Nomads (1986)

The Movie: Dr. Eileen Flax (Lesley-Anne Down) has just moved to Los Angeles from Boston; and she already faces a life-changing case at the hospital where she works. Late one night a bloody, raving derelict (Pierce Brosnan of Lawnmower Man and the late ‘90s James Bond movies) is brought into ER. He loudly rants nonstop in French, so nobody is able to communicate with or make any sense of him. However, when Flax steps in to check on him; he lunges at her, whispers something in her ear and dies.

Dr. Flax starts having spells of disorientation, sometimes passing out. During these spells she finds herself reliving the man’s last memories. It turns out that the raving derelict was Professor Jean Charles Pommier, a respected professor of anthropology who has spent the last ten years living with various primitive groups. He has only been in L.A. a week, where he and his wife, Nikki (Anna Maria Monticelli; and might I add, a redhead who speaks French! Sigh!), have moved to rejoin civilization. Unfortunately, the prospect of a normal, pedestrian life is already making him bored and restless. But that’s nothing compared to what he’s about to discover.

There is a gang of toughs that vandalizes the couple’s new house nightly. Pommier is overcome with curiosity about them, especially after he discovers a makeshift shrine in the garage. Following and observing them, he discovers that they lead a primitive, nomadic existence; not much different from the people he’s been studying for the last decade. But there is much more.

The Inuit have a legend about the Einwetok (pronounced in-oo-wad), evil nomadic spirits who regularly take the form of humans. They are attracted to sites of tragedy and violence, and they bring madness and destruction to those unfortunate enough to cross their path. Well, it turns out that the Pommiers’ new house is the site of a gruesome murder. Worse, now that the spirits are aware of Pommier, he finds himself hounded; and slowly drawn into another world entirely….

The Review:

“You just look too closely. Most people are luckier; they don’t know that a certain percentage of what they see is not there.”

Nomads is an interesting little horror movie. Admittedly, it is flawed and only a partial success. However, as I have mentioned several times in my reviews of Jean Rollin’s movies, even a partial success can be pretty damn good; sometimes even head and shoulders above typical mainstream genre fare.

With its horror elements, Nomads hits it perfectly. It is a very atmospheric film; one that does a very good job at conveying the sensation of a world that isn’t our own, but that at the same time isn’t as separate from our world as we would like it to be. The horror is mostly hinted at, with just enough glimpses and concrete information to convey the gravity of the threat, but with just enough left to the imagination to make you wonder.

The nomads themselves are very well done. Considering that they include pop stars of the time such as Adam Ant and Josie Cotton, this is especially impressive. The standout for me is Mary Woronov, long my all-time favorite actress (although Brigitte Lahaie is a very close second); who conveys the impression that we’re not looking at a woman, but some inhuman predator in a woman costume. The nomads don’t make any noise (except for one who occasionally lets off an evil chuckle), but through body language and facial expressions they are pretty convincing as individuals who aren’t human; all appearances aside.

Another standout cast member is the ever wonderful Francis Bay, who appears as a creepy blind nun with an undisclosed connection to the evil spirits. Brosnan himself does a good job, more or less convincing in his role. The rest of the cast does adequately at absolute worst.

The final major positive element about this movie that I find worth mentioning is the soundtrack. Bill Conti and Ted Nugent put together three rock songs that are played throughout the film, and Nugent even played guitar for them. Now, I’ve never cared much for Ted Nugent, either as a musician or a human being; but I must admit that the man has talent. The songs really convey the atmosphere of the nomad’s lifestyle and habitat. I just wish it was available on an album.

So with all of these good points, what is the problem with Nomads? I would say that it is one thing; Doctor Eileen Flax. Nothing wrong with Ms. Down’s performance, I think she does well; it’s just that the character herself really doesn’t fit into the movie. Nomads is Pommier’s story, it’s about his decent into this other world and his own damnation. And as it’s about him, we really don’t need Flax.

The connection between the two characters is somewhat spurious, there’s no real in-movie explanation for how he transfers his memories to her. It’s pretty obvious that her entire inclusion in the movie is to provide a set-up for the twist at the end. Admittedly, the twist works. It is somewhat shocking, yet it does flow organically from hints provided earlier in the movie. However, there are plenty ways it could have been done without having to add an unneeded character and her back-story to the film.

So in conclusion, Nomads is a decent, though flawed, little horror movie. It handles its horror through hints and leaving much to the imagination, and does it well. The one downside is that the wraparound plot is unneeded and detracts from the rest of the film. Still, as a whole, Nomads does a great job of conveying the impression of something that lies just beyond the everyday world we take for granted.

Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949)

The Movie: Louis Mazzini D'Ascoyne (Dennis Price), tenth Duke of Chelfont, sits in his cell on the night before his execution for murder. To pass the time, and to make sure posterity knows the truth, he writes his memoirs of what brought him here.

Louis tells us how his mother (Audrey Fildes) was a member of the noble D’Ascoyne family; but how he grew up poor because she eloped with an Italian opera singer (Dennis Price again). However, his mother brought him up on his noble birth and the histories of his family. This planted a dangerous ambition in him.

After his mother’s untimely demise, Louis decided he was going to reclaim his birthright and become the duke. Unfortunately, there were eight other people (all played wonderfully by the late Alec Guinness, although to his dismay most people only remember him as Obi-Wan Kenobi from Star Wars) in his way. Louis ambitiously decided to remedy this.

But as the bodies piled up and Louis place in the world began to improve, some complications crept in. First there was his growing love for Edith D’Ascoyne (Valerie Hobson), the young widow of one of his first victims. Even more potentially disastrous is Sibella (Joan Greenwood, who also did the voice for the villainess in Barbarella), Louis’ mistress and former childhood friend, who is married to his childhood rival Lionel Holland (John Penrose). Sibella has her own designs on Louis once she starts to realize what he’s really worth.

While Louis did obtain the dukedom, the unseen complications wound up getting him the murder charge as well. Now he awaits his execution, wondering if he might possibly obtain a last-minute reprieve…

The Review:

“Now, in those days I never had any trouble with the Sixth Commandment”

There is one, and only one, good thing that has ever come out of censorship. It is simply this; the artist is forced to be much more clever, creative and innovative than he would normally be without that impediment. This little fact was driven home for me when I was on the school newspaper in high school. My school was run by morons who constantly created and enforced extremely stupid and destructive policies. Unfortunately, we on the newspaper were not allowed to say anything critical of the school or the Powers That Be, even (actually “especially” would be the more appropriate word) when it was the gods’ honest truth. However my journalism teacher, probably second only to my parents as the worst influence on my life, didn’t care for them either and she provided me with the answer. “Nathan,” she would constantly tell me, “we can’t say that. But if you phrase it this way….”

Now, I have always had a passion for language and words; word games, innuendos, entendres, double meanings, and that most demonized of arts, the pun. As a result, writing for the paper became a game for me. I had a lot of fun seeing how critical I could be of the morons in power in ways that they couldn’t prevent. I had numerous successes and failures, but it was an educational experience that proved extremely useful when I entered the world outside of high school.

In the past few years I have seen a lot more of the older movies; specifically, ones that were made in the age of the abomination known as the Hayes Code. Admittedly, on their surface such movies seem quaint and tame; especially when compared to what you can see in films that came after the Code was ended. Also, it is true that the Code hamstrung quite a few movies that would otherwise have been good. However, there were quite a few more that were nowhere near as tame as they might appear to a modern audience. If you look and listen closely, you’ll notice that they’re playing the exact same game I played with my high school newspaper; and once you recognize that, you find some truly twisted and irreverent stuff.

At the time, Britain didn’t have the same kind of formalized code for what you could put into movies. However, the British government censored its country’s films just as harshly; and both countries kept the others’ censorship statutes in mind so they could sell their movies to each other. I am of the opinion that British humor is very adept at this kind of censor tweaking. The British have a way of saying one thing in a casual deadpan manner while conveying something else entirely that American humor has never quite gotten right.

Kind Hearts and Coronets is a British black comedy that perfectly exemplifies this method of humor. This movie is full of all sorts of twisted, irreverent, socially unacceptable behavior and raunchy humor; even by today’s standards. However, it is all played out in a strait faced manner that simultaneously serves to both hide the happenings from the more literal minded and emphasize them even more for those who are paying attention.

Take Louis and Sibella’s affair for example. Now, in those days sex, especially illicit sex such as adultery, was a definite no-no to the censors. The way the movie handles it as a result is pure genius. The most we actually see are a few passionate clinches and the fact that Sibella visits Louis’ apartment unchaperoned, which in the time of the movie’s setting would have been a major scandal. However, listening closely to the dialogue tells you what your eyes don’t. For example, one of my favorite lines is when Louis approaches Lionel at his and Sibella’s wedding and tells him “you’re a lucky man Lionel, take my word for it.” The line is spoken so casually that the more literal minded will probably not think much of it; Lionel certainly doesn’t notice anything. But if you’re paying attention, that seemingly innocuous phrase has worlds of ulterior meaning.

Then there’s how the movie handles Louis and his murders. The character of Louis, himself, is an amazing bit of dramatic sleight of hand. Throughout the entire course of the movie Price is never outwardly anything but reasonable, civil and seemingly decent. At the beginning, it’s very hard not to sympathize with him. The D’Ascoynes did wrong him and his mother, after all. Also, the majority of Louis victims are arrogant, obnoxious and/or self centered. It’s very hard not to cheer when he offs them.

