FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
When an aspiring writer (Jack Nicholson) and his wife (Shelley Duvall) and clairvoyant son (Danny Lloyd) arrive to work as winter caretakers in a shuttered hotel in the Colorado Rockies, they’re shown around by the hotel chef (Scatman Crothers) before being left on their own — at which point things become increasingly spooky and dangerous for Duvall and Lloyd.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Ghosts
• Homicidal Spouses
• Horror Films
• Jack Nicholson Films
• Psychic Powers
• Psychopaths
• Shelley Duvall Films
• Stanley Kubrick Films
• Writers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “Stanley Kubrick adaptation of what may be Stephen King’s finest novel utilizes a big budget, stars Jack Nicholson, and has some amazing camera work, but comes off as being no better than a mannered version of The Amityville Horror,” in which “a father… goes insane/becomes possessed after moving into an evil residence and tries to kill his family, just as a previous tenant had done.” Peary posits that “the film doesn’t concentrate enough on [Lloyd’s] primal fears” that “Nicholson [will try] to harm him and his mother”, and that Kubrick insufficiently exploits “the fact that [Lloyd] has a special gift.” He continues comparing the movie to the novel, noting that “in King’s book, the boy’s power is why the hotel wants the boy to be sacrificed to it, so that he’d become part of it (just as the house in The Haunting desires Julie Harris, who has extrasensory powers).” In the novel, “the hotel is the embodiment of evil, a major character, the major force that affects the father and son” whereas in Kubrick’s film, “the hotel houses evil entities but is, strangely, pretty neutral.” Peary adds that “Kubrick seems so entranced by Nicholson’s creation of a psychotic that he neglects much that was essential to King’s book”, making the mistake of having “Nicholson act weirdly from the outset, so that he seems only a couple of writer’s-block and cabin-fever days away from insanity.”

Peary argues that “for us to fully grasp Danny’s primal fear that his father will turn on him and his mother, it’s important that the father begin the story as a sympathetic, loving father and husband” — though I’m not sure I agree with this assessment. Much to King’s stated chagrin, Kubrick most definitely made this story his own — but within the logic of Kubrick’s interpretation, it makes sense that Lloyd’s fear of his father (who abused him sufficiently to prompt him to stop attending school) would simply intensify upon moving to an isolated house away from the rest of humanity. Peary posits that “Nicholson’s crazed performance begins to wear on one’s nerves, no matter how remarkable it is at times” (I would agree), and that “by [the] picture’s end, one realizes that Duvall has outacted him” (well, she certainly gives a powerhouse performance — perhaps the best of her career!). Peary concedes that “there are scary things in the movie — the appearance of the dead twins:

… Duvall reading her husband’s lengthy manuscript and discovering that it’s proof positive he is insane:

… Nicholson chasing his son through the outdoor maze with an axe”:

— and he writes that “for a while it is both powerful and creepy”. But he believes that “the moment Nicolson talks with the ghost bartender, the picture loses its grip,” and “from then on everything comes across as absurd.”

Peary also hates the famous final shot, arguing that it’s “a terrible choice” and illustrates that “neither Kubrick nor his co-writer, Diane Johnson, was familiar enough with horror films to know what were the cliches of the genre.” In the film’s favor, Peary notes that “as do all Kubrick pictures, this one (in which he employed a Steadicam) looks great — better, in fact, than all other horror films”, and that Kubrick’s “familiar mannered, intentionally rapid dialogue (in which everyone uses the other person’s first name repeatedly) does create tension.”

Given what a tremendous fan base this film has — an entire documentary, Room 237 (2012), is devoted simply to various potential explanations of underlying themes — it’s impossible to deny its importance in cinematic history. Like Peary, I appreciate much of the craftsmanship on display in The Shining — and unlike Peary, I’m not upset about the numerous significant shifts from King’s novel (which I haven’t read); I believe viewers should watch this film as part of Stanley Kubrick’s oeuvre, rather than as a “King adaptation”. However, I’ll admit to not being a huge personal fan of the film, simply because the pacing seems off (it takes more than half an hour for the family to finally be left alone in the hotel), and Nicholson’s psychopathic character is so utterly unlikable and obnoxious from start to finish that he’s challenging to watch for so long. I do recommend that all film fanatics give Room 237 a look, simply to take a deeper dive into what might possibly be going on in Kubrick’s meticulously planned storyline (is the shift in typewriter color an accident of continuity, or intentional? what is the significance of Danny’s Apollo USA sweater?). Agree or disagree with the views espoused, you’ll surely begin to understand the depth to which many people obsess over this movie.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Fine central performances (albeit questionably directed in the case of Nicholson)
  
