John’s Horror Corner: Curse IV: The Ultimate Sacrifice (1988; aka, Catacombs), a B-movie that clearly has nothing to do with any other “Curse” movies.
MY CALL: This film features some nice shots and set design, but is otherwise rather boring in terms of horror, scares, effects, action, death scenes… pretty much everything that makes a horror movie “fun.” IF YOU LIKE THIS WATCH: Well, The Curse (1987) and Curse II: The Bite (1989), then maaaaybe even Curse III: Blood Sacrifice (1991; aka Panga). I feel as if the later in the franchise you find yourself, the lower the quality of the sequel.
This is the first Curse movie to have a director whose career didn’t both start and end with a Curse film—two directors had only ever directed one film (a Curse film), and the director of part 1 only made two other films of which I’ve never heard before researching this. Director of Curse IV, David Schmoeller (Tourist Trap, Puppet Master, Netherworld) has made successful films both before and after touching the Curse franchise, which makes me hope this may be the best installment in the series—although I’d be wrong. Adding to the oddity of this film (broadly released in 1993, but made in 1988), it is “part IV” but it was produced between the releases of parts I and III.
Franchise Continuity SIDEBAR: Adapted from Lovecraft’s “The Colour out of Space”, the first “curse” (The Curse) involved melty-fleshed zombies created from an other-worldly ooze that infected the water supply from meteorite contamination (in Tennessee). Clearly having nothing to do with the first film, Curse II: The Bite (1989) followed a man infected by a radioactive snake bite and mutated into a snake-handed, snake-regurgitating monster in Arizona. Then Curse III: Blood Sacrifice (1991; aka Panga) predated the other two stories, taking place across the world in East Africa in the 1950s when an angry witch doctor summoned a Sea Demon (from the Black Lagoon) to kill a bunch of white people posing affront to his culture. There seems to be no connection between these curses at all! Our fourth cursed film brings us to a 16th century Italian abbey where a demon has long been entrapped.
Produced by Charles Band (Puppet Master 1-13, Tourist Trap, Subspecies I-IV, Creepazoids), it should come as no surprise that this lower budget horror swings for the fences in terms of both effects and sets. Opening in a monastery in 1506, a brotherhood of monks banish a demon in the cellars. This fiend spits acidic bile and demonstrates other magical threats as it is locked away. Meanwhile, the filming sites are impressive—particularly shots of the Italian countryside and the abbey. I also enjoyed the catacombs sets; very elaborate.
Almost 500 years later a young American woman (Laura Schaefer; Ghost Town, Freddy’s Nightmares) visits the Abbey for her studies. As soon as she arrives the entrapped demon begins to influence its surroundings and a monk is dragged into a grave a buried alive.
At this point, it’s not uncommon to endure a slow 45-60 minutes of exposition and this film is no exception. However, we do enjoy cool shots of catacombs and the abbey throughout leading to the monks discovering that the entrapped evil long considered fiction, is real!
This is when things would normally get fun in 80s horror. The ancient evil animates Christ on the cross, which kills a monk with the nail pulled from his feet! But alas, that might be the only scene worth our time. Next it possesses a woman and uses really dumb telekinesis to beat up monks before it reveals its ugly self and just does more of the same. Hardly any blood, basically no gore, and barely anything coming close to a worthy jumpscare (or real scare). Disappointingly, the finale wasn’t worth the wait. A totally boring final fight with a lame ancient evil. Sigh.
This was all sorts of not good and, for horror and effects, I’d rank it the worst of the Curse series. At least Curse II (1989) tried to show off its lousy effects as much as it could, and The Curse (1987) was a B-movie delight! I’d go watch them instead.
Share this post:
John’s Horror Corner: Final Destination (2000), reflecting on a brilliant movie designed entirely around elaborate death scenes.
MY CALL: This film turned death scenes into a celebration of fun jumpy anxiety and it did so with a good story and great intertwined characters. The fact that this death scene-driven horror film relies little on special effects and gore, and more on timing and teasing our nerves, makes it timeless! MORE MOVIES LIKE Final Destination: All the Final Destination sequels except for part 4 (The Final Destination), and the Saw films (2004-2017) if you’re up for much more brutal death scenes.
