Horror Express / Panic on the Trans-Siberian Express (1972)

Horror Express / Panic on the Trans-Siberian Express (1972)

Comments 2 comments

“It’s alive — it must be!”

Synopsis:
In 1906 China, a British anthropologist (Christopher Lee) finds a frozen prehistoric body and arranges to ship it on the Transsiberian Express — but soon he and fellow passenger Dr. Wells (Peter Cushing) realize the ancient creature is a living alien, capable of destroying people’s brains and able to transfer itself into a human body. As they work with an inspector (Julio Pena) to determine where the alien is residing, more and more passengers are brutally murdered.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Aliens
  • Christopher Lee Films
  • Horror
  • Mind Control and Hypnosis
  • Murder Mystery
  • Peter Cushing Films
  • Telly Savalas Films
  • Trains and Subways

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary refers to this low-budget, Spanish-made sci-fi flick as a “horror gem that devotees of late-night television have kept to themselves” (though its recent release on Blu-Ray and DVD makes this a somewhat dated point). He argues that the “picture is exciting and surprisingly provocative”, and praises the direction (by Eugenio Martin), the “interesting characters”, and the “solid acting”. He notes that “like 2001 and Five Million Years to Earth, it challenges both fundamentalist religion and theories on evolution” — a point I can’t quite agree with, given that it’s much stronger in thrills, chills, and occasional levity than meaty exploration of such topics. While I can understand this film’s cult appeal as a gruesome mash-up of numerous cinematic genres and tropes — a death-filled train ride a la Murder on the Orient Express (1974); a resuscitated frozen alien a la The Thing (1951); brain-dead victims-turned-perpetrators a la Night of the Living Dead (1968) — its true calling card is the fortunate pairing of Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing, who have great fun working together against dark forces. Watch for Telly Savalas in a cameo role as a Cossack commander who naively believes he and his men can tame the alien.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Effective use of a claustrophobic train setting
  • Lurid special effects
  • Atmospheric cinematography

Must See?
Yes, once, simply as a cult favorite.

Categories

Links:

Outrageous! (1977)

Outrageous! (1977)

Comments 1 comment

“You’ll never be normal — but you’re special. And you can have a hell of a good time!”

Synopsis:
A talented aspiring drag queen (Craig Russell) shares an apartment with his best friend, a schizophrenic young woman (Hollis McLaren) hoping to keep her “bonecrusher” away by becoming pregnant and feeling alive inside.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Aspiring Stars
  • Friendship
  • Gender Bending
  • Homosexuality
  • Mental Illness
  • Misfits
  • Pregnancy

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that perhaps the popularity of this “funny, touching film” — based on a short story by Margaret Gibson — is “due to the fact that both [main characters] succeed in achieving their modest goals”. He notes that “at times it’s a sloppy film, poorly lit and edited in a manner that causes you to lose all track of time; but the characters are so likable and believably played” and “the direction and script… are so spirited and tender that you are willing to forgive it for not being as polished as a Hollywood production”. He lauds the film’s emphasis on eschewing conformity, and notes that the “picture shows that those who struggle to retain their ‘healthy brand of craziness’ in our dehumanized world can have a lot of fun”.

Peary specifically calls out Craig Russell’s “award-winning performance as Robin Turner, a character with great range” who is “kind-hearted, angry, witty, philosophical, moody, vulnerable to criticism, strong when he has to be, even heroic, extremely sarcastic, and harmlessly bitchy” — not to mention “dazzling” when he “does impersonations of Streisand, Channing, Garland, Bankhead, Davis, West, etc.” Indeed, the film is chock-a-block full of truly entertaining footage showing Russell doing what he does so well: we can easily understand why he expresses disdain and dismay early in the film when watching an amateur performer on stage, giving a bad name to his craft. Writer/director Richard Benner’s script heads in unusual directions, keeping us on our toes about what will happen next, and occasionally surprising us — but Russell’s friendship with McLaren trumps all, and provides the film with heartwarming continuity.

Note: This film is profiled at length in Peary’s original Cult Movies book.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Craig Russell as Robin Turner (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actors of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)

  • Hollis McLaren as Liza Connors
  • A refreshingly humane and compassionate view of mental illness: “You and me are here to love and look after each other.”
  • An authentically feel-good script: “I’ve never known anyone worth knowing who wasn’t a positive fruitcake.”

Must See?
Yes, as an enjoyable cult favorite.

Categories

  • Cult Movie

Links:

It Conquered the World (1956)

It Conquered the World (1956)

Comments 1 comment

“I won’t love a monster — I won’t!”

