world in the film is the world of 1970, complete with all the cynicism and jaded attitudes that go with it. So when Yorga gets down to business and does what vampires are wont to do, it feels more authentic and visceral, and when this movie's version of The Fearless Vampire Hunters go up against Yorga at the end... well, let's keep this spoiler-free and say that the movie ends exactly as it should end.

Deal-breakers: Kinda dated, though not nearly as dated as 'Blacula.' Still, though, you do get a mini-bus and a doctor smoking in his office, so there you go.

The up-side: Robert Quarry owns as Yorga. Flat out. As excellent as William Marshall was as Blacula -and he was excellent- I personally prefer Quarry as Yorga. He's an intelligent predator who uses the relative sophistication of the modern era in his favor. You genuinely believe he's been smart and crafty enough to have survived all this time.

Time for some Roger Perry love. He plays the aforementioned smoking doctor, who serves as the Van Helsing analog. He's fantastic, especially as he gradually figures out how utterly out-classed he is by Yorga. 

As I mentioned before, this movie has a vicious streak. It does not play nice. When horror fans reminisce about horror films from the seventies, this is part of the reason why. Not necessarily this movie, per say, but that willingness to get down and dirty. 

Makes a great double-bill with: The sequel, 'Return of Count Yorga,' of course. Also, 1973's 'The Deathmaster,' which has Robert Quarry as sort of a vampire-guru who takes over a hippie commune. Not as good -or as bad- as it sounds.

Other stuff: This was originally intended as a soft core porn flick. The original title was 'The Loves of Count Iorga, Vampire,' which is the title on the MGM DVD.

Review- Sugar Hill

SUGAR HILL (AND HER ZOMBIE HIT MEN) (1971)

The plot: The trailer says it best; The mob took Sugar's man away, now she's gonna make them pay. Refer to title for method of payment.

The poop: Pure junk movie comfort food, and one of the few movies I can watch on a weekly basis. This is a heavy sentimental favorite of mine. I first saw it on Night Owl Double-Chiller Theater during my formative years and I didn't catch it again until the early-00's, where I caught a midnight showing at the Cinema Wasteland convention outside Cleveland. Both venues accentuate the unique charm of 'Sugar Hill,' so I highly recommend duplicating these viewing conditions as much as possible; i.e. late at night with the lights off, booze optional.

Deal-breakers: Not an easy movie to find. I lucked out and taped it uncut off of Movie-Plex a few years ago. To the best of my knowledge, this has never been given a legitimate home-video release in America (hell, anywhere for that matter). MGM currently owns the rights, and has a made-on-demand copy available, if you don't mind what is basically a burned DVD. It was on Netflix for a while, but was part of their great purge a few months back. Shout Factory has been digging pretty hard at the MGM catalog, so there's a chance this beauty will have a legit DVD or Blu-Ray.

Watch out for those N-bombs. They flew pretty heavily in 70's blaxploitation, and 'Sugar Hill' is no exception.

The up-side: Hasn't dated as badly as other blaxploitation offerings.

Marki Bay makes a charming and likable Sugar Hill, though she doesn't even wait for her man's body to get cold before she starts flirting with an old flame. But Don Pedro Colley knocks it out of the park with his Baron Samedi, the Lord of the Cemeteries. Bug-eyed, sweaty and grinnin' ear to ear, if Colley didn't have the time of his life making this movie, it's not for lack of trying.

'Sugar Hill' has a great hot, humid atmosphere, and comes closer to matching the EC-comics vibe than most anything else.

Makes a good double-bill with: Either, or both, Blacula pictures.

Other stuff:  Blaxploitation-horror is a seriously small footnote in cinema history. How small? These are the only other Blaxploitation-horror offerings during that 1970-1977 boom period: 'Blacula;' 'Scream, Blacula, Scream;' 'Abby;' 'Blackenstein;' 'House on Skull Mountain;' 'Lord Shango' and 'J.D.'s Revenge.'

In the early to mid-seventies, Marvel Comics published a comic magazine called "Tales of the Zombie," which was ostensibly about Simon Garth, a coffee-magnate who was turned into a zombie, but also ran unrelated back-up stories and articles about all things voodoo, including 'Sugar Hill.'

Review - The Other

THE OTHER (1972)
The plot: The story of identical twin brothers Niles and Holland Perry and their increasingly upsetting summer of 1935. Think 'The Waltons' as re-imagined by Stephen King. 

The poop: This was one of the keystone horror movies for me growing up. I first saw it on Nite Owl Double Chiller theater in the late-seventies/early-eighties. Not exactly sure how old I was at the time, likely between six and nine. Keep that in mind as you reach the conclusion of the movie.

I'd say more -and I really have a lot to say about this movie- but... 

Deal-breakers: ...'The Other' is highly, h-i-g-h-l-y susceptible to spoilers. As in, read absolutely nothing about this movie before you see it. Don't even read the back of the DVD box, as it gives away part of the game right off the bat.

The funny part about this, 'The Other' was based on a best-selling novel (more about that in a moment), so it's a safe assumption that the audience at the time -at least a big chunk of it- already knew what to expect. Of course, since the novel hasn't been reprinted all that often (it was reprinted in 2012, the last reprint before that was 1988, and before then 1972), so it's safe to say anyone going into te movie now is going in fresh. So, yeah, watch for spoilers.

It's also kind of pacey, so don't click 'play' unless you want to invest the time and attention. Not sure this is exactly a deal-breaker, more of an FYI.  