A high school French class is about to depart for Paris on Flight 180, but they’re in for more of an experience than baguettes and cathedrals…
Director James Wong (Final Destination 3) has a knack for cultivating teen drama, immature angst, and amusing ironic tension. From the moment high schooler Alex (Devon Sawa; Idle Hands, The Exorcism of Molly Hartley) boards the plane he notices scratch-like damage at the plane’s door, scuff marks on the wing, and even his food tray has a malfunction. After a terrifying dream of the plane losing cabin pressure and exploding, Alex freaks out and screams that the plane is going to explode, getting himself, several grumpy classmates and one of their teacher chaperones (Kristen Cloke; Black Christmas) forcibly removed from the flight. Naturally, when the plane actually does explode, Alex has to answer a few questions along with his surviving classmates: Billy (Seann William Scott; Road Trip, American Pie), Tod (Chad Donella; Disturbing Behavior, Saw 3D), Carter (Kerr Smith; My Bloody Valentine, The Forsaken), Terry (Amanda Detmer; Drop Dead Gorgeous, Boys and Girls) and Clear (Ali Larter; House on Haunted Hill, Final Destination 2, Resident Evil 3/4/6).
So what is it about the Final Destination films that make them work? Sure, building a movie around clever death scenes sounds like a good gimmick, but what multi-victim horror movies aren’t also doing that without relying on it as a premise? The Saw franchise did something similar, but it felt totally different. I’d say the Saw films worked because of excellent writing in terms of story and development, whereas the Final Destination films thrive on how well written the characters are. Their fates are all interconnected so they have more “real” interactions with each other fleshing them out. We see this as the students are boarding the plane, after they are ousted from the plane, at the memorial service for the students that were lost… Sean William Scott’s character asking questions about asking a girl out as if Alex was some sort of prophet illustrated a lot about the character. All of the characters are rich, and they become richer as their fear mounts and they learn more about what’s happening to them. Even the FBI agents have their cheeky moment.
The bathroom death scene (Chad Donella) was so elaborate, with excellent camerawork zooming in on a leaky toilet valve, the water menacingly and unnaturally creeping closer to the victim as we anticipate a horrible slip while he’s shaving or trimming nose hairs, and then WHAM! A shocking, well-executed death that we didn’t see coming! This first death scene set the standard for the film and taught the audience that we’d endure one red herring after another, and to expect the unexpected in the spirit of fun.
Reinforcing these expectations, the city coroner (Tony Todd; Candyman, Night of the Living Dead, Final Destination 1-3/5, Wishmaster, Hatchet II) explains the rules, that Death is indeed coming for them and he will have his due. Tony Todd chews the scenery, but in a most inviting manner for horror fans. Now it’s up to Alex and Clear to try to “beat” Death and save the remaining survivors of Flight 180.
This film is good at shocking us in ways that make us jump, and then giggle (assuming you laugh, even if awkwardly, at death scenes). The bus death scene is abrupt, well-timed, and I yelled with a smile at the screen. So now between surprise death scenes and hyper-elaborate schools of red herrings swimming by, we’re paying attention to every prop and moving object on screen searching for the next cause of death. The kitchen death scene presents just such a rollercoaster of anticipation. Now, we know a death is about to happen, and who is going to die. But this spoils nothing. That is the fun of this movie! We see a knife block, a tricky gas burner, leaks near electronics, sharp objects here and there, and that’s just the start to another chain of events in the next big death scene.
What other movies ever did this before 2000? Often the Saw films are attributed to the influence of Cube (1997) and Se7en (1995), but I feel that Final Destination deserves a bit of credit as well for bringing a more elaborate art to the death scene. The primary difference is that Final Destination focuses on the actual “chase” of the death scene after its victims whereas Saw focuses on the suffering (and often brutal physical and psychological torturing) of the victim already trapped.
The CGI effects may be a bit wonky by current standards, but the imagery is effective nonetheless. On the plane victims are engulfed in fire and jettisoned out of an opening from the explosion, seats and all. However, the bloodwork is solid and there is an outstanding decapitation! But truth be told, this death scene-driven horror film relies little on special effects and gore, and more on timing and teasing our nerves. And for that, this film is timeless.
Share this post:
John’s Horror Corner: Still/Born (2017), a postpartum horror about a baby-stealing demon.
MY CALL: Although certainly not for parents of infants, this was a finely crafted film addressing psychosis, parenthood paranoia, and postpartum demons featuring some jolting scares. MOVIES LIKE Still/Born: For more pregnancy horror, try Rosemary’s Baby (1968), The Unborn (1991), The Unborn (2009), Grace (2009), Inside (2016), Inside (2007) and Good Manners (2017; As Boas Maneiras).