Synopsis:
A cynical scientist (Lee Van Cleef) helps a Venusian alien (Paul Blaisdell) land on earth and begin a campaign to rid humans of all emotions — but his wife (Beverly Garland) and colleague (Peter Graves) are immediately concerned about his ideas.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Aliens
  • Dick Miller Films
  • Lee Van Cleef Films
  • Mad Doctors and Scientists
  • Mind Control any Hypnosis
  • Roger Corman Films
  • Science Fiction
  • World Domination

Review:
Roger Corman’s low-budget (what else?) alien-invasion flick is perhaps best known for Paul Blaisdell‘s ridiculously vegetable-like rubber Venusian alien, but actually remains a decent entry in the sub-genre of mid-century Communist hysteria films [such as Invaders From Mars (1953) and Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)]. Van Cleef is eerily effective (and well-cast) in the central role as a scientist so disillusioned by humanity he’s allowed his ethos to be taken over by an alien agenda, certain that the Venusians will “rescue the world from itself”; and Garland is equally convincing as his concerned, no-nonsense wife. Charles B. Griffith’s sharp script does wonders with scenarios that are otherwise laughable (i.e., rubber bats flying at humans’ necks to remove all emotions), with several scenes in particular — i.e., Graves’ wife (Sally Fraser) matter-of-factly attempting to “infect” him — highly effective. I watched this one with MST3K commentary, but actually believe it should have been seen on its own first. Read And You Call Yourself a Scientist!’s review for an in-depth, appreciative look at this flick, in which the reviewer notes right away that “I have almost as much admiration for this film as I do affection, and I don’t intend to make fun of it any more than is absolutely necessary”.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Lee Van Cleef as Dr. Tom Anderson
  • Beverly Garland as Claire Anderson
  • Charles B. Griffith’s solid B-script:

    “Oh, look! Can’t you two talk about anything else? I’m getting tired of hearing about nothing but satellites, isotopes, conical graduations, and the rest!”
    “I’d have to take a long, hard look at anything that was going to change the world — and me — so completely.”
    “You can’t rub the tarnish from men’s souls without losing a little of the silver, too.”

Must See?
Yes, as one of Corman’s better low-budget outings.

Categories

Links:

Connection, The (1962)

Connection, The (1962)

Comments 2 comments

“You will not see the man behind the man — because there is no such man!”

Synopsis:
A director (William Redfield) agrees to fund the next fix for a group of heroin junkies gathered in the apartment of a friend (Warren Finnerty) as they wait for the arrival of their “connection”, a drug supplier known as Cowboy (Carl Lee).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Alcoholism and Drug Addiction
  • Play Adaptations
  • Shirley Clarke Films

Review:
Shirley Clarke’s black-and-white cinéma vérité film — crafted like a documentary, but actually highly scripted and based on a play by Jack Gelber — broke cinematic ground in its gritty depiction of heroin addiction, overtly flaunting New York’s censorship rules. Indeed, watching this independently produced film puts more mainstream movies of the same year in an interesting perspective: while many of these titles (i.e., To Kill a Mockingbird, The Manchurian Candidate, Days of Wine and Roses) were concerned with “social issues”, none were anything close to this raw in their depiction. With that said, The Connection unfortunately isn’t all that interesting or compelling; it’s far too stagy and dry, and I would revisit any of the above titles before this one for sheer entertainment value. Yet The Connection remains of minor interest simply for its historical importance.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • A refreshingly frank (for the time in which it was made) look at drug use

Must See?
No, though it’s recommended for one-time viewing simply given its historical significance. Listed as a film with Historical Importance and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Portrait of Jason (1967)

Portrait of Jason (1967)

Comments 3 comments

“It only hurts when you think of it. And if you’re real, you’ll think of it a long, long time.”

Synopsis:
Filmmaker Shirley Clarke interviews a self-described gay black “hustler” (Jason Holliday) who tells countless entertaining tales of his life as a sexually voracious “houseboy” and aspiring cabaret singer.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • African-Americans
  • Aspiring Stars
  • Class Relations
  • Documentary
  • Homosexuality
  • Race Relations
  • Shirley Clarke Films

Review:
Shirley Clarke’s cult classic — filmed in her Hotel Chelsea apartment over the course of 12 hours — remains a uniquely structured, unexpectedly haunting entry in her oeuvre as an independent female documentarian. Without explanation or captions, the film plunges into Clarke’s talk with Jason, beginning with how he transformed from “Aaron Payne” to “Jason Holliday” with the help of a budding international spiritual organization which promotes the changing of one’s name to something more “authentic”. (As a bit of trivia, my parents joined this group at around the same time and also changed their birth names.) The film quickly moves on, however, to even more fascinating fare, as Jason, continuously drinking, begins sharing seemingly endless tales of his life as a hustler — or wait, as a houseboy? A companion? What exactly DID Jason do to earn money, and how often did this overlap with his own entertainment? Well, it turns out he did just about anything, and (supposedly) never felt bad about it:

“They think you’re just a dumb, stupid little colored boy and you’re trying to get a few dollars, and they’re gonna use you as a joke. And it gets to be a joke sometime as to who’s using who.”

The stories he has to tell are simply hilarious — at least until the hours wear on and his revelations become increasingly fraught with vulnerability (especially as Clarke’s cameraman, Carl Lee, eggs him on). You’re sure to be engaged — if not haunted, disturbed, and/or entertained — by this most unusual docu-interview.

