Tag: USA

Directed by George Waggner [Other horror films: Horror Island (1941), The Wolf Man (1941), The Climax (1944), Jack the Ripper (1958), Destination Nightmare (1958), The Veil (1958)]

This is like so many horror films from the 1940’s – a perfectly fun and competent attempt, but ultimately just around average. The story isn’t that shabby, and there are some nifty effects to be sure, but Man-Made Monster isn’t exactly what I’d call memorable.

If those in the horror community hear about this one at all, it may be due to it being the first horror appearance of Lon Chaney Jr. (he of course later starred in The Wolf Man, and went on to appear in such films as The Ghost of Frankenstein, Son of Dracula, and a personal favorite, Indestructible Man), and he does a fantastic job playing a folksy country boy. He is pretty damn sympathetic because he’s such a nice guy, and when he’s used in some experiments by a mad scientist and starts killing people, that can’t be a fun time for his character.

Even without Chaney Jr., though, the cast here is strong. Lionel Atwill (of plenty of films, such as Mystery of the Wax Museum, Murders in the Zoo, Secret of the Blue Room, and Doctor X) was great as a mad scientist who wanted to use those he considers useless as electrical zombies. Others, such as Samuel S. Hinds (The Strange Case of Doctor Rx) and Anne Nagel (Black Friday, The Mad Doctor of Market Street, and The Mad Monster) bring a little bit to the film also.

The story is somewhat similar to The Walking Dead, only Boris Karloff was probably quite a bit more sympathetic there than Lon Chaney Jr. is here. Either way, it’s a tragic tale of an innocent man being misused by science, and in this case, Chaney Jr. is given high doses of electricity, and becomes a glowing danger to all around him. The effects looks pretty awesome – just imagine a flashing outline of electricity surrounding someone – and for being a somewhat cheaper Universal movie, they did a good job.

I have to say, though, I abhor the ending. After everything goes down, Atwill’s complicity is never examined. Oh, a few characters know that he administered the experiments on Chaney Jr., and they have proof in the form of his notes. But instead of clearing Chaney Jr.’s name (as he murdered multiple people while under Atwill’s control), because they’re scared the experiments could be repeated, they chuck the notebook into the fire. I found that abhorrent, and I condemn the both of them, or as much as I can condemn fictional characters from a horror movie from the early 1940’s.

Otherwise, Man-Made Monster is pretty good. I enjoy the different time lapses, and I think Lon Chaney Jr. does a real swell job. For a first-time horror role, you definitely root for his character. The movie may not be great, but it’s a solid watch if you’re into classic horror.

7/10

Directed by John Oak Dalton [Other horror films: The Girl in the Crawlspace (2018)]

It’s always been my opinion, as a horror fan, that scarecrows have been an underutilized antagonist, a complaint of mine since I find scarecrows damn cool. I mean, look at them – straw, sickles, pitchforks, hats – what’s not to love? Scarecrow County doesn’t really do much for me in that department, but for a taste of local flavor, it was an okay experience.

Though I was born in Arizona, I’ve spent most of my life in Indiana. It’s a folksy place – aside from Indianapolis and Fort Wayne, it’s mostly quite rural (and even the busier cities, such as Muncie, still feel rural), farmland runs supreme, and despite Indiana Beach’s promise, I’m not entirely sure there’s much more than corn here.

One thing that’s definitely not here is any type of movie industry. I have no idea what the Indiana Film Commission is doing, but those must be some cozy jobs, because there really hasn’t been a whole lot of movie-making out here, which is a shame, because some locations (such as Brown County, to anyone in southern Indiana) would make for amazing movie locations, especially for horror.

I’m not a proud Hoosier by any means, but I am happy when I see Indiana come up in some form in media, because despite being the 17th-most populous state, I get the sense a lot of people just forget we exist. Only a handful of horror films are solely filmed here (most well-known might be Found from 2012), and many of the others are lesser-known films (Daylight from 2013, Shadow People from 2008, Beware of the Klowns from 2015, Phantom of the Woods from 2013, The Stray from 2016, Backwoods from 1987, and Terror Squad, also from 1987), and the only one I’ve seen so far has been Backwoods.