The up-side: A textbook example of a horror film for adults.

The performances are across the board good. Especially real-life twins Chris and Martin Udvarnoky as Niles and Holland Perry, and Uta Hagen as their grandmother from the old country.             

Makes a great double-bill with: 'Let's Scare Jessica to Death,' which is another super-creepy from the early-70's. Going along with the under-rated 70's horror theme, I also recommend 'Shock Waves,' 'Blue Sunshine' and 'Messiah of Evil.' 

Other stuff: This is based on a best-selling novel by Thomas Tryon. I don't think it's in print any longer, so keep an eye on Ebay and your local used book stores. Since it sold over 4 million copies, you shouldn't have that hard a time finding one.

Tryon hated this movie. "Broke (his) heart," were the words he used. And audiences at the time tended to agree with him. This did not exactly burn up the box office, and most people who have seen 'The Other', have seen it on the late night movie -an absolutely appropriate venue.

It's no longer on Netflix, not sure if Blockbuster or Hulu or Crackle or whoever else still has a copy.

Trying to get back into the swing of writing short stories. I'm mid-way through one right now, hope to have it wrapped up by Monday or Tuesday.

Also, quick note, each day next week -at least Monday through Friday- I'll put up a review of a different horror film that really doesn't get the attention or love that they deserve. Plus any writing updates that pop up.
So until then...

Review - Saturn 3

SATURN 3 (1980)

The plot: Maniac and his pet robot invade a post-modern Garden of Eden situated on the 3rd moon of Saturn. Antics ensue. From the producers of 'The Muppet Movie' and the director of 'Singin' in the Rain.'

The poop: We have Kirk Douglas and Farrah Fawcett-(then)Majors as botanists stationed on the 3rd moon of Saturn, growing food because Earth has become too polluted. Why the 3rd moon of Saturn? There's nothing closer? Wouldn't orbiting space stations a'la 'Silent Running' do the trick with less transportation cost and time? Okay, pretend all that makes sense. So, then we have Harvey Keitel, who kills an interstellar Fed-Ex driver, hijacks his ship, and ends up at Kirk and Farrah's fun farm, where he develops a case of the hots for Farrah,  assembles his super-creepy robot pal Hector, and downloads his id into the thing. Why? Because Hector's runs on live brain tissue, and has to be programmed via direct link to another brain. Why Keitel, instead of Fawcett-Majors or Douglas, since they're the botanists, and Hector ostensibly is there to help them in their research? Why not?

Look, I have nothing against stupid movies. Own tons of them, matter of fact. It's just when stupid movies try to be all meaningful and symbolic, they come off looking dumber than they really are. When they acknowledge their stupidity and roll with it, it's usually a lot more fun. This should have been a quick, down and dirty piece of fun trash (see 'Forbidden World,' 'Galaxy of Terror' and 'Creature'), but they got so caught up in imitating the look of 'Alien,' and the whole Garden of Eden angle, they lost their way. And let it be said that 'Alien' was plenty stupid in it's own way, but it worked because it never forgot it was a monster movie.

Deal-breakers: Boring. You'd think a movie where Harvey Keitel downloads his id into a robot, who tries for sloppy seconds off Lee Majors wouldn't be dull, but here you go. Speaking of Keitel, the studio re-dubbed his character's voice before release. The producers gave him a British accent, because they thought no one would buy Keitel's New York accent. All the other silly shit  in the movie was apparently okay, but Keitel's New York accent was the kiss of death.

The up-side: Hector, the super-creepy robot, described as "first in the Demi-God series." Word of advise to any marketing department that may be listening: I don't care how lame the product, if you call it "first in the Demi-God series," I'd probably buy it.  New Stay-Tuff Maxi-Pads, first in the Demi-God series? So mine.  But, yeah, Hector's the only cool thing going on here. 

If there's a producer out there looking for a SF property to remake, 'Saturn 3' is he textbook example of a movie begging for a remake. The plot elements are not bad in and of themselves, they just need a little tweak here and there. Tighten it up. Lose the obvious symbolism. Put in one or two likable characters. Perfectly good movies like 'Rollerball,' 'Death Race 2000' and 'RoboCop' get remakes, but 'Saturn 3' does not.

Makes a great double-bill with: Laundry to fold

Other stuff: Martin Amis is credited with the screenplay. Yes, Martin Amis the acclaimed writer of  'The Rachel Papers.' I have no idea if what hit the screen was in any way, shape or form what he intended, and given this sucker's rocky production history, it wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't. And even if it was, the man was a self-confessed 'Space Invaders' addict. Brother needed the quarters. 

And yes, the director, Stanley Donan, is the same Stanley Donan that directed 'Singin' in the Rain,' and several other pictures widely considered better than 'Saturn 3.' He wasn't the first pick for director, though. The first pick was art director John Berry, who dodged this bullet to work on 'The Empire Strikes Back.' Depending on who you talk to, you can thank Kirk Douglas for Barry's early exit.

Shout Factory, through their Scream Factory label, is giving this the blu-ray treatment in December this year. Am I picking it up? Oh, hell yes.

Okay, so I'm doing this blog thing now. Nothing much to mention right now. I have a headache and dinner should be here any time, and I'm really hungry.

So yeah. Thrill a minute. Not sure yet what I plan to do with this thing, so I'll probably throw up some movie reviews now and again, and updates on my writing. Stay tuned to my Facebook page, I'll advise once new posts are up.