Tag: 1972

Directed by Sidney Lumet [Other horror films: N/A]

It’s been quite a long while since I’ve been blown away by a movie. Child’s Play isn’t amazing, and to be 100% honest, calling it a horror film may not be entirely accurate, but it is a movie that has an insanely heavy amount of creeping tension, and it’s not an experience I can describe easily.

In fact, it reminds me of films like The Wicker Man and Don’t Deliver Us from Evil. There’s an oppressive atmosphere that permeates the whole film, and the tension here just builds and builds (though arguably, it doesn’t necessarily lead to anything). The final scene still carries that tension wonderfully, and you want to see what happens next.

This was truly a nerve-wracking experience. I think the reason for that is it’s based on a play written by Robert Marasco. If you don’t know the name, I wouldn’t be surprised, but because I’m a large fan of the film Burnt Offerings, I know Marasco wrote the novel Burnt Offerings is based on. And like Burnt Offerings, which has a deep sense of uneasiness throughout the film, Child’s Play has the exact same thing.

Plot-wise, some ideas aren’t fully answered or explained, and there’s a bit of an open-ended conclusion here. I would have liked a little more input from some of the student characters, as most of the film focuses around the faculty of a Catholic school, but even with a few issues like this, it doesn’t change how striking the film is.

The cast is amazing. There’s really only three central performances, those of Robert Preston, Beau Bridges, and James Mason, and all three are absolutely amazing. Bridges is the most generic of the bunch, but that’s only because Mason and Preston are Gods among men. They put a lot into this movie, and it just makes the whole thing great. Smaller parts played by Ron Weyand and David Rounds (who plays character I quite appreciated) compliment the central actors nicely.

I need more time to fully digest this one. It’s rare I see a movie as unique as this, and though it’s definitely not a movie for everyone, I do think the experience is worth it. It’s not a fun movie at all; it’s a somber, oppressive mystery filled with a lot of drama and the trials of being a teacher, but it’s still an experience worth having.

8.5/10

Directed by Wes Craven [Other horror films: The Hills Have Eyes (1977), Stranger in Our House (1978), Deadly Blessing (1981), Swamp Thing (1982), Invitation to Hell (1984), The Hills Have Eyes Part II (1984), A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984), Chiller (1985), Deadly Friend (1986), The Serpent and the Rainbow (1988), Shocker (1989), The People Under the Stairs (1991), New Nightmare (1994), Vampire in Brooklyn (1995), Scream (1996), Scream 2 (1997), Scream 3 (2000), Cursed (2005), My Soul to Take (2010), Scream 4 (2011)]

No doubt a gritty and occasionally disturbing debut from Wes Craven, The Last House on the Left isn’t necessarily an easy movie to like, what with the occasional inappropriate comedic influences throughout, for instance, but I think that I tend to enjoy this more than I used to.

For most of the film, it’s not that violent. Though the rape and murder of the two young women is certainly disturbing, this isn’t I Spit on Your Grave, and while watching the two of them get dehumanized by Krug and his compatriots isn’t a walk in the park, it’s not near as bad as some later movies might be. Toward the end, we do get some increased violence, but it’s generally the type we can root for, which gives it a far more palatable taste.

The music throughout the movie sometimes feels a bit out of place, and part of that is due to the comedic influences with the two police officers trying to get to a soon-to-be crime scene, but most of the music works pretty well. The recurring “The Road Leads to Nowhere” is a perfect song for the movie, and during a death scene, we’re treated with “Now You’re All Alone,” a somewhat haunting melody (especially given the placement). David Hess (Krug) performed the music here, which shows a soft side to a rather brutish individual.

For the story, it’s pretty simple, but I do find it effective (and, on a side-note, a bit more relatable to the modern audience than 1960’s The Virgin Spring), and not only that, but I find it generally more enjoyable than what we might see from either I Spit on Your Grave or The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. Sure, watching Sandra Peabody’s and Lucy Grantham’s characters’ grueling torture isn’t fun, but knowing where it leads does take a small amount of the punch out.

Personally, I love the finale. In some ways, the reaction of the parents (Richard Towers and Cynthia Carr) might seem a bit sudden, but I think it makes for a quality final 15 minutes. Really, the two of them didn’t have a whole lot to do before then, so I think going the direction they did makes the film a bit more special.