  
  
• Highly effective direction, cinematography, and sets
  
  
• Many genuine moments of terror
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a cult classic by a master director.

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Important Director

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• NY Times Original Review
• Moria Review
• Honest Trailer

Synopsis:
A boarding school student (Jennifer Connelly) who has the power to communicate telepathically with insects befriends a wheelchair-bound entomologist (Donald Pleasence) with a pet chimpanzee, and together they try to solve the mystery of who has been stalking and killing local girls.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Amateur Sleuths
• Boarding School
• Dario Argento Films
• Donald Pleasence Films
• Horror Films
• Insects
• Serial Killers
• Supernatural Powers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “brutal Dario Argento horror film” — also known as Phenomena — “has the striking visual style we’ve come to expect from the Italian director, and there are a couple of his customary shocks”, but he “too often forgoes legitimate shocks for nauseating sights — lice crawling on a rotting head, Connolly throwing up, heads crashing through glass, deformed faces” (who enjoys this kind of fare?!). In addition, as Peary notes, “Argento’s script is extremely weak”, with “Connelly’s sleepwalking:

… and even her control over insects smack[ing] of writer’s ‘convenience’; in fact, the insect premise has such little effect on what happens that they could easily be eliminated without serious damage being done to the film.” Indeed, everything about the screenplay is awkwardly handled, clumsily plotted, occasionally illogical, and woodenly acted. To that end, Peary points out that Pleasence’s chimp “gives the film’s most impressive performance” (!). While 15-year-old Connelly is undeniably stunning:

… she’s given terribly lame dialogue and situations to play out. Feel free to skip this one. To watch a humorous overview by a fan of this film (who generously points out its many laughably bad moments: “It’s time for another Donald Pleasence monologue…”), click here.

Note: For this review, I’ve used the American-release title of the film as referenced in Guide For the Film Fanatic, which had 20+ minutes removed. This is likely the version Peary saw, though I watched the 116 minute version known as Phenomena.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Atmospheric cinematography
  
• Beautiful location shooting
  

Must See?
No.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Moria Review

Synopsis:
When a researcher (Rollo Linsky) informs a doctor (Paul Hampton) that his insane colleague (Fred Doederlein) has implanted parasites in his young lover (Cathy Graham) and then killed her, Dr. St. Luc (Hampton) and his girlfriend (Lynn Lowry) begin an investigation, quickly finding that an increasing number of residents in their apartment complex — including a businessman (Alan Migicovsky) whose wife is friends with a lonely neighbor (Barbara Steele) — have become infected.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Barbara Steele Films
• David Cronenberg Films
• Horror Films
• Mad Doctors and Scientists
• Zombies

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that this “first of David Cronenberg’s low-budget horror films to play in the United States” “quickly established his cult”. Shivers presents an “intriguing setting” — an “isolated, sterile apartment complex which is a planned, self-contained community” — wherein a parasite with “the power to drive its carrier violently insane” is travelling “on its own from apartment to apartment through the plumbing”, and can also “be transferred from its carrier through sexual contact.” He posits that the “film has some tension at the beginning when the initial people are infected”, noting that the creepiest moment comes “when the parasite crawls between unsuspecting Barbara Steele’s legs while she bathes” (ewww!), then transfers from her throat to her lover’s while kissing — but he argues that the “story, character development, and the film itself go out the window when almost everybody in the building” (except Hampton) “becomes infected and runs through the halls looking for people to attack.”