And yet, as the movie goes on, we begin to see what a bastard Louis truly is. He still seems the civil, reasonable man we started out with; but his words and actions tell a very different story. By the end, much as we enjoyed seeing Louis dispose of the D’Ascoynes, we cannot help but feel that his own ambiguous fate is very much deserved.

Overall, Kind Hearts and Coronets is a very well made movie with a very talented cast. However, one actor stands far above all the others; Alec Guinness. Guinness plays eight very different roles throughout the movie; an arrogant young rake, an old and senile clergyman, an earnest and friendly young photography enthusiast, and a gruff and arrogant baron to name a few. What’s more, he nails each of them perfectly. In fact, it can be hard sometimes to believe that they’re all played by the same man.

Most people today remember Guinness as Obi-wan Kenobi from Star Wars, but the truth is he had a very long and distinguished career before he played that role. In fact, by all accounts he really hated that role and refused to acknowledge any mail from Star Wars fans. What’s really impressive is that it seems Guinness regularly played multiple complex roles in a single film. In the original script for Kind Hearts and Coronets he was only supposed to play four characters, but asked if he could do eight instead. The fact that he could do eight different parts as well and convincingly as he did speaks volumes about his talents.

In conclusion, Kind Hearts and Coronets is a wonderful film. Admittedly, on the surface it might seem tame and sedate by today’s standards. If you pay attention, though, you will see that it’s about as twisted and subversive as film as one could come across; it just hides it under a thin veneer of civility. If you’re into subtle, subversive cinema, seek this one out.

My Humble Attempt at a Eulogy for Jean Rollin

On Friday the 17th of December, 2010; I learned that one of my favorite directors, Jean Rollin, passed away two days prior. Presented here is my humble attempt at a suitable eulogy for the great man.

I am very good with words, everybody tells me so. However, I’m not exactly sure how well this eulogy will come out. Truth to tell, I’m still just getting to know Rollin and his work. I first learned about him roughly two years ago. I was searching the internet for oddball movies that I had never seen, and I came across one website. It had a few movies that looked very interesting. As per usual, I missed the name of the director, or even that they were all done by the same man. I finally learned this when I checked the name of the director for one of the movies and then looked him up on Netflix. I found that I had already watched, and enjoyed, nearly all that they had by him. Thus my fascination (if you’ll pardon the pun) began.

I don’t feel I know all that much about Rollin because, due to DVD formatting, there is still much of his work that is unavailable to me. However, what little I have seen has definitely caught my imagination. The most notable thing about him is that he is a true artist with his own unique vision. What’s more, he was a man who was determined to get his vision out to the public, whatever hardships he had to face to do it. Even when he faced bankruptcy, or had to do other projects that he did not wish to do, such as directing hard core pornography, to fund his own visions; Rollin was still dedicated to his work.

One of the things I really like about Rollin’s movies is how un-commercial they are. They are almost nothing like conventional mainstream films. Admittedly, this can make them confusing and somewhat intimidating at first. I tend to think of his films like I would a dream; viewed externally they tend not to make much sense, but taken on their own terms they have their own internal logic. Rollin’s movies show us realms and vistas that we might not actually inhabit, but that we instinctively know exist just out of sight.

Rollin’s films, to borrow a comparison from somebody else, are more akin to poetry than prose. Most, if not all, of them have a sleepy atmosphere about them that gives the impression of either a waking dream or a living nightmare. Sometimes both. He tended to dwell on feelings of loneliness and alienation, but there’s a sense of wonder as well. Whether it’s the need and fragility of human relationships, or the limits of mortality, Rollin employed themes that stay with you after the movie is over. Every Rollin movie I have seen, whether or not I thought it worked, has had the director’s mark very clearly on it. Even if his movie was only a partial success, it was still wonderful for being something so unique.

One thing very noticeable about Rollin’s movies is his focus on women. Females are almost always the protagonists; it is rare that he has male heroes. Admittedly nudity and lesbian scenes are in great supply, but it rarely ever feels truly exploitative. For one thing, the heroines are given definite personality. What’s more, they are usually the strong ones, whoever they might be up against. Even today it’s rare to have movies that center around strong, capable, female protagonists and antagonists. I do think he got a bit carried away with the theme of having his heroines tied up and whipped, but overall I think he handles his female characters with much more respect than most movie makers, past or present.