Mary (Christie Burke; Ascension, Falling Skies) gives birth to twins: one perfectly healthy, the other stillborn. Despite this tragedy, things at home are good. She has a healthy marriage in which both are lovingly understanding of each other’s shortcomings in the kitchen, a gorgeous house in the suburbs with nice neighbors, and just a little difficulty training baby Adam to breastfeed. But this difficulty is affecting her emotional well-being, she resists removing the extra crib from the nursery, and Mary starts hearing strange things in the baby monitor.
Mary’s husband (Jesse Moss; Tucker and Dale vs Evil, Extraterrestrial, Wolfcop) is supportive but thinks they need some help, her mother (enlisted to help) is a tad judgy, and her neighbor Rachel (Rebecca Olson; Killing Gunther) fuels her insecurities. Mary isn’t just hearing things on the baby monitor, but she suspects her husband’s infidelity and now she’s also seeing things… horrible things. Not surprisingly her family therapist (Michael Ironside; Watchers, Scanner, Prom Night II) diagnoses postpartum depression and prescribes medication. But her visions persist.
After installing cameras throughout the house, Mary dissects footage (more akin to Sinister than Paranormal Activity) and is convinced she sees a figure near over her child. Her own investigations reveal stories of demons (Lamashtu) stealing babies. And so augments her paranoia…
This goes against what I consider to be the more conventional contemporary “baby horror” in which the baby itself is a monster (e.g., It’s Alive, The Night Feeder, Devil’s Due), or the more prenatal “pregnancy horror” approach (e.g., Inside, Rosemary’s Baby)—although it clearly feels more like the latter than the former. And we find some tropes typical of hauntings (e.g., Poltergeist, The Changeling), such as doors slamming themselves, ghostly visages, other-worldly voices and shattering windows.
For his first feature film, director Brandon Christensen makes another fine contribution to Shudder exclusives (along with Terrified and Satan’s Slaves). The movie boasts gorgeous suburbiscape shots, sharp editing, and some tactfully startling scares. But, in my opinion, its atmospheric success is in cultivating the dreadful “need” to just actively stare at some scenes just waiting to see something move in a dark hallway or baby cam video footage. This film is highly engaging on a sensory level, which is what created fans of White Noise (2005) and Paranormal Activity (2007).
The final sequence was a bit over-the-top for me, but overall this was a solid film and Mary’s psychological descent was well-played. The nature of some situations leads me to advise that parents of infants probably shouldn’t watch this. Otherwise, I’d advise this broadly to horror fans.
Share this post:
Captain Ron (1992), a warm and quirky family adventure starring Kurt Russell’s next iteration of Jack Burton.
MY CALL: An outstanding comedy for Kurt Russell fans, filled with gorgeous shots, positive warm family dynamics, an energized Caribbean soundtrack and lots of contributing to the delinquency of minors. Imagine Martin Short as Clark Griswold and Kurt Russell as much smoother cousin Eddie… and they’re yachting… what could go wrong? MOVIES LIKE Captain Ron: For more Caribbean movies, go for Cocktail (1988), Club Dread (2004) and The Pirates of the Caribbean movies (2003-2017).
As Martin, Martin Short (The Prince of Egypt, Father of the Bride, Pure Luck, Innerspace) plays the typical high-strung, playing-it-safe, upper-middle class father and meeting his Chicago family feels strikingly similar to meeting the McCallisters in Home Alone (1990) as quirky husband-wife, sibling-sibling and parent-child dynamics amusingly wash the screen. When Martin inherits a beat-up yacht in the Caribbean, a company hires a captain to ferry his family to Miami so he can sell it.
Within ten minutes of meeting Captain Ron Rico (Kurt Russell; The Thing, Big Trouble in Little China) we see him haphazardly lose a car (that isn’t even is) to the ocean, learn that he sunk a boat (that also wasn’t his) on the Great Barrier Reef, find out Ron was in rehab (for something), and someone tries to kill him for adultery! And like a shifty grifter, Ron is slick. He caters to Martin’s inner man and encourages good work ethics in his son despite never doing so himself. But for all his perceived shortcomings and apparent idiocy, he’s probably the best highspeed boat-docker ever and he’s shockingly humble. “If you get lost along the way just pull in somewhere and ask directions.”