Peary writes that while this “exploitation picture is too violent and crude”, the “special effects (i.e., creatures moving beneath the skin) by Joe Blasco anticipated those that would appear in future big-budget SF and horror films” — like Alien (1979). Because the sub-genre of “sci fi body horror” films isn’t a personal favorite, it’s hard for me to comment on whether Cronenberg’s film goes off the rails or simply continues along its own perversely logical trajectory; I can say that things certainly build to a tense fever pitch by the end, leading to a sense of claustrophobia and despair.

As Richard Scheib of Moria writes, “Shivers is Night of the Living Dead construed as a satire on the 1970s swinger lifestyle” — a very apt analogy indeed.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Some effectively creepy moments on a low budget
  

Must See?
No, though of course Cronenberg fans will be curious to check it out.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Classic Horror Review
• Jigsaw Film Lounge Review
• Moria Review
• SF Gate Review
• Classic Horror Review

Synopsis:
A young teen (Sarah Patterson) dreams that she’s left her parents (David Warner and Tusse Silberg) to go stay with her advice-filled grandmother (Angela Lansbury), who tells her tales of a werewolf (Stephen Rea) who runs away from his bride (Kathryn Pogson) and then attacks her years later for remarrying, and a young man (Vincent McClaren) given a hair-sprouting potion by the Devil (Terence Stamp). Soon Rosaleen (Patterson) is telling stories of her own — including one about an impregnated witch (Dawn Archibald) seeking revenge on the nobleman (Richard Morant) who abandoned her, and one about a young she-wolf (Danielle Dax) receiving assistance from a kind priest (Graham Crowden).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Angela Lansbury Films
• Coming of Age
• David Warner Films
• Fantasy
• Folk Tales, Fairy Tales, and Mythology
• Strong Females
• Terence Stamp Films
• Werewolves

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this film by “Irish director Neil Jordan… and his co-writer, Angela Carter, on whose short story the film is based” is “thematically and visually unlike any other movie”, defying “genre classification”. He adds, “It’s not really a horror movie, although it contains horror elements, such as dramatic men-into-werewolf transformations”:

— and while “it could be called a ‘suspense’ film or a ‘terror’ film,” it’s “more accurately… a film about sexual anxiety and a young virgin’s fear of and fascination about crossing the sexual threshold.” He notes that Jordan and Carter “have brought new sexual meaning to the fairytale” of Little Red Riding Hood:

… “by making the girl-wolf relationship a metaphor for all male-female relationships and by having the girl’s fairytale walk through the woods to Grandma’s house be the centerpiece of a frenzied dream of a young girl.”

Peary describes the movie as “wondrously photographed (its ‘look’ is unique)”, representing a “netherworld” that “is magical, enchanting, yet mysterious and foreboding. It’s a world filled with insects, snakes and toads, and warm-blooded animals; twisted trees, spider webs, and all kinds of sexual imagery.”

While Rosaleen is warned by her grandmother (in “a delightful bit by Angela Lansbury”) to “stay away from men”:

… and she “believes her grandmother speaks the truth about men and fears sexual contact”, she “does not run from the stranger she meets in the forest.”

Peary adds that “even more than Picnic at Hanging Rock, this film expresses the painful and confusing sexual yearnings of young girls.”

He ends his review by noting that while this movie is “not for all tastes”, it’s “definitely worth a look” — and in the years since Peary’s GFTFF was published, it’s developed a cult following, as has his phenomenal thriller The Crying Game (1992) (which happens to be one of my top-ten personal favorite films — but my review of that will have to wait until I have time to resume writing about post-GFTFF must-see titles…) What most impresses me about The Company of Wolves (other than its incomparable other-worldly sensibility) is how strongly it empowers females: while Peary focuses on Patterson’s sexual development, I see this as primarily a movie about a girl daring to venture out into the (admittedly scary) world on her own, imagining the worst that might happen to a female at the hands of men (dealing with an insistent suitor; being attacked; being impregnated and/or abandoned) and also how she might handle and survive such a fate.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Sarah Patterson as Rosaleen
  
• Angela Lansbury as Granny
  
• Highly atmospheric cinematography
  
  
• Anton Furst’s sets
  
• Impressive special effects
  

Must See?
Yes, as a cult favorite.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Moria Review
• Spinning Image Review