Scarecrow County was filmed partially in Ohio, but most of the locations are within Indiana (specifically, Parker City, Mooreland, Yorktown, and Farmland), and so getting a taste of a more homebred movie was nice. In fact, the director, John Oak Dalton, went to Ball State University, which is the same college I attended.

All of this is exactly why I made sure this is a movie I took the time to watch, and related, none of this background goes that far to make the movie any better. The production quality of Scarecrow County actually surprised me, as it seemed pretty damn decent (I immediately was reminded of Truth or Double Dare (TODD), only this film had more soul), and while I can’t say I really enjoyed the film, I was impressed by plenty of aspects.

Taking place in a small town (and given the main character works at the Parker City library, I’d wager the film takes place in Parker City), there’s a strong sense of the small-town oppression that isn’t uncommon in the midwest. I live in a moderate-sized city, almost 10,000 people. Parker City (which is actually a town, but that’s a distinction I don’t want to get into – look at Fishers), though, has a population of around 1,300. Even the village I lived in while a child in New York (Penn Yan) had five times that number.

Much of the film revolves around the good old days – back when the high school basketball team were the biggest thing, and those kids, now older but still friendly with each other, are getting killed off by a scarecrow after an old journal written by a gay kid they knew back in high school is uncovered. It’s a decent story of a mysterious past event and how the ramifications stretch to the present-day, something like Cherry Falls, only on a lower budget.

The film has a bit of a psychological twist to it, which does give the film a unique feeling at times, but it also renders the finale a bit weak, I felt. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed the revelations during the finale, but I just sort of wish they did a bit better job of expanding on some of the events of the movie.

Chelsi Kern made for a pretty good lead, and playing her father, Tom Cherry did a nice, authentic job. I didn’t entirely get Rachael Redolfi’s character (she spent most of her time locked in her house and drawing some public domain comic strip character named Fantomah and imagining that Fantomah is talking to her), but I guess Redolfi did well enough. John Bradley Hambrick’s character was someone I was expecting a little more from, but Jeff Rapkin had that big fish in a small pond attitude down well, and I enjoyed it.

As many may know, there’s not a plethora of great scarecrow horror films out there. For every decent one, such as Scarecrows, Dark Night of the Scarecrow, and Husk, you have films like Scarecrow (2002), Scarecrow Slayer (2003), Scarecrow Gone Wild (2004), Dark Harvest (2004), Skarecrow (2004), Return of the Scarecrow (2017), Rise of the Scarecrows (2009), Bride of Scarecrow (2018), Curse of the Scarecrow (2018), Scarecrow’s Revenge (2019), and American Scarecrow (2020). That’s a lot of scarecrow films, and so few have even close to a 5/10 on IMDb.

Scarecrow County isn’t a great scarecrow horror film – I do like the scarecrow design, and who can’t love that pitchfork? But it’s more focused on some psychological aspects, and all the kills are off-screen. There are some creepy scenes here and there, but it’s not as rewarding as one might hope.

Honestly, I do wish I liked this movie more. It’s an ambitious movie, what with the various plot points and deeper subjects hit on, and I think it’s well-made for what it is. I just didn’t personally jibe that much with the story. Not by any means a bad film, for an okay slice of newer horror, this may be worth checking out.

5.5/10

Directed by Charles Philip Moore [Other horror films: Dance with Death (1992)]

As far as effort goes, I think Demon Wind has got a lot to show, and there’s a decent amount to enjoy in the film. It started out decently strong, but problematically, it runs on longer than it really needs to, and I really think that if this had been trimmed a bit, it’d pop up as a forgotten cult classic more often.

Definitely the quality of the film is good, and the production level is surprisingly high. There were some fun special effects and creative ideas thrown in here (such as the fog that teleports people, or the ruins of the house that sort of lead to a pocket dimension wherein the house is still standing), and the story, while it does get a bit tired, is certainly different, at times reminding me of both The Evil Dead and Demons.

Few of the faces here were recognizable, but there were plenty of decent performances, such as those given by Eric Larson, Jack Forcinito (Silent Night, Zombie Night), Stephen Quadros, Mark David Fritsche, Francine Lapensée (Hollywood’s New Blood), and Bobby Johnston (also Hollywood’s New Blood). Perhaps none of them were amazing, but Larson was a pretty good lead, especially for an actor who hasn’t done that much.