Kurt Russell breathes charm into a character that, by all means, should be despicable. Ron probably owes money to everyone he knows, he has a history of property damage and philandering and adultery, Martin catches him staring at his wife’s (Mary Kay Place; Big Love) cleavage and hitting on her with every opportunity, he accepts bribes from teenagers (Meadow Sisto; Can’t Hardly Wait) and even tries to hustle money from preteens, he encourages a ten-year-old (Benjamin Salisbury; The Nanny) to drink beer and clean guns, and (when Martin strangles Ron) he reveals that this isn’t the first time a boss of his tried to kill him! Ron clearly has a deep history and we never learn any details beyond the occasional glimmer from a random comment.
Big Trouble in Little China SIDEBAR: A frequent discussion point on the Movies, Films and Flix Podcast is the theory that Captain Ron is, in fact, the alias of Jack Burton. Once a passing joke, having watched these films again recently, evidence has mounted. Both characters are promiscuous story-telling grifters who move around a lot, enjoy gambling and, with almost supernatural luck, manage to fail their up—but additionally they both have preternatural lightning reflexes (Jack catches the bottle assault and the thrown knife; Ron catches a fly bare-handed, lets it go and catches it again), both have encountered magic (Jack fought an ancient sorcerer; Ron claims to have encountered Voodoo and Hudu), they rock tank tops and inappropriate attire (Jack in a woman’s bathrobe; Ron in his Speedo) and can’t seem to stay in the same place. Folks, they’re the same guy! Don’t believe me? Then check out podcast episode 50: Kurtchella.
Director Thom Eberhardt (Night of the Comet, Gross Anatomy) delivers a warm PG-13 family adventure complemented by gorgeous ocean shots, a warm dynamic and a lovely Caribbean soundtrack. As Martin’s family sands and polishes the yacht, Ron leads them on a series of misadventures. They completely miss Ted’s island and encounter guerillas (not gorillas), they get arrested in Puerto Rico and they get marooned in Communist Cuba after the “pirates of the Caribbean” steal their boat. It’s so endearing as we watch Ron’s off-the-cuff yacht terminology quizzes and lessons turn into the family working together to raise sails and learning to love their boat. They’re no aces at it; instead they credibly but capably fumble through the process with Ron’s direction and, you know what, they (and we) feel great when they do it.
This goofy feel-good family adventure film will paste a permanent smile on your face as you watch the oft-serious Kurt Russell kick up his feet and sip his beer during yet another adventure in his odd life. It’s a wonderful way to spend a weekend afternoon.
Share this post:
John’s Horror Corner: Curse III: Blood Sacrifice (1991; aka Panga), a B-movie featuring Christopher Lee, an angry Witch Doctor and a lame Sea Demon.
MY CALL: In order of release, the Curse movies go from best to worst it seems. Part III has its merits, but they are limited to Christopher Lee and the African setting—sadly none of the effects, horror or death scenes are worth your time. IF YOU LIKE THIS WATCH: Well, The Curse (1987) and Curse II: The Bite (1989), then maaaaybe even Curse IV: The Ultimate Sacrifice (1988; aka, Catacombs). For more horror with ties to Africa, go for The Kiss (1988), The Exorcist (1973; and prequels) and Headhunter (1988).
Franchise Continuity SIDEBAR: An adaptation of H. P. Lovecraft’s “The Colour out of Space”, the first “curse” (The Curse) involved melty-fleshed zombies created from an other-worldly ooze that infected the water supply from meteorite contamination (in Tennessee). Clearly having nothing to do with the first film, Curse II: The Bite (1989) followed a man infected by a radioactive snake bite and mutates into a snake-handed, snake-regurgitating monster in Arizona. This third film predates the other two stories, taking place across the world in Africa in the 1950s.
In an opening that sluggishly drags us through a typical morning with Elizabeth (Jenilee Harrison; Fists of Iron, Illicit Behavior) and Geoff Armstrong (Andre Jacobs; Black Sails, Demon Keeper), we learn that they are sugarcane farmers in East Africa.
The set up for this movie is ridiculous. After Elizabeth mistakenly interrupts a ceremonial sacrifice, the village witch doctor furiously curses them, and he cackles dramatically. Apparently, he summoned a sea demon to exact his revenge. Serving as our expert on all things African occult, Dr. Pearson (Christopher Lee; Sleepy Hollow, The Wicker Man, Howling II) provides much of our exposition.