Synopsis:
When he picks up his daughter Candy (Cindy Hinds) from a weekend visit with her mother (Samantha Eggar) at a controversial therapeutic clinic and notices welts on her back, Eggar’s husband (Art Hindle) confronts Eggar’s doctor (Oliver Reed) and tries to determine what’s going on. Meanwhile, a rash of mysterious murders by a dwarf-like creature ensues, as Frank first leaves Candy with her grandmother (Nuala Fitzgerald) and then with her sympathetic schoolteacher (Susan Hogan).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• David Cronenberg Films
• Father and Child
• Horror Films
• Mental Illness
• Mutant Monsters
• Oliver Reed Films
• Psychotherapy
• Samantha Eggar Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “complex, chilling horror film by David Cronenberg advances two of his major themes: there is nothing more frightening than sudden unexplained changes in our physical compositions” and “sterile institutions meant to promote health are often responsible… for destroying a person’s physical and mental well-being.” He notes that “this was the first Cronenberg film in which his characters are sympathetic”, with “the relationship between Hindle and Hinds… truly touching” (agreed).

While he feels the “film often has repulsive imagery and much in the climactic scene is illogical,” there “are several terrifying scenes” and he posits that the picture has “a cold, other-worldly feel” which is “heightened by the fact that many of the characters’ surnames… can’t be found in your local telephone book” (!).

Peary elaborates upon his review in his first Cult Movies book, where he admits to being “intrigued by the premises of all of Cronenberg’s film” but questioning “his judgments and directorial maturity”, given that he gets “juvenile pleasure from trying to jolt viewers by repelling them with blatant, often ridiculous images”, and gets “kicks trying to disgust us.” (In a “making of” documentary about this movie, Eggar concedes that it was hard not to laugh while filming the infamous scene in which she reveals her deformed body to Hindle…) Peary writes that among the “terrifying sequences” are “the murders of Julianna [Nuala Fitzgerald] and Barton [Henry Beckman]” (Eggar’s parents); he accurately notes that “when Julianna enters her mysteriously ramshackle kitchen, looks up toward the ceiling, and spots a little crouched figure in red atop the cupboards about to leap on her, or when Candy sees the hooded figure (who may remind you of the dwarf assassin in Don’t Look Now, 1973) hiding on the stairwell, you are likely to jump.” Meanwhile, “the most chilling” scenes are when two of the dwarf-like creatures “brazenly enter Candy’s classroom pretending to be her classmates:

… and when they walk with Candy hand in hand along the highway in the snow.”

Peary writes that “perhaps what is most remarkable about The Brood is the sinister quality that Cronenberg establishes,” by “staging intense psychodramas between Raglan and Nola” (and, in the opening scene, with another troubled patient):

… as well as “by creating a restrictive atmosphere around the Psychoplasmics Institute; by making his characters humorless and setting the picture in cold, snowy weather (where everyone wears coats and scarves, and walks under gray skies)”:

… “by giving the autocratic Raglan a henchman; [and] by making us aware of the history of child abuse in Nola’s life.” While Peary doesn’t think the final sequence makes sense, he concedes that “at least it’s spooky, lively, and comes after about an hour and a half of absorbing, solid cinema.”

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Art Hindle as Frank
  
• Oliver Reed as Dr. Raglan
  
• Samantha Eggar as Nola
  
• Fine cinematography and direction
  
  
  
• Many creepy moments
  

Must See?
Yes, as an eerie and still-powerful cult horror flick. Discussed at length in Peary’s Cult Movies book.

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• Moria Review

Synopsis:
When a sadistic man (John Karlen) and his beautiful new wife (Danielle Ouimet) stop at a nearly deserted Belgian inn on their way back home, they meet a mysteriously ageless woman (Delphine Seyrig) and her loyal companion (Andrea Rau), who seem deeply interested in befriending the couple.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Delphine Seyrig Films
• Horror Films
• Lesbianism
• Newlyweds
• Vampires

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Belgian writer-director Harry Kumel’s English-language lesbian vampire film is among the most stylish of horror films and probably the most perverse.” He argues that this “cult film is flawed, yet it masterfully combines traditional horror elements with outrageous, often ludicrous wit; and no other horror film can match the eroticism that pervades every scene.” He adds that “it’s a rare horror film with social relevance: it more than expressed feminist themes — it actually had a decidedly anti-male attitude, despite being made by men.”