Of course, I’d be amiss without mentioning what a quality scumbag David Hess plays. He’s popped up in later films, from House on the Edge of the Park to Body Count, but it’s this role that I think really shows his talents. This is the only role I know of Fred J. Lincoln, but I also found him somewhat fascinating. Neither Jeramie Rain (Sadie) nor Marc Sheffler (Junior) amazed me, but I did think Junior’s regret over the incident was close to touching.

The Last House on the Left isn’t what I’d call an amazing film, but I do think it’s a solid slice of exploitation, and I generally find that I enjoy it a smidge more than Texas Chain Saw Massacre (which may place me in the minority, but I’m used to it). It’s rough, it’s gritty, and it’s amateurish in some ways, especially in regards to that misplaced comedy, but it’s still worth seeing if 70’s horror is your thing.

7.5/10

Directed by William Crain [Other horror films: Dr. Black, Mr. Hyde (1976)]

Despite the ridiculous title, Blacula plays itself as straight as any other 70’s horror, and while the movie’s not great, it’s okay, and if you’re into vampire films and have overlooked this one, I’d recommend another look.

The story here is pretty interesting, and casts a very sympathetic light on William Marshall’s vampiric character. Attempting to stop the trade of Africans, William Marshall plays an African Prince who speaks to Count Dracula, who refuses and turns the Prince into a vampire. He returns 200 years later, and the snazzily-dressed Marshall goes after a woman who reminds him of his late wife.

Blacula, as it was shot on location in L.A., really has that 70’s feeling that I appreciate. There’s some socially conscious dialogue I appreciated (such as Rasulala’s mentioning that crimes against African-Americans aren’t focused on near as much as crimes against whites), though their depiction of a homosexual couple (which was progressive for the time, to be sure) was certainly cringe-worthy. Still, credit to Ted Harris and Rick Metzler for playing (however stereotypically) a biracial gay couple.

William Marshall does quite well as a vampire here. Like I said, you can sort of feel for his character, and while he does cause multiple deaths throughout the film, you can’t help but feel just a bit sorry for him, because you can tell from the beginning of the movie that he’s a good person. Marshall had a strong personality here, and it did wonders for the film.

Also doing wonders was the main protagonist, played by Thalmus Rasulala. A pathologist for the police department, his character really commanded his screen-time, and much like how you couldn’t help but feel bad for Marshall, I couldn’t have stopped myself from cheering for Rasulala for anything. He kicked ass, sucker-punched some vampires, and really put in his all.

While it’s true that the presence of Gordon Pinsent, Denise Nicholas, and Vonetta McGee are appreciated, the only other actor that stands out here is Elisha Cook. When I first saw this film, I immediately recognized him as Pritchard from House on Haunted Hill. He definitely looks a bit older here, but he has the same face, so it was sort of nice to see him 15 years older than I usually do.

I think that, if Blacula has a main problem, it’s the lack of scares. There was a pretty good graveyard sequence, and also a scene that took place in a warehouse in which twenty or so vampires jump the main characters, but otherwise, I didn’t really get a big feeling of dread here.

Even so, there’s some funky music here (just look at that animated title screen), and the songs we heard at the club (‘There He Is Again‘ and ‘I’m Gonna Catch You‘ are both performed by The Hues Corporation, a soul trio from the 1970’s) were just really catchy, despite it not really being the type of music I generally gravitate toward at all.

All-in-all, Blacula’s not a great movie, but it can be fun, and it gets the job done competently enough, along with possessing an interesting story. As far as blaxploitation horror goes, I have to suspect this is one of the better ones, and may well be worth a watch in spite of it’s flaws.

7/10

Directed by Paul Bartel [Other horror films: Eating Raoul (1982)]

I knew next to nothing when I started this one, and it ended up being a fairly odd film. The atmosphere was generally good, and I’d even say Private Parts can certainly be memorable, but I didn’t really enjoy a lot of it, and I’d place this below average.