I cannot begin to fully describe what I get out of Rollin’s movies. Rollin has shown me cinema that is very different from what I was able to imagine before I encountered his work. It is through Rollin I was introduced to such individuals as Joelle Coeur or the Castel Twins; now ranking highly among my fantasy women; or Brigitte Lahaie, who very quickly rose to just below Mary Woronov as my favorite actress. Most of all, he helped me realize that it is still possible to create something truly unique in art. As an artist myself (albeit a different medium), that is a priceless lesson. It is my hope to one day create something that equals a fraction of what he was able to accomplish. Rollin, you will be missed.

Re-Animator (1985)

The Movie: Aspiring doctor Daniel Cain (Bruce Abbott) seems to have it all. He is top of his class at Miskatonic Medical School, and held in high regard by Dean Halsey (Robert Sampson). He’s also engaged to (and, unbeknownst to her father, bedding) the dean’s nubile daughter, Megan (Barbara Crampton). Sure he’s a bit obsessive about his work, and he lets the people in his life dominate him; but he’s a good guy. Unfortunately, all that’s about to come crashing down with the arrival of a new roommate.

Herbert West (the amazing and prolific Jeffrey Combs, in his first starring role) has come back from independent studies in Switzerland. It’s clear from the beginning that West is trouble. When introduced to the respected brain surgeon Doctor Hill (David Gale), the school’s main source of grants and West’s soon to be professor; he immediately initiates a pissing contest with the man, calling him a plagiarist to his face. For us viewers there’s also the movie’s opening scene, which shows the disastrous end to the experiment that prompted West to leave Switzerland.

It turns out that West has been experimenting with dead tissue reanimation; and he has created a serum that will restore life to newly dead organisms. He convinces Dan to help him perfect the serum by demonstrating its effects on Dan’s recently deceased cat. Dan jumps at the opportunity of such a great medical discovery.

Unfortunately, there are a few bugs. As the formerly friendly pet’s return to life as a homicidally psychotic fur ball shows, the subjects lose a lot of their old selves in the reanimation. Also, when Dan tries to inform Dean Halsey of West’s discovery, the dean is convinced that Dan has lost it. Things go from bad to worse when the dean barges in on an experiment in progress and gets killed by the rampaging specimen. His subsequent return to life doesn’t improve matters much, although West is able to convince the police that Halsey has gone insane.

West, it turns out, was right about Doctor Hill’s character. Hill is a plagiarist. He’s also long harbored a barely concealed lust for Megan. With his old “friend” under his care, Hill is able to determine that Dean Halsey is really dead. He attempts to blackmail West out of his serum, but loses his head in the process. Fortunately for him, and unfortunately for everyone else, West has his serum on hand.

The decapitated Doctor Hill proves to be Herbert West’s most catastrophic success. Retaining all of his memories and cognitive facilities, but now completely psychotic, Hill overpowers West and steals his serum. Hill has big plans involving that serum, as well as an invention of his own. He also has equally unpleasant plans for Megan Halsey….

The Review:
“You’ll never get credit for my discovery, who’s going to believe a talking head? Get a job in a side show!"-Herbert West

This is it ladies and gentlemen; this is the movie that forever spoiled me for mainstream Hollywood fare. Around late junior high, early high school; I became obsessed with H.P. Lovecraft. I read about Re-Animator in a book on horror movies and was fascinated. I talked to a friend of mine who, it turned out, had seen it in his young and impressionable years (explains a whole hell of a lot); and he told me about the infamous “giving head” scene between Gale and Crampton. I had to see it. Fortunately, the local video store had a copy of the unrated version.

I had no idea what I was getting myself into. By this point I had seen a few R-rated horror movies, but most of them had been rather tame gore-wise. I had definitely never seen anything like the infamous sexploitation scene mentioned above. Young, impressionable me ended up seeing a film that was wild, twisted, repulsive, bizarre, and very socially unacceptable. Oh gods did I love it.

I have seen many attempts at “horror-comedies,” movies that attempt to be both funny and scary. Unfortunately, they present a very difficult tightrope to walk. You have to do it just right, or otherwise either one of the two elements will overshadow the other, or they will both cancel each other out. Re-Animator is one of the few movies I have seen which manages to nail that balance perfectly. It has a really warped sense of humor throughout it. However, at the same time, it has some truly scary and unpleasant moments that aren’t overshadowed by the humor at all. And then there are a few moments, such as the notorious “giving head” scene, where you’re not sure whether you want to laugh or scream. So you try to do both.

On a technical level Re-Animator is masterfully done. The effects are all too convincing, and used in ways contemporary Hollywood movies probably wouldn’t touch. On the commentary, the cast talks about taking a trip to a morgue to understand what dead bodies look like, and that shows in the movie’s walking corpses. On my last viewing, I took notice of how you could actually see the rigor mortis on Dan and Herbert’s first disastrous experimental subject. That’s a detail you almost never see in most walking dead movies.