The film centers on Seyrig’s character, who “claims to be Elizabeth Bathory — the name of the ‘Bloody Countess’ who lived and murdered scores of virgins for their blood three centuries before” and is played by Seyrig “with the sense of irony and melancholia that we associate with the roles of Seyrig’s friend Marlene Dietrich”.

Peary notes that “like Stephanie Rothman’s similarly plotted The Velvet Vampire, this vampire film shows that female vampires can win over a woman completely through the unbeatable combination of willpower, mind control, and sex appeal.”

Peary goes on to write that the “film contains horror-movie conventions — mist, too-loud suspense music, bloody violence, vampires who cast no reflections, don’t drink alcohol, and peer into bedroom windows from balconies — but Kumel (influenced by former friend Josef von Sternberg) handles nothing conventionally”, instead cleverly using “sound, music, his wonderful sets, colors (especially red):

… clothes, character placement, and weird camera angles (often he shoots from above, or at a great distance to convey the terrible isolation each character feels).” Peary elaborates upon his GFTFF review in Cult Movies 2, where he notes that the “film can be intentionally silly”, “downright horrifying”, or “utterly outrageous, in a macabre sort of way” — then shift to being “surreal, as in the magnificent shot of Elisabeth surrounding Valerie [Ouimet] with her cape as they stand on a cliff, the full moon shining behind them.”

He argues that while this “may be a wicked film”, and “it is no gem”, he finds it “sexy, imaginative, amusing, and undeniably fun.” While I acknowledge Peary’s appreciation for Daughters of Darkness, I can’t say I feel the same way. This films seems to me to be all style and no substance, and I honestly don’t understand the “point” (which I know is probably asking too much of a vampire film). Very little actually happens, other than ongoing seductions and killings. Intriguing narrative threads — i.e., Karlen calling home to his “mother” (Fons Rademakers) — are introduced, then dropped:

… and the lead characters are either unlikable or not particularly sympathetic (i.e., we don’t learn enough about Ouimet to relate to her). While fans of vampire flicks will surely want to check this one out, it’s not must-see viewing for all film fanatics.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Delphine Seyrig as Elisabeth Bathory
  
• Fine cinematography and set design
  

Must See?
No, though fans of the genre will of course want to check it out.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Moria Review
• Spinning Image Review
• Roger Ebert’s Review

Synopsis:
A young man (Kevin Van Hententryck) living in New York City with his deformed twin brother Belial in a wicker basket hatches a plot to seek vengeance on the doctors who separated them; meanwhile, Van Hententryck falls for a pretty receptionist (Terri Susan Smith), which causes Belial to feel increasingly jealous.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Horror
• Jealousy
• Mutant Monsters
• Revenge
• Twins

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “in the year of E.T., midnight movie audiences were equally enthusiastic about B.C. [Basket Case], a very creative little horror gem” (by first-time director Frank Henenlotter) “about another peculiar-looking, waist-high, long-nailed creature who must remain hidden in our hostile world.”

He notes that “the original distributor… trimmed the gruesome gore scenes, not realizing that the excessiveness of blood and violence is what made such scenes cartoonish”, and argues that the inclusion of the deleted footage is fortunate given that “in addition to being a first-rate fright film, this is an outrageous black comedy that uses excessive violence for comic relief.”

Peary adds that while he “detested seeing one more despicable monster-rapes-girl scene”, the “film has many qualities to compensate: the truly clever script; the offbeat characters, even down to the smallest parts; the fascinating on-location photography in a flea-bag New York hotel; and some nifty special effects, model work (two proteges of Dick Smith [Kevin Haney and John Caglione] made Belial from latex and foam), and stop-motion photography that was very ambitious for such a miniscule budget.”

Peary posits that “best of all is Belial, who, when not ripping people apart, is in his own way as endearing as E.T.”. (Nope — but I can understand how fans of monster flicks might feel this way.)