The general story in Private Parts is decent, and at the very least, even if you don’t like the route it takes, you can tell it has potential. Ayn Ruymen did well playing a somewhat naïve young woman, but some of the things she does in the latter half of the movie sort of bother me. Lucille Benson did decent in her role, and was certainly threatening enough, and while Laurie Main didn’t really add that much to the movie, I did love every time his goofy character (a gay priest) was on-screen.

Problematically, John Ventantonio wasn’t memorable whatsoever, even with the surprising ending, which hurts as he’s the main antagonist in the film (if you don’t count Benson and her often standoffish behavior). Is he suitably creepy at times? Sure, but Ruymen’s character goes for him despite that (which is one of her decisions that rather bugs me), and I wasn’t really satisfied with where things went from there.

It could fairly be said that a lot of the plot happened due to sexual repression, and if some characters had been able to more appropriately express their sexual interests, none of this would have happened. I don’t think Private Parts was going all out in trying to make this a main message, but it’s something I certainly noticed.

All-in-all, Private Parts is okay, and for the early 70’s, it’s certainly an interesting entry to the genre. I didn’t love it, though, and while the atmosphere and setting (an old hotel with quite a few screwball characters) were solid, elements of the story, and the route they took in the conclusion, didn’t much endear me to the film.

6/10

Directed by Brian De Palma [Other horror films: Phantom of the Paradise (1974), Carrie (1976), The Fury (1978), Raising Cain (1992)]

Brian De Palma’s first real movie of note (shortly afterwards overshadowed almost entirely by the immensely popular Carrie), Sisters is a rather interesting and somewhat decent film, though it’s not necessarily altogether as enjoyable as I remember it being from my first experience viewing.

For the longest time, pretty much everything works out. You’ve a journalist (played by Jennifer Salt, an actress often used in De Palma’s earlier films) investigating a murder she witnessed (which the police don’t have enough evidence to look into) with the occasional help of private detective (Charles Durning). The murderer, Margot Kidder’s potentially psychotic character. For the first 50-odd minutes, I think Sisters is an enjoyably immersive movie.

There comes a point, though, about in hour in when there’s a bit of a turn taken that I didn’t entirely care for. Instead of a more clear-cut investigation, it turns more into a trippy, drug-fueled flick for ten, fifteen minutes, and that transition I didn’t care for. Also, while I really love the final shot in the film, I find the overall conclusion somewhat unsatisfactory.

Honestly, I’m not a big fan of Kidder’s performance here, but I did really enjoy both Charles Durning and Jennifer Salt. William Finley (who later appeared in such films as Hooper’s Eaten Alive and The Funhouse) also appeared, but much like Kidder, neither his character nor his performance, especially toward the end, did much for me at all.

Sisters does have a few positives going for it, of course, perhaps most notably a rather fun sequence involving split screen (which was also used briefly in De Palma’s later film, Carrie). The split screen sequence was really enjoyable, and brought with it a solid vibe. Also, the gore, while not a highlight of the film, by any means, is decent. Lastly, like I said, I really love the final shot of the film – not sure exactly why, but it always has a somewhat ominous feel to me.

I enjoyed Sisters a lot more the first time I saw it than I did this time around. Certainly aspects are well-done, and for a majority of the movie, I find myself having a good time, but the conclusion really didn’t work out for me, and while it’s likely still worth seeing, I actually find the film somewhat below average, at least this time around.

6.5/10

Directed by Bud Townsend [Other horror films: Nightmare in Wax (1969)]

Perhaps better known under the (admittedly more memorable) title Terror at Red Wolf Inn, Terror House is an interesting, though ultimately somewhat forgettable, little movie.

The plot is of mild interest, what with young women being lured to a remote inn for a vacation, only to eventually be killed and consumed by the elderly cannibalistic owners, and it’s that cannibal aspect that I find most unique. Two years before The Texas Chain Saw Massacre hit the scene, we have a movie with a cannibalistic family going after people, which makes me wonder why this one isn’t mentioned a bit more.

Truth be told, there’s not a whole lot I wanted to touch upon on Terror House, but a few things stand out, such as the peacefully catchy opening song (credited as ‘My Dream’ by Marilyn Lovell), a folk-county piece that pulls you into the movie. Okay, it’s not that good, but it was a nice, somewhat cheesy, song, and it looks like I’ll have to rip it from the movie itself as no other videos seem to exist of it online.