This is even more impressive when you consider that Re-Animator was done on a low budget. Most of the extras are apparently crew and family members, and the director even stood (to be pedantic, lay) in for one of the corpses a few times. This was all done on the cheap, and yet all of the settings and the effects are absolutely perfect.

The script is also very well done. The only part of it that doesn’t really jell is Dean Halsey’s reaction to West’s experiments. However, the movie has such momentum, and Sampson pulls the dialogue off so well, that you don’t really notice it until afterwards.

The whole cast is just amazing, but Combs is the one who carries the movie. Jeffry Combs is probably my all-time favorite actor, and he has held that position for quite a while. I have seen him in some of the worst movies and given some of the worst roles; yet so long as he has something, anything, to work with, he always manages to do something engaging with it. Overall I find him a pretty amazing actor.

Re-Animator is Combs’ first starring role; and in my humble opinion it remains his best. He is given all of the best lines in the movie, and he delivers them perfectly. What’s more, Combs takes what could be a two-dimensional caricature and turns him into the very best part of the movie. Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t want to deal with Herbert West in person even if he wasn’t reanimating corpses. On screen however, Combs makes him fascinating, engaging, and a lot of fun.

For the most part, Bruce Abbot’s role as Cain is mainly to play straight-man to West. However, the straight-man role is needed, and he pulls it off very well. What’s more, Abbot makes Cain identifiable and sympathetic. As Cain is our point of view character, this is essential for the movie to work.

Crampton’s role pretty much just requires her to do three things; scream, get in trouble and get naked. However, she does all three very well. Also, she actually makes Megan likeable and sympathetic. We the viewers actually care about her, and horror movies really don’t work unless we care about what happens to the protagonists. It’s sad how few directors and studios seem to realize this.

Sampson does a good job as Dean Halsey. In fact, he effectively plays two parts; the living dean and the reanimated corpse. Both of them are effectual, and he even manages to play an effectively mindless corpse while still investing it with a personality. That’s talent.

Finally, Gale is wonderful as the villainous Doctor Hill. For the first half of the movie he comes across as slimy and distinguished, just barely holding his desires in check. In the second half, when Doctor Hill loses his head in both the literal and figurative meanings of the expression, Gale goes into full psychotic mode. He presents us with a repulsive villain who we love to hate. Even more impressive, as a foil for West he actually makes it easy for us to forget what an unpleasant character the latter man is.

In total, Re-Animator is one hell of a ride. It is bizarre and outré; yet director Stuart Gordon keeps such a tight hold on all of the outrageous elements, and drives them with such energy and momentum that they hold together effectively until the very end. If you have a fairly strong stomach and really really warped sense of humor, Re-Animator is highly recommended. If that doesn’t describe you, I would suggest moving in the opposite direction as fast as possible.

Darkman (1990)

The Movie: Peyton Westlake (Liam Neeson, later of some well known big budget films such as The Phantom Menace and Batman Begins) is a scientist who has discovered a way to create synthetic skin. The substance can recreate any face, thereby offering hope for burn victims. Unfortunately, it has one major flaw; it disintegrates after 99 minutes in the light.

But Peyton has much bigger problems. His girlfriend, Julie (Frances McDormand), a lawyer, has come across an incriminating document. Peyton has the misfortune of being home when the sadistic gangster Robert Durant (Larry Drake) arrives with his thugs to collect it. Peyton is beaten and tortured by the gangsters before being left to die when his lab blows up. He survives, but winds up very badly burned.

Found, Peyton is taken to a hospital as a John Doe. The staff performs a radical procedure on him, effectively destroying his sense of touch. This leaves him with unchecked adrenalin levels, providing superhuman strength. It also amplifies his emotions to extreme levels.

Peyton escapes the hospital and sets up shop in a deserted warehouse. There, he salvages his lab and seeks to perfect the skin. He has two immediate uses for it, causing him to lead a double life. The first use is to try to repair things with Julie, who thought he was dead. Unfortunately, his unwillingness to let her know his true condition forces him to be very secretive and evasive with her.

The other use is to take revenge on Durant and his gang. Using the skin to disguise himself as the various members of the gang, Peyton sows fear and discord among them. Unfortunately, it becomes more and more difficult to control his impulses, and his two lives start to collide. Worst of all, Peyton Westlake starts to realize that he is turning into something every bit as evil and monstrous as the men who destroyed his life….

The Review:

“He’s a cockroach; you think you kill him, he pops up someplace else.”
-Robert G. Durant

Darkman is a movie written and directed by Sam Raimi; known for the Evil Dead movies, as well as the recent Spiderman franchise. In many ways it is your typical low budget comic-book superhero movie; employing many of the familiar tropes of the genre. But what really makes it fascinating is the story itself; and the nature of its protagonist. Raimi cleverly inverts the usual tropes to bring us a story, not about a man who ascends to a higher calling; but a good man who becomes a monster.