There are some nice shots of landscapes. For an 80s horror film the cinematography is quite impressive. Quite to the contrary, the death scenes were awful, with all kills occurring off-screen—all of them! Isn’t that some kind of horror filmmaking blasphemy? We also don’t see the creature until the last 10 minutes. It looks like a bulky Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954) with more of a tail; basically, a gill man. We see it just long enough for it to roar a half dozen times. It’s basically a rigid rubber monster suit with poor articulation in the mouth/jaw.
The only link I can discern between the first two Curse movies is the inclusion of some God-fearing folks who liken the malady as a test from God (or punishment or something like that). But this third film involves a direct curse from a witch doctor. So, as a franchise anyway, these movies share no synthesis. Were it not for the African setting and Christopher Lee, this would readily be even more boring than Curse II (1989).
This was all sorts of not good and, for both horror and effects. I’d rank it the worst of the Curse series so far. At least Curse II (1989) tried to show off its lousy effects as much as it could (and makes for a fun nonsense B-movie night), and The Curse (1987) was a B-movie delight! I’d go watch them instead.
Share this post:
The MFF Podcast #173: Encino Man
You can download or stream the pod on Spotify, Itunes, Stitcher, Tune In, Podbean, or LISTEN TO THE POD ON BLOG TALK RADIO.
The MFF podcast is back, and this week we’re talking about the 1992 cult classic Encino Man. We’re big fans of this movie and embrace its earnest attempts to tell a story about a caveman helping two dorks become cool. In this podcast, you will hear us talk about Steve Coozer, food groups, and Pauly Shores brilliant engineering skills which allowed he and Sean Astin to lift a 1,000 pound block of ice out of an eight-foot hole. In fact, we come up with a bunch of weird theories about this movie, and even discuss the Pauly Shore cinematic universe (Encino Man, Son in Law, In the Army Now) which features random appearances of Brendan Fraser’s Link character.
We love this scene.
If you are a fan of the podcast make sure to send in some random listener questions so we can do our best to not answer them correctly. We thank you for listening and hope you enjoy the pod!
You can download or stream the pod on Spotify, Itunes, Stitcher, Tune In, Podbean, or LISTEN TO THE POD ON BLOG TALK RADIO.
If you get a chance please make sure to review, rate and share. You are awesome!
Share this post:
John’s Horror Corner: Terrified (2017; aka Aterrados), a pseudo-anthology approach for fans of paranormal investigation horror.
MY CALL: This is one of few films that impress me in all aspects of filmmaking in this genre. Excellent pacing, creepiness, scares, dread, acting, writing, shots… I loved it. Definitely a must see for fans of foreign horror, horror anthologies (about half this film is anthology-like) and paranormal investigation-themed horror. MOVIES LIKE Terrified: Well, the film most influential to Aterrados was probably Poltergeist (1982) and those that followed, such as Paranormal Activity (2007) and Grave Encounters (2011).
Sometimes very early in a film you get a sense of excellent execution, and that’s what I sense here. The opening scenes depict a woman who hears faint muffled “voices” in her kitchen sink drain. This may sound silly, but it’s not. It’s handled well, the actress (Natalia Señorales; Cursed Bastards, The Colony) nailed her reactions and lines credibly, her husband reacted appropriately, and I felt nervous for her—and I’m as cynical as they come when it comes to horror! Wasting no time, the husband has an analogous experience I’m left expecting something of an Argentine Poltergeist homage. However, the brutal “shower scene” that follows informs the audience that we’re in for something considerably for vicious.
As the husband is interrogated (by paranormalists and police together) regarding his wife’s bloody murder in the shower, he is challenged to recollect anything out of the ordinary in his neighborhood recently. What follows starts out something like a horror anthology as we explore his neighbor’s experiences…
They believed that their neighbor Walter (Demián Salomón; Cursed Bastards) had been doing some home renovations. The truth is, he’s been under a lot of stress lately and the sounds his neighbors heard were related to his diminishing sanity. His bed has been moving itself (with him in it), furniture stacks itself, and he gets a digital camera to record whatever it is as proof (all a la Poltergeist). Walter’s encounters are genuinely creepy!
