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.