The special effects did seem pretty top-notch. The multiple demons all looked solid, and had pretty good designs, especially that Boss at the end, hoofed feet and all. There were also some interesting kills, the one that stands out the most being a girl who is turned into a doll, and then said doll explodes. That’s something you don’t see in every movie.

You can tell this was filmed in the late 80’s – it just feels like something you’d see from that time period (such as Night of the Demons, which this also brought to my mind). There’s a bit of humor here, some fun scenes (a guy does a roundhouse kick that decapitates a demon), and just a good sense of what they were trying to accomplish.

Here’s my issue: I think the movie runs way too long. The film is around an hour and 40 minutes, and if they were able to trim some portions from the beginning (there was a decent amount of set-up here, and it took about 45 minutes to really get into things), or perhaps their conflicts with the demons, which widely felt repetitive, I think it could have been smoother. After a while, as decent as the film was, it just got to be too much, and I was legit tired come the finale.

Otherwise, it’s a unique movie that I’ve wanted to see for a long time. I found it mostly an okay experience, but because of the runtime, I can’t imagine Demon Wind is a movie I’d want to go back to all that often, no matter how fun portions of the film were. It’s definitely a movie I think some people would enjoy, though.

6/10

Directed by Benjamin Stoloff [Other horror films: The Hidden Hand (1942), The Mysterious Doctor (1943)]

Through not quite the horror classic you might think of when considering 30’s horror, Night of Terror is a fun little movie that’s entirely a product of it’s time, and like many of the films around this time period, I enjoy it quite a bit.

With secret passages, suspicious servants, and wills, this film has a lot of what you’d expect from dark house murder mysteries, the best of which include The Cat and the Canary, The Bat Whispers, and The Monster Walks. This one is obviously not as good as those attempts, but there’s still fun to be had if you’re a fan of this type of horror.

Amusingly, Bela Lugosi has a largish role as a servant named Degar, and of course I enjoyed his overly serious demeanor. Most of the main cast was just as fine, including Wallace Ford (The Rogues’ Tavern and The Mummy’s Hand), Sally Blane, George Meeker, Tully Marshall, and Edwin Maxwell (Mystery of the Wax Museum and The Ninth Guest). For comedic relief, we had Oscar Smith, who portrayed a cowardly chauffeur – unfortunately, not an uncommon role for black actors back in those days.

The story isn’t special in any way, but it was decently fun, what with people holed up in a house while a killer with quite a large body count (prior to the story proper, he’s apparently killed 12 people) prowls around, and what’s even better, maybe there are multiple killers, and some of the deaths have to do with a recently-read will.

This is all typical stuff for the time period, including the amusing conclusion, in which a character rises from the dead to warn the audience against spoiling the finale. In fact, I was so moved, I’ll quote the fella himself verbatim:

“Take heed, I am talking to you, and you, and you. If you dare tell anyone how this picture ends, if you dare reveal who the murderer really is, I’ll climb into your bedroom window tonight and tear you limb from limb.”

These were always charming whenever they popped up (most immediate example that comes to mind is The Bat Whispers), and this is no different.

I don’t think many people would call Night of Terror a terrific film, but it does check many of the boxes I look for from these types of films. It’s a very competent movie, and does have a nice little twist (which I think most modern-day audiences would see coming, but even so), and having seen it twice, it holds up nicely.

7.5/10

Directed by Andy Milligan [Other horror films: The Naked Witch (1967), The Ghastly Ones (1968), Seeds (1968), Bloodthirsty Butchers (1970), Torture Dungeon (1970), The Body Beneath (1970), The Man with Two Heads (1972), The Rats Are Coming – The Werewolves Are Here (1972), Dragula (1973), Blood (1973), Legacy of Blood (1978), House of Seven Belles (1979), Carnage (1984), Monstrosity (1987), The Weirdo (1989), Surgikill (1989)]

There’s not really a whole lot that can be said about Guru, the Mad Monk. It’s a pretty cheap film with occasionally decent effects and a story that sort of works, but it’s also relatively unremarkable, and lasts just under an hour.