Darkman makes it clear from the moment our protagonist starts seeking his revenge that Peyton Westlake is not a hero at all. In fact, he’s just the opposite. Admittedly he is somewhat sympathetic, I think we can all understand why he feels the way he does. Also, the men he is up against are definitely repulsive excuses for human beings; there’s no question that they are evil.

However, Peyton isn’t fighting them because it’s the right thing to do; he’s doing it entirely because he wants his pound of flesh. Also, it’s not just their appearance and voices he is mimicking; it’s their behaviors as well. More and more he uses their own strategies against them; notably in a scene where he leaves one of them in the exact situation they originally left him in, but with his own sadistic twist. What’s more, it’s clear that he takes every bit as much glee in their pain and suffering as they did in his. And most notably, with every act of revenge he takes another piece of the old, noble, Peyton Westlake dies.

By the time we reach the requisite showdown on a high place between Peyton and the mastermind behind the criminals (I won’t spoil his identity, but you will guess it long before the movie tells you); the villain’s inevitable cry of “who’s the real monster?” doesn’t come across as facetious as it might. After all, by this point the only real difference between the two is that Peyton is well aware of what he has become. The villain still thinks that his actions have merit because they work toward a greater good.

As a result, the scene where Peyton says his final goodbye to his girlfriend has a greater poignancy than it usually does in these movies. Peyton isn’t leaving because he has a higher cause to serve. Instead, he recognizes that he has become alienated from the rest of the human race; partly through his own actions. He is leaving not to pursue justice, but to go into self-imposed exile. Largely by his own hand, the good and noble Peyton Westlake is gone; leaving an inhuman monster in his place.

Liam Neesom is absolutely perfect for the role; which is good, since he’s the one who has to carry this movie. He perfectly portrays a sympathetic man who is slowly but surely becoming something repulsive. To my mind, one of his best touches is the voice he uses when he’s dealing with Julie after the accident. It sounds like his old voice, but there’s this subtle undertone that suggests there is something very wrong just below the surface.

In fact, my main issue with the two sequels is that they don’t have Neesom in the role. Admittedly, he was probably way too expensive by this point to do low-budget sequels. However, the man they substituted for him couldn’t have been more unsuited as Darkman. For one, he is stage-idol handsome. I’m not saying Neesom’s bad looking, but he better conveys the average Joe looks of Peyton Westlake. Worse, though, is his accent. It kept making me think James Bond, which is the exact polar opposite of the character.

The other standout performance in Darkman is Larry Drake as the villainous Durant. Now, I have seen Drake in a few very different roles; and he is a pretty amazing and diverse actor all around. As Peyton’s primary antagonist and foil, Drake is perfect. His Durant is extremely memorable; usually cool and collected, yet very sadistic and intense. In our first view of Durant he is being frisked by the gang of a rival gangster, and his only reaction is a subtle little eye-roll of annoyance. However, equally arresting is how he starts to fall apart once he begins to realize exactly who and what he’s up against. Drake is second only to Neeson as the very best thing about Darkman, and he’s also the very best part of the first sequel, where he reprises this role.

Darkman is obviously low budget, but they do very well with what they have. The fights and special effects are convincing enough, and Darkman works well on the level of an action movie. The standout scene is the big battle between Peyton and Durant; where Peyton hangs from the toe line of Durant’s helicopter for most of the time. I think they actually hung a stuntman from a helicopter for some of the shots.

Plotwise, the movie also works. There are a few required suspensions of disbelief, but that’s par for the course for this genre. Also, like most of Raimi’s movies, there is a subtle but distinctive sense of humor present.

Ultimately, Darkman works as a low budget but very well done superhero action flick. However, its main strength is in its script and the nature of the protagonist. The movie takes a look at the true nature of justice and revenge; a very appropriate message in the post-9/11 age when the former so often gets confused with the latter in the popular mindset. Using the superhero tropes we’re all familiar with; Raimi spins a cautionary tale about the price of that confusion. No matter how justified revenge might seem, it always has a price. In the character of Peyton Westlake, we are shown how the pursuit of vengeance, even seemingly justified vengeance, ultimately destroys and separates us from the very things that make us human.

Night of the Demons (1987)

The Movie: Good girl Judy (Cathy Podewell) is excited to be going to the Halloween dance with Jay (Lance Fenton). However, Jay has a change of plans. Creepy goth-girl Angela (Mimi Kinkade) and her friend, Suzanne (the great scream queen Linnea Quigley, of such films as Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers and Return of the Living Dead), are throwing a party that he would rather attend instead.