Another segment focuses on the “return” of a dead child to his mother… but he returns (on his own?) as a motionless corpse days after his funeral, baffling police investigators—one of whom (Norberto Gonzalo) recruits a paranormal investigator (Elvira Onetto; Jennifer’s Shadow) who is on site of the previous story segment (the neighbor, Walter). Once all three stories have converged, the police team up with the paranormalists to canvas the houses for evidence and spend the night. Things escalate, of course.
The writing is sound as the different story segments overlap, transition, and even comingle. Sweeping neighborhood crane shots express the filmmakers’ love of the product. I’m really impressed with the performances across the board. Characters seem to react at least somewhat rationally to irrational circumstances, both victims and police alike. All of our victims are sincerely believable, the creatures’ movements and presentation are spine-tinglingly creepy, and the pacing and staging of scares readily cultivates dread with ease. The little boy’s corpse motionless at the dining room table was a freaky scene and the boy’s prior death scene was simply startling. EVERY scene with the motionless boy’s uninterred corpse had me pressing my back into my seat. It’s unnerving.
There are some excellent “subtle” jumpscares in this, along with some blatant OMG jumpscares. One such scene is a contorted inhuman body under a bed, others of sunken pale humanoid figures scampering about, eerie shadows and out-of-focus reflections, claws grabbing at things (or at heads!). There are also some creepy AF body contortions.
What makes this film work so well is how it is credible and engaging throughout its entire duration. The pacing is its perfection. Contrary to what we’ve come to expect from the genre, this film has no slow parts and the exposition is rather uniformly sprinkled across the scenes rather than exposition-dumps from ancillary “expert” characters or ranting harbingers. Writer/director Demián Rugna (Cursed Bastards) is officially on my radar now! Additionally, you can just feel the work that went into all elements of this film. It’s… excellent.
Share this post:
John’s Horror Corner: Curse II: The Bite (1989), a B-movie about a mutant snake hand puppet.
MY CALL: Laughably terrible B-movie. Not nearly as enjoyable as The Curse (1987) and seemingly completed unrelated despite the title. IF YOU LIKE THIS WATCH: Well, The Curse (1987), and maybe even Curse III: Blood Sacrifice (1991; aka Panga).
An adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft’s “The Colour out of Space”, the first “ curse” (The Curse) involved melty-fleshed zombies created from an other-worldly ooze that infected the water supply from meteorite contamination (I believe in Tennessee). Clearly having nothing to do with the first film, now we find ourselves at a nuclear testing site in Arizona. Clark (J. Eddie Peck) and Lisa (Jill Schoelen; The Phantom of the Opera, Cutting Class, The Stepfather) are driving across the desert and a bunch of cheesy snake imagery festoons the opening credits.
While fixing a flat tire, they come across a paranoid gas station owner with a feisty snake-headed mutant dog. The effects are B-movie cheap (and silly), but they’re ambitious as we enjoy a rubber snake puppet biting its owner’s neck. Unfortunately, this is the only thing in the first 50 minutes that isn’t painfully boring. I don’t mind a cheap B-movie, just please keep the pace up!
Eventually, Clark is bitten by a snake—the wrong snake! Clark becomes temperamental, his hand becomes infected and actually turns into a snake. Just his hand! And it is just around this time (the one-hour mark) that we finally get some schlocky gore when he punch-snakebites down a sheriff’s throat and rips out his heart. Again, nothing impressive visually. Although later when it rips off the lower jaw of a doctor… THAT was cool and packed a good gory effect. Then, like an Evil Dead 2 (1987) knock-off, Clark cuts off his own cursed hand in the least entertaining hand-amputation in film history. But spitting in the faces of the lords of good taste, it grows back snakier and slimier than ever.
All told, this is a movie about a mutant snake hand puppet. The plot, execution and special effects are all hokey as sin. And one of only two truly entertaining effects scenes is at the very end when Clark’s eye and tongue ooze out of place and he regurgitates baby snakes… and then he pukes up fully grown adult snakes… and then his head rips open for the emergence of a yet bigger snake! What the…? Clark had the strangest curse-infection ever. And the only link I can discern to the first movie is the inclusion of some God-fearing folks who liken the malady as a test from God (or punishment or something like that).
Oh, and this movie is terrible.
Share this post:
John’s Horror Corner: The Collection (2012), a lousy attempt at a “horror action” sequel to the much better Collector (2009).