Andy Milligan is a name I know well, but unfortunately, at least up to the point of this writing, this is the only film of his I’ve seen. I know many of them are broadly panned, such as The Ghastly Ones, Legacy of Blood, the brilliantly-titled The Rats Are Coming – The Werewolves Are Here, and Carnage, but I just get the feeling if I ever took the time out to watch some of these, I might find a little something in them to enjoy, especially if Guru, the Mad Monk is any indication.

I don’t think this movie is good in a traditional sense, but it’s not a bad way to spend an hour of your time. It tries it’s best on an ultra-low budget to be a period piece à la Witchfinder General and The Bloody Judge, and it does an okay job at it. The story is okay, and while the random vampire woman is just that – random – it just gives a bit more meat to the movie.

Then there’s the special effects, which are mostly shabby, but I can certainly appreciate the attempt they make. The worst effects were probably present in a scene in which a guy got his hands cut off, but when someone else got decapitated, and another one got their eyes skewered, well, isn’t that what love is all about? Plus someone got their hands nailed to a wall, which didn’t look fun.

I’ve not heard of Neil Flanagan – it seems he’s mostly in Milligan’s movies – but I thought he did a competently good job as a priest who may not be the most mentally stable. Jaqueline Webb was probably okay, but I don’t know if her character got sufficient backstory. Neither Judith Israel nor Paul Lieber (in his first role – he’s not an actor I know, but he did appear in plenty of television episodes past this point) were that relevant to the story, surprisingly, but both did well with their limitations.

Perhaps just by hearing the title and learning that Milligan directed this, Guru, the Mad Monk might turn you off, and I’ve no problem saying it’s not a good movie. I honestly don’t think it’s all that bad, though, especially when you consider what they had to work it. It’s short, it’s sometimes fun, and while it may not be memorable, for a couple of late-night viewings, I don’t see why not give it a shot, should you be a fan of trashy horror.

6.5/10

Directed by Christopher Lewis [Other horror films: The Ripper (1985), Revenge (1986)]

This early shot-on-video horror film is a bit of a mess. I mean, story-wise, it’s almost fine (aside from largely sucking), but with the quality of the overall film, Blood Cult doesn’t really cut it. It’s a somewhat tedious film with little to recommend, and I can think of plenty better SOV horror films to spend your time with.

In fact, this film is somewhat well-known among SOV fans as reportedly being the first shot-on-video horror film. It’s not – unless I’m deeply mistaken, I would think films such as Sledgehammer (1983), The Toxic Slime Creature (1982), and Day of the Reaper (1984) predate it. I should say, though, I’m no expert on SOV horror films, so perhaps there’s something about these earlier movies that disqualify them. Even if Blood Cult was the first, while an interesting historical note, it wouldn’t make the film any more palatable.

And it’s now I should mention that I watched this under the title Slasher. There was no cast listing, and in fact, no credits, aside from some link to an internet website, I believe. Also, the copyright date at the end was 1997. Not only this, but the copy I saw was 83 minutes, whereas IMDb lists the film as 89 minutes.

I go into that detail because while I doubt seeing an original print from 1985 would have deeply improved my enjoyment of the film, I want to be forthcoming in admitting I likely saw a marginally cut version. Slasher is just an awful retitling anyway, so I don’t know what they may have removed, but if I am able to see a better version of Blood Cult in the future, maybe I’ll appreciate it a bit more.

Charles Ellis made for an interesting lead, being an older gentleman (his character was the sheriff, and also running for Senate). He probably did as well as he could with a movie that was shot in nine days. Same with both Juli Andelman and James Vance. I didn’t love any of these performances, but with a movie like this, you’ve just got to give them credit for showing up.

The gore isn’t too bad, though. While a far cry from H.G. Lewis, there were some decent scenes in Blood Cult, such as the kill toward the beginning (following an excruciatingly slow POV sequence, to be fair) when a woman gets hacked to death with a cleaver. There’s a severed hand, a severed head, and this unlucky woman finds some severed fingers in her salad (admittedly, her screams of horror did amuse me). It’s not amazing or even necessarily impressive, but at least Blood Cult did have something to offer.

With muddled audio, though, along with less-than-stellar plot (and a somewhat horrible finale), there’s not that much here that’s worth seeing, at least not in the cut of the film I saw. What amazes me most about Blood Cult, actually, is that they managed a sequel in 1986 titled Revenge (and if IMDb can be believed, Charles Ellis actually reprised his role). Maybe that sequel fixes up some of the issues with this.