The party is at Hull House, a deserted house/former funeral parlor with a rather checkered history. By checkered I mean mysterious deaths, massacres, cursed ground. You know, the usual. Jay talks Judy into going, and the party starts. The teenagers look forward to a night of drinking, dancing, party games, and getting into each others’ pants

Unfortunately, there is something to all those horrible stories about Hull House. It turns out that demonic entities live there, and that Halloween is the one night they can come out to torment humanity. As the partygoers get possessed and killed in gruesome ways, the survivors try to find an escape. The one hope is the underground stream that the wall surrounding the property is built over, which the demons are unable to cross. Unfortunately, they have taken that little issue into account. Let the real party begin….

The Review:

“Don’t worry Sal, it ain’t the weird ones you got to watch out for. God, didn’t your mother teach you nothing about women?”
-Stooge

On its surface, Night of the Demons resembles a typical dead teenager movie of the standard set by Friday the 13th. Hell, you could even do a checklist of the various elements. Group of teenagers throws a party in a location where a great evil lurks? Check. Said teenagers get killed off in grotesque ways? Check. Majority of characters little more than walking targets? Check. Gratuitous female nudity? Almost all the female characters bare some flesh at some point. Total asshole character? We get two, three if you count Jay.

So what is there to distinguish Night of the Demons from the rest of the pack? Quite a bit, actually. Probably most prominent is that the filmmakers show a sense of self awareness throughout the whole work. Hey! Get back here! Don’t worry, I’m not meaning that winking, smirking, “aren’t we clever” self awareness we see all too often in horror movies these days.

Instead, we get a deadpan “so they think they know what’s coming? Let’s see if they catch this!” mentality. It’s clear that the filmmakers are very aware of what they are creating; and they use that to tweak the formula. There aren’t too many glaring changes, though there are at least one or two. However, there are enough adjustments to the established cannon to keep you off your guard.

For example, Judy, our obvious final girl. There is a hint, not elaborated upon but still there, that she might not be a virgin. Likewise, at the beginning she actually bares some skin for the camera! In your standard Friday the 13th inspired dead teenager movie, either one of these would mark her as dead meat. However, it’s still clear that if anyone survives the happenings it will be her.
I would also like to point out that Ms. Podewell is fairly convincing in her role. On the one hand, she does come across as a genuinely good person; on the other she doesn’t come across as either too saccharine or intolerable, as one would be lead by other movies to expect her to be. I could imagine meeting someone like Judy, and actually enjoying her company.

This is done with some of the other characters as well. One of our total assholes actually shows a good head when things start getting weird; and even some nobility when he sacrifices his own life to save Judy’s. Another character, one of the survivors, has not one but two traits that, in any other movie of this type, would mark them out as one of the very first to die.

Along with the little tweaks to catch us off guard, the filmmakers obviously knew that they were supposed to be making a horror movie. I shouldn’t have to say that, but unfortunately there are so many makers of these films who don’t. There are some genuinely frightening scenes in Night of the Demons. One of my personal favorites, Angela’s dance to Bauhaus’ Stigmata Martyr, I find to be simultaneously one of the creepiest and most arousing horror movies scenes I have come across. There are also some good, subtlely done indications that characters are possessed. I wish they’d stuck to the subtle hints, I find the possessies a lot less scary when they are in full-fledged demon makeup.

Finally, and probably most importantly, it was clear that somebody had fun making Night of the Demons. This shows in the special effects, the plot, and especially in the wonderful animations played during the credits. Probably the two best actors, who also gave the impression of enjoying their roles, were Kinkade and Quigley. They played off each other well, and Kinkade reminded me of some women I’ve known in high school and college, though not ones I’d want to deal with in person.

Linnea Quigley’s character actually had a few clever things about her. One of the things I liked was how pre-possession, Suzanne doesn’t have much of a personality. Once she’s possessed she has a clearly defined, although very mean spirited, one.
My favorite scene with her character; because it is so clever, albeit amoral; is when she first appears. She’s at a mini-mart, wearing a really short skirt and bending all the way over. And while the losers behind the counter are staring and drooling, Angela shoplifts the supplies for the party.

In short, Night of the Demons is a conventional formula with a few clever tweaks and twists and a few scary scenes. It is also a lot of fun. If you like movies with gore and gratuitous female nudity, you’ll love Night of the Demons. If you like these things, or at least don’t mind them, but you want a bit more in your movies; give this one a try.

The Iron Rose (1973)

The Movie: An unnamed young man (Hughes Quester) at a wedding notices a woman (Francoise Pascal) sitting at another table. He stands up and announces that he would like to recite a love poem, which he does, while staring at the woman. A little later, he stands outside and she comes out to ask why he looked at her while he recited the poem. The man talks her into meeting him for a bike ride the following day.