Within the film, two scenes stand out, both of which are amazingly ridiculous. In the first scene, our main character Regina (played by Linda Gillen) finds out she’s won a vacation to the mysterious Red Wolf Inn, and excited beyond comprehension, she runs out of her dorm room to tell her neighbors, or anyone, that ‘I’m a winner! I won! I’m a winner!’ Such exuberance has nary been witnessed before on screen. It’s just hilarious.

Also hilarious is when a somewhat off man named Baby John (played by John Neilson) sees a shark swimming near the shore, and he freaks out, screaming ‘SHARK!’ and then mercilessly beating it to death on a rock, then once done, turns to Regina, only to say that he loves her. He walks away. Regina’s confused. Cue end scene.

Despite what these two scenes might otherwise suggest, like most 70’s horror, Terror House generally took itself seriously. The older cast members (Arthur Space and Mary Jackson) were both seemingly sweet, but turned out rather sadistic, and while there’s not much in the way of gore here, there were a few solidly suspenseful sequences that weren’t too shabby.

Linda Gillen wasn’t amazing here, but she did have that youthful naiveté that I sort of appreciated, though how she fell for a guy like Baby John (John Neilson), I’ll never understand. She did seem a little bit of a ditz, so maybe she didn’t think too much on it. Neilson, for his part, was sort of interesting, as his character was conflicted between following the family tradition or breaking free of the madness and finding a potential stability. Both Arthur Space and Mary Jackson were fun, all things considered.

As interesting as portions of Terror House are, there’s also a fair share of dull sequences, such as multiple scenes eating dinner (always awkward), or just a general slow-moving plot. Mill Creek Entertainment’s copy of the movie isn’t great, but at least this got a DVD release, however cheap, because otherwise, I suspect this would even more unknown.

The conclusion of the film was questionable, but I did appreciate the layout of the credits (setting things up like an old-fashioned menu, which was pretty cute). Overall, while the goofy scenes are a treat, I don’t think Terror House is a movie that I’d revisit all that often, and can only tepidly recommend it for a single watch.

5.5/10

Directed by Harry Thomason [Other horror films: So Sad About Gloria (1973), The Day It Came to Earth (1977), Revenge of Bigfoot (1979)]

Narrated in part by Rod Serling, this early 70’s film is actually a lot of fun if you’re into the feel and low-key style of 70’s horror. No gore, no nudity, no jump scares, just three moderately spooky tales that are varying degrees of entertaining.

Of the three stories, only the final one is a bit closer to average, in part because much of it are flashbacks of a tragic love story, complete with a three-minute montage of the two love-birds frolicking in the fields, running hand-in-hand, to a slow 70’s love song. I’ll be honest, the third story, which is a rendition of the vanishing hitchhiker legend, can be boring, and you see the ending come long before it gets there, but it has its charm.

The first two stories are damn good, though, and though I utterly loved the first one and it’s moderately complex plot-layering, the second’s ominous feel and inconclusive conclusion really made it one that stood out. A low ground-fog, unearthly howls emitting from a hole in a field, townsfolk trying to decide what to do, it was a lot of fun, again, in that low-budget, low-key way.

I’m hard-pressed to name anyone who did an out-of-the-world job, though it was nice to hear Serling narrate the beginning and end of each story (book-ending the movie as a whole was a different, uncredited narrator). Really, everyone did pretty well in all of the stories, and no sore thumbs stick out. Acting wasn’t the high point of the film, but everyone pretty much handled themselves competently.

The main problem, aside from the issues I had with the final story, is that the final ten minutes of this movie are simply a lesson on the unknown – history of witchcraft, for instance, and questions of coincidence versus supernatural causes, and just a lot of rambling. It showed clips of the previous stories while a narrator (not Serling) just kept talking and talking, again, for ten minutes. This easily could have been removed, leaving the movie at eighty minutes, and I think it would have felt just a bit more fresh.

If you love 70’s horror, and are okay with slowing things down a bit, Encounter with the Unknown might be what you’re looking for, because it certainly worked for me.

7.5/10