In his Cult Movies 2 book, Peary elaborates on the history of this ultra-indie film’s creation and distribution, noting that producer Edgar Ievins “didn’t want to reveal exactly how low the budget was until he had sold the film to cable.” Suffice it to say that the crew (who apparently had a blast working together) was cutting corners in every way possible, stretching the filming out over six months simply to take advantage of whatever meager funding, supplies, and access to location sites they had.

The result is a movie that won over many cult movie audiences (including Peary), who writes that what he finds “most impressive about Basket Case is that it never loses momentum. Scene after scene of this oddball story is interesting, well written for tension and humor, cleverly directed, and well acted” (well… it’s sufficiently acted). He notes that “adding to our enjoyment, Henenlotter has assembled one of the strangest groups of actors/characters to ever grace a horror film”, with Duane (Van Hententryck):

… and Belial seeming “almost normal in a world of mad doctors and lowlifes of the type who occupy the Hotel Broslin…”

He points out that the “three positive influences on the twins are their kindly aunt [Ruth Neuman] (young Belial sits in her lap while she reads out loud):

… prostitute Casey (played by cult favorite Beverly Bonner):

… and Sharon [wig-wearing Smith]:

— and even they are peculiar.”

Finally, Peary writes that “no one can match little Belial. There have been a lot of strange hotel/inn/boarding house boarders in horror movie history — Claude Rains in The Invisible Man (1933), Henry Hull in The Werewolf of London (1935), Laird Cregar’s Jack the Ripper in The Lodger (1944), and Michael Rennie’s alien in The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) immediately come to mind — but none are as weird as Belial,” who, “when he paces back and forth plotting his next crime” reminds Peary “of gangster Edward G. Robinson, cigar in mouth, pacing while plotting his next heist.” He points out that “for almost the entire film, we sympathize with Belial because a great wrong was done to him in his youth” — and we “don’t mind his doing away with such despicable characters as [Dr.] Lifflander [Bill Freeman]:

… [Dr.] Kutter [Diane Browne]:

… and [Dr.] Needleman [Lloyd Pace]:

… or even thief O’Donovan” (Joe Clarke).

Again, I’m not personally a Belial fan, but I can appreciate the effort that went into humanizing this ultimately monstrous being.

Note: Fans of Basket Case will surely want to check out the 2012 documentary What’s in the Basket? (about the entire Basket Case trilogy), which features interviews with most of the key players — but, sadly, not Smith, who seems to have disappeared off the cinematic radar completely.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Good use of location shooting throughout New York
  
• Impressive low-budget special effects
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a cult favorite.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TV Guide Review
• Moria Review
• DVD Savant Review

Synopsis:
After his mother (Lynn Carlin) prays for him to come home safely, a Vietnam War soldier (Richard Backus) reported as dead shows up at his house, surprising everyone — including his father (John Marley), sister (Anya Ormsby), girlfriend (Jane Daly), and a local doctor (Henderson Forsythe) who suspects he may have been involved in the recent death of a trucker (David Gawlikowski).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Ghosts
• Horror
• Vampires
• Veterans
• Vietnam War
• Zombies

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “effective, little-known horror film” is “well-directed by Bob Clark”, best known for helming Black Christmas (1974), Porky’s (1982) and A Christmas Story (1983). He acknowledges that “Clark has made a creepy, moody horror film” but notes that “it is, on closer examination, also a perceptive critique of a patriarchal family, a microcosm of the patriarchal society that is willing to sacrifice its sons in an ugly war that their fathers are responsible for.” While I don’t necessarily see themes of patriarchal society playing out so strongly, Alan Orsmby’s script does a remarkable job positing soldiers’ PTSD as a literal form of horror, one that manifests not only for the men but for their loved ones back at home. Even if Backus hadn’t died in Vietnam, his return home might very well have provoked an equally confused and problematic response, given how deeply impacted so many soldiers were by this senseless war. Interestingly, one can’t tell exactly what horrific fate has befallen Backus, which is why I’ve listed three different sub-genres (ghosts, vampires, and zombies) above: the point is that this soldier-turned-monster can no longer function “normally” in “regular” society, no matter how much his loved ones want to believe he can and will.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• John Marley as Charles Brooks
  
• Lynn Carlin as Christine Brooks
  
• A creepy, well-handled screenplay and premise
  

Must See?
Yes, as a surprisingly good show.