MY CALL: Look, I enjoyed The Collector (2009) and that naturally made me want to see the sequel… and now, I regret that decision completely. I’m not saying you won’t like this (as I didn’t), I’m just saying that none of the good things from the original are present in this sequel. I’ll leave it at that. MORE MOVIES LIKE The Collector: The Collector (2009) was much better in my opinion, but also a completely dissimilar film in style, concept and delivery. If I had my way, this sequel would never have been made (at least, not in this way).
The opening credit sequence reveals that this is a direct sequel and we learn more specifically what wasn’t so clear (mentioned in passing) in the first film: that this killer “collects” people (i.e., one person per crime scene). The first film stated that he collected people, but we had no idea of the nature of this collection since the movie played out like a Jigsaw serial killer flick.
This sequel’s opening scenes feel a lot like a generic direct-to-video horror as we are taken to a night club. Twentysomethings dancing, twentysomething drama, and lots of attractive twentysomething victims. Right away we see The Collector up on the catwalk as one of our young protagonist’s finds the first film’s victim (Josh Stewart; The Collector, Insidious: The Last Key, The Haunting of Molly Hartley) in a box, much as Arkin did in The Collector (2009), to harbinger what’s in store for her. It’s so outlandish you want to roll your eyes. But, at the same time, when the first trap is triggered and everyone is locked in the club, I’m intrigued at the bloody shenanigans that may ensue. Key word: “may” ensue…
The special effects didn’t impress me. As if trying (and failing) to compete with the opening death scene in Ghost Ship (2002), a huge thresher drops from the ceiling mowing dozens of people to death on the dance floor and others are herded into cages bloodily crushed under an elevator, leaving just a few survivors. The whole scene really… just wasn’t good.
After Arkin escapes The Collector, he is recruited by some team of mercenary soldiers to infiltrate The Collector’s lair to save a wealthy man’s daughter (Emma Fitzpatrick; Bloodsucking Bastards). The lair is huge and could double as a series of sets for a Resident Evil (2002) sequel. It’s populated with brainwashed lunatics, a zealot or two, and over-the-top elaborate traps.
The Collector’s lair includes a medical dissection laboratory complete with cut-up human bodies, organs in formaldehyde jars, a live tarantula collection, macabre sculptures made from human body parts (lots of them), and all manner of ridiculous traps. But the macabre sculptures were the only things to please the eye (and they were spectacular) as the death scenes felt really phoned-in. We also have some mean bone breaks which are really the only good “horror action” part of the movie! This movie is so over-the-top, even more so than its predecessor. The way Arkin leads people to The Collector’s lair is ridiculous, the use of tarantulas is idiotic, and dumb explosive traps do little more than annoy.
This movie is stupid, the dialogue is really stupid, the death scenes are exceptionally stupid, and I’m bothered by the simple fact that I’m watching this. The longer I watched, the more I came to despise this. It’s trying to be both an action movie and a horror movie, but it succeeds at neither. Our killer now has the combat prowess of a certified ninja commando, he has trained attack dogs and machine guns and mechanical doors that seem to conveniently open and close by his very will as if he was Darth Vader pacing about the Death Star. But really, WTF is with all the action movie knife-fighting and fist fighting in this movie? I feel the need to add that I actually enjoyed The Collector (2009). How did this take such a turn into lunacy?
I didn’t even enjoy any of the death scenes in this hot mess. And, on a personal note (i.e., as an entomologist), I really hated that this killer was an “entomologist” only to have it largely misrepresented in the film. A stag beetle display here, a live spider (not an insect) collection there, mostly human medical paraphernalia… plenty of films have done this so much better and it’s not hard. I rarely say this, but I hated this movie.
Share this post:
MY CALL: Like its predecessor, it’s clearly style over substance in this high-intrigue yet slow(ish)-paced atmospheric masterpiece—but still much more “substantial” than the 1977 original in terms of execution and resolution. Even if film is art, this felt more like art than film at times—emotionally heavy art. I loved it, but it takes its toll on viewers. MOVIES LIKE Suspiria: Well, there’s the original Suspiria (1977) and perhaps Black Swan (2010). Those who seek out emotionally challenging film may attempt Antichrist (2009) as well, along with A Cure for Wellness (2016).