They meet at a train yard and, after playing around, go on their ride. The couple passes a cemetery and decides to go in for a picnic. After eating, they go into a crypt to make love. The couple is so distracted that they don’t notice the passage of time, and when they finally exit the crypt night has fallen. An attempt to find the exit reveals that they are lost. As they search, unsuccessfully, for a way out, hysteria starts to set in…

The Review: For this blog I have focused on movies that have affected me in some way. Naturally, the majority of them are movies I have enjoyed; whether as good art or brainless fun. However, if you look through my past entries you will notice I have also reviewed one film that disappointed me; one that underwhelmed me to the point of depression; one that simultaneously repulsed me and pissed me off; one that reopens old wounds every time I watch it; and one that will wound just about anybody who sees it.

Movies are a form of art, and I am of the opinion that art should serve one of two functions, if not both at once. Firstly, art is meant for enjoyment. On some level, most art is made specifically for somebody to enjoy. That is certainly one of the main reasons I got into movies in the first place.

Secondly, art should make you think, cause your mind to go directions it normally wouldn’t. Sometimes this can be pleasant, thus fulfilling the first role as well as the second. However, sometimes this is done through invoking shock, disgust, anger or other less pleasant emotions. These are also necessary; hence why artists tend to push the envelope of what is acceptable. Our world is not all sweetness and light after all; and there are many unpleasant truths that we must be aware of.

Of course, there is a line to be drawn. Things like child porn, the snuff films of urban legend, or animals being hurt or killed on screen are definitely wrong and illegal for a reason. This isn’t because of the subject matter, but because of the harm done to create them. I am of the opinion that no subject matter, in and of itself, should be off limits for art. However, I am against anything that causes actual harm to others in the creation of said art.

The Iron Rose is one of Jean Rollin’s earliest works. It is also one of his most personal and least commercial creations. The first problems come in with how, exactly, to define it. The synopsis on the back of my DVD box claims it is a horror movie, but it really isn’t. There are some creepy and eerie parts throughout the movie, but that is the extent of its horror elements; The Iron Rose is not a horror movie by any real standards.

If I had to assign it a standard designation, I would say that The Iron Rose is a romance. However, it is nothing like what you probably thought of when I said it was a romance. And as for the “eurosleeze” aspect; Pascal does do a nude scene, but it is such a small and brief part of the film that if you are only watching for the nudity, you are really going to feel cheated.

The website Esotika Erotica Psychotica (there is a link to your right if you are interested), in its review of the film, says that The Iron Rose is a literal depiction of a man and woman creating a private world that only contains each other. That is certainly my impression as well. Aside from the wedding at the beginning, and the odd looking people initially in the cemetery, our two protagonists are the only two people in the film. They are definitely the only two characters we get any kind of real look at.

Rollin’s trademark invoking of feelings of isolation help reinforce this impression. Most notable is the scene where the two are playing and making out in the train yard. Our protagonists are not just the only people in the scene; they are the only things moving. However, all the while we are hearing the sounds of moving trains and passengers and loudspeakers. The scene leaves the sense that the lovers have stepped out of the world the rest of humanity inhabits, but that it is still running just out of sight.

Likewise, in the graveyard there is a definite disconnect between the two young lovers and the other visitors. For the most part, they take little, if any, notice of each other. With one minor exception, it’s kind of like they are in alternate dimensions where the others don’t exist.

The Iron Rose doesn’t really have much in the way of plot, but instead functions by invoking emotion and poetic images. I think the beginning of the movie does a very good job of conveying the impression of beginning love between two young people. Both the actors and the shot do beautifully in portraying the attraction the lovers are feeling, and the tentativeness they feel approaching each other. Even better, it’s done without any kind of music; just the sounds of the outdoors and their words.

My favorite part, because it’s so accurate to my own experiences, is the man’s reaction when he’s successful in convincing the woman to go on a date with him. As soon as she starts heading back to the building, he lets out an excited whoop and punches the tree he is standing next to. Then he immediately regrets it.

For the most part, The Iron Rose is a series of dreamlike episodes. It is beautiful, and there is a strong sense of wonder and emotion over the whole thing. However, there is much that is open to interpretation; which can be a good or a bad thing depending on your preferences. For example, after seeing the film several times and reading many reviews, I’m still not sure whether I’m supposed to find the ending to be happy or tragic. While the movie successfully invokes a lot of emotions in me when I view it, I’m not always sure what the emotions are.

In conclusion, The Iron Rose is a true art house movie, though of the good kind. It is a unique vision of beauty, wonder, various emotions, and a certain amount of filling in the blanks on your own. Whether that appeals to your or not is something you’ll have to decide for yourself.