As Blood Cult, or Slasher, stands alone, though, I have to say that I didn’t have a good time with this, and found it more tedious than anything else.

5/10

Directed by Lambert Hillyer [Other horror films: The Invisible Ray (1936)]

Despite the fact my love of horror partially originated from being raised on the Universal classics such as Dracula, Frankenstein, and The Invisible Man, I’ve a rather woeful record of watching the sequels to those classics. Never having seen, nor honestly thought much of, Dracula’s Daughter, I was definitely curious as to how they pushed on, and was quite happy with the result.

Taking place immediately following the events of Dracula, this film follows Edward Van Sloan’s Von Helsing (in the 1931 movie, his name was Van Helsing, but for some reason, they changed it up here) as he’s arrested for staking someone through the heart. Throw in a mysterious woman who steals Dracula’s corpse and shenanigans on the foggy streets of London, and you’re in for a good time.

I was rather pleased with a lot of this movie. Never having seen it, I didn’t know if it would be that connected to the 1931 classic, so seeing the film pick up right where that left off, with characters such as Renfield being mentioned (though I do wish they had name-dropped Harker, or thought to confirm Von Helsing’s story with anyone in the first movie), was a pleasant surprise. It’s nice to have that continuation when you don’t necessarily expect it.

The plot overall is pretty decent. I didn’t personally care about Dracula’s daughter wanting to fight her natural urges to go a-killin’, but it did give her more personality to work with. Also, the fact she’s a low-key lesbian is sort of fun. Apparently part of this story may be influenced by a classic gothic horror novel titled Carmilla, written by Sheridan Le Fanu, so if you do notice potential lesbian subtexts, that may be why.

Gloria Holden is no Bela Lugosi, but I thought she did admirably with her character, and definitely had a solid presence to her. Otto Kruger made for a pretty good lead, and seemed to work well with Marguerite Churchill. Speaking of chemistry, Gloria Holden had great chemistry with Nan Grey, who did a decent amount with her role. Edgar Norton (who I recognize from the 1931 version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde) was nice to see in a single scene, and though he’s not the focal point, it is great that Edward Van Sloan returned, as he’s the only face from the first movie that’s here.

Like many of the Universal classics, this is a pretty digestible movie, and it has that fun atmosphere that you’d come to expect from these films. I was personally impressed by how much I enjoyed this, and while I wouldn’t say it’s better than the 1931 movie, I would put forth that it’s perhaps around equivalent.

7.5/10

Directed by Roy Del Ruth [Other horror films: The Terror (1928), The Alligator People (1959)]

While pedestrian in many ways, Phantom of the Rue Morgue is a perfectly competent example of a decent horror movie during a period in which the genre was a little dry. That fact, along with the film being in atypical color, does lend the movie a little credence.

Personally, I’ve never been that big a fan of Murders in the Rue Morgue (1932). It’s just one of those classics that isn’t my cup of tea. I’ve not read the Edgar Allan Poe story both that and Phantom of the Rue Morgue were based on either, so though there were a few things against me enjoying this, when I first saw Phantom of the Rue Morgue years back, enjoy it I did.

It’s not amazing or anything, though. It’s just a well-made movie with nice color (not a common sight for American horror films from this time period) and decent performances. Karl Malden hasn’t really done much in the horror genre, but he does great here playing his role in the vein of Island of Lost Soul’s Charles Laughton and The Most Dangerous Game’s Leslie Banks. Steve Forrest made for a good sympathetic character, and while perhaps not intentional, Claude Dauphin did well as a dangerously idiotic and abusive police inspector.

There is a decent mystery for a good portion of the film, or at least there would be, if I hadn’t already seen the 1932 version nor had a working knowledge of Poe’s more well-known works. Even so, the first half of the film is pretty good, with some fun sequences (such as a character chasing someone on the rooftops), and while there’s nothing wrong with the finale, it just seems more-of-the-same, and not all that remarkable.

Phantom of the Rue Morgue is a decent movie. I thought so when I first saw it, and I still do. I don’t really think it’s above average, but it’s certainly not below, and if 50’s horror is something you need more of in your life, there are worse ideas out there then giving Phantom of the Rue Morgue a try.

7/10

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