Of particular interest is that this remake takes place in the year of the original (1977). However, it deviates considerably from its source material as it opens with a young Patricia’s (Chloë Grace Moretz; Carrie, Let Me In, The Eye) paranoid ranting of witches to a concerned psychiatrist. And while in no universe could one compare the score to the stylishly dark approach of Goblin (1977), we are whisked away in lovely yet hauntingly effective scoring as we tour dismal German farmlands and countrysides. The likewise thoughtful (and dismal) shots of European cityscapes remind me of the depressing beauty of Possession (1981). In just five minutes, I’m pretty sure I love this film.
On a grey, rainy day we meet Susie (Dakota Johnson; Fifty Shades of Grey) who impresses, and Madame Blanc (Tilda Swinton; Snowpiercer, Constantine, Only Lovers Left Alive) who calmly but strongly fixates. With her acceptance to the company, Susie rooms with Sara (Mia Goth; A Cure for Wellness). As Susie deepens her stride and rank into the company, Sara wades deeper into its dark mysteries at the expense of her sanity and her soul…
REMAKE/REIMAGINING SIDEBAR: For more horror remakes, I favor the following: Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), An American Werewolf in London (1981), The Thing (1982; yes, this was a remake), The Fly (1986), The Mummy (1999; adventure genre), The Ring (2002), The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003), The Hills Have Eyes (2006), Friday the 13th (2009), Let Me In (2010), Evil Dead (2013), Carrie (2013), The Town That Dreaded Sundown (2014) and It (2017). Those to avoid include Poltergeist (2015), The Thing (2011; a prequel/remake), Cabin Fever (2016), A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010), Night of the Demons (2009), Body Snatchers (1993; the second remake), The Invasion (2007; the third remake), War of the Worlds (2005) and The Mummy (2017; total adventure-style reboot-imagining). I’m on the fence about An American Werewolf in Paris (1997), Halloween (2007), My Bloody Valentine (2009) and Fright Night (2011), which are bad or so-so remakes (in my opinion) but decently entertaining movies.
It’s only appropriate that this classic Italian horror film be remade by Italian director Luca Guadagnino, despite his lack of horror experience. Guadagnino employs camera angles and zoom analogous to Argento’s powerfully atmospheric lighting. Quite the opposite of Argento’s style, Guadagnino’s softened lighting and color palate afford a grey dated (i.e., 70s) haze to the film. This film is so infused with style (a style all its own), and the dancing only fuels this by evoking intensity. The dance choreography at times feels as if a Grudge ghost was conferred grace—some of the movements are otherworldly, even possessed.
The performances are understated, but oh so strong. Swinton (playing multiple roles) is haunting, menacing, protective and powerful. Johnson, an actress who I formerly despised (for the Fifty Shades films), now leaves me forgiving and quite sincerely impressed. And, at times, it’s Mia Goth who steals the show during her death spiral into the depths of the coven.
The first death scene is a truly joint-rending, torso-twisting and bone-crunchingly brutal spectacle to behold as it is mirrored by graceful dance while jerkily contorting someone to death. We then have a slow lull for at least an hour before the horror imagery resumes. Early use of nudity is quite macabre, accompanied by stump-dragging amputee ghouls and sunken husks of human bodies. Among the shocks we endure a wicked bone-protruding leg break.
There are numerous long sequences cultivating heavy atmosphere and emotional intensity to such degree that this film is actually exhausting—although not quite to the extent of Antichrist (2009). At 150 minutes of high-intrigue, slowburn filmmaking, our emotions are drained leaving us completely vulnerable when we succumb to the nudity-rich finale ritual complete with almost theatrical intestine-spooling vivisection, concerted coven chanting and hypnotic limb-swaying dancing like a school of beguiling sirens. But the creature effects of Mother Markos are worth the wait; she’s a mutant festering sight to behold; an admixture of the most dire traits of Jabba the Hut, radioactive mutation and a Cenobite. Although, I would have favored substance over style in the case of the red-filtered strobe light finale which I felt—despite its artistic contribution—obscured Guadagnino’s visualized execution of death scenes, gore, acolytes of evil and mass murder.
I’m not sure how I feel about the resolution of this film… but I’m also not sure what I expected. I was certainly more pleased with the ending (and all aspects of this film, really) over the original Suspiria (1977). The final deaths felt significant and dire, and I had more closure as to the whats and whys of the story. I guess, in closing, I’d both warn and encourage potential viewers of this highly challenging film.
Movies, Films & Flix 