Categories

• Good Show

Links:

• IMDb entry
• And You Call Yourself a Scientist! Review
• Spinning Image Review
• Canuxploitation Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Moria Review

Synopsis:
A young boy (Joe King) whose unreasonable father (Tom Atkins) throws away his Creepshow comic book finds a creative way to get back at him — but first we see a series of horror vignettes about an abusive patriarch (Jon Lormer) returning from the dead on Father’s Day to seek retribution on his murderous daughter (Viveca Lindfors) and other family members; a backwoods yokel (Stephen King) hoping to earn money from a fallen meteor, which instead turns him into a plant-like organism; a millionaire (Leslie Nielson) wreaking gruesome revenge on his wife (Gaylen Ross) and her lover (Ted Danson) before being turned on himself; a henpecked professor (Hal Holbrook) who discovers an unusual way to take care of his shrewish wife (Adrienne Barbeau); and a ruthless business mogul (E.G. Marshall) whose pathological fear of insects literally consumes him.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• E.G. Marshall Films
• Episodic Films
• George Romero Films
• Horror Films
• Revenge
• Stephen King Adaptations

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “George Romero and Stephen King collaborated in this homage to… sexy and nightmarish pre-Code horror comics of the early fifties” (such as those produced by EC Comics). He argues that the film is “overlong” — with none of the five “King-written episodes” “exceptional” and none “dreadful” — but all “laced with devilish tongue-in-cheek humor, and four of the five deal[ing] with cruel people getting their horrific just deserts.” He adds that the “production design by Cletus Anderson and the comic-book-like illustrations that bridge the episodes by former comic-book artist Jack Kamen give the film its Tales From the Crypt flavor.” I’m essentially in agreement with Peary’s assessment; while I’m sure fans of these comics will revel in this homage, I simply found it diverting and nicely produced. My favorite episode is “Something to Tide You Over”, which shows the extreme lengths to which a cuckolded (and psychotic) husband will go.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Some truly creepy moments
  
• Creative production design and cinematography
  

Must See?
No, though Stephen King fans will of course want to check it out.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Classic Horror Review
• Spinning Image Review
• Moria Review
• Roger Ebert’s Review

Synopsis:
A football star (John Stockwell) is concerned when his bullied friend Arnie (Keith Gordon) purchases and restores a run-down 1958 Plymouth Fury named Christine from a local coot (Roberts Blossom), begins dating a beautiful new girl (Alexandra Paul) at school, and shows increasingly car-obsessed behavior. But a detective (Harry Dean Stanton) sent to investigate wonders: is it Arnie or Christine that’s causing so much mayhem and murder around town?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Character Arc
• Harry Dean Stanton Films
• Horror Films
• John Carpenter Films
• Possession
• Stephen King Adaptations

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that Stephen King’s “undistinguished” novel “about a killer automobile — a subject that’s been done to death on television and in film — is given a visually impressive but extremely impersonal treatment by John Carpenter.” He argues that this “unpleasant film has few surprises” (I disagree) and that it “lacks an important transition scene in which the shy Gordon becomes a ladies’ man capable of approaching someone like Paul” (agreed). Peary adds that “also missing are scenes in which Gordon at least tries to ward off Christine’s control — Gordon becomes thoroughly obnoxious so quickly that we don’t really care what happens to him” (though I’m not sure this is so important, given that Christine-the-car is clearly possessed by a malevolent spirit that has infected Gordon as well). Ultimately, Peary posits that “Carpenter paid so much attention to the special effects relating to Christine” (which are nicely handled) “that he forgot about character development”, which I would concede is the case. However, it’s undeniably freaky watching Christine take her revenge on those she feels have wronged her — and the film is well-made enough to recommend to those enjoy this type of fare.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Several exciting chase and hunt sequences
  
• Fine special effects
  

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look by fans of the genre.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TV Guide Review
• Moria Review
• Classic Horror Review
• Roger Ebert’s Review