Note: A docudrama re-imagining what might have taken place during the marathon shooting of this film has just been released; click here to read more.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • A surprisingly engrossing “one man show”, covering both light-hearted and much more serious topics

Must See?
Yes, as a unique historical document by an unusual director. Listed as a film with Historical significance and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Kiss of the Vampire (1963)

Kiss of the Vampire (1963)

Comments 1 comment

“I advise you to ask no questions of anyone in this region.”

Synopsis:
A honeymooning couple (Edward de Souza and Jennifer Daniel) staying in a remote inn run by a nervous man (Peter Madden) and his depressed wife (Vera Cook) — with an inebriated professor (Clifford Evans) as the only other inhabitant — are invited to dinner by a local nobleman (Noel Ravna) and his two grown children (Barry Warren and Jacquie Wallis), who seduce the couple with their charms and lure them back for a masquerade ball with nefarious purposes.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cults
  • Horror Films
  • Newlyweds
  • Vampires

Review:
Hammer Studios’ unique entry in the vampire genre offers an appropriate sense of menace, effectively atmospheric visuals and sets, and a convincingly creative vision of what a “den of vampires” might look and act like. While De Souza and Daniel are a little too conveniently naive as the film opens — caught up in conjugal bliss and unaware of how strange their new environment really is — this allows the plot to move forward smoothly, as Daniel is easily taken in by the charms of their enchanting new friends, and de Souza realizes too late that his wife has been brainwashed and kidnapped into the vampires’ cult. The scenes showing white-shrouded vampires sitting around a room waiting for their leader to tell them what to do are eerily reminiscent of Moonie life in the early 1960s, demonstrating the power of fantasy and horror to tap into the cultural zeitgeist. The climax is genuinely heart-stopping, as we wonder how Daniel can be “deprogrammed” without dying. This would make a fascinating if unconventional double-bill with the cult sleeper Ticket to Heaven (1981).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Highly effective sets, costumes, and make-up



  • Atmospheric cinematography
  • Noel Willman as Dr. Ravna
  • The surprising yet innovative ending

Must See?
Yes, as one of Hammer Studios’ best outings, and a uniquely timely take on the vampire genre.

Categories

  • Good Show

Links:

From Mao to Mozart (1981)

From Mao to Mozart (1981)

Comments 1 comment

“Music is not black and white. It is every color — and even some that painters don’t have.”

Synopsis:
Virtuoso violinist Isaac Stern travels through China three years after the end of the Cultural Revolution, giving concerts and master classes.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • China
  • Documentary
  • Musicians

Review:
This Oscar-winning documentary chronicles the first collaboration between an American musician and the China Central Symphony Society (now known as the China National Symphony Orchestra) — a historical moment perhaps not fully appreciated today, when U.S. relations between China are strained but ongoing, and we have seen countless Chinese musicians embarking on international careers. In 1979, however, when Stern visited Peking and Shanghai, he saw young students just emerging from years of cultural repression, playing “western” classical music with immense technical skill and passion but without personal ownership or deep insight into the music itself. While there’s an inevitable sense throughout the film of a white male Westerner coming to China to “fix” Asians’ musical sensibility (and, in one case, force them to provide him and his accompanist with a more suitable piano!):

this is thankfully moderated by several factors, including Stern’s irrepressible, toothy enthusiasm and talent; stunning footage of highly gifted young musicians; and a powerful strand of cultural context and history woven into the narrative, primarily through a moving interview with violin maker Tan Shuzhen (who survived the Cultural Revolution).

Note: Interested viewers should definitely watch the half-hour follow-up documentary (included on the DVD) in which Stern returns to Beijing 20 years later and we’re privy to interviews with many of the young musicians profiled in the film. It’s interesting to see that Stern became a bit more crotchety and impatient in his later years, though he conceded that Chinese musicians had become much more proficient since his last visit.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Isaac Stern’s enjoyable presence and musicality
  • An uplifting tale of cultural connection after years of division


  • Tan Shuzhen’s story of surviving the Cultural Revolution
  • Chinese children playing with passion and immense skill


Must See?
Yes, as an uplifting and enjoyable Oscar-winner.

Categories

  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

Dementia 13 / Haunted and the Hunted, The (1963)

Dementia 13 / Haunted and the Hunted, The (1963)

Comments 1 comment

“Castle Haloran is a bit perplexing — a very strange place, really, old and musty; the kind of place you’d expect a ghost to like to wander around in.”

Synopsis:
A woman (Luana Anders) whose husband (Peter Read) dies from a sudden heart attack dumps his body in a lake and attends a gathering at the castle-home of his mother (Ethne Dunn), who has been in continuous mourning since the drowning death of her young daughter Kathleen (Barbara Dowling) years earlier. Anders soon learns that Read’s brother Billy (Bart Patton) is equally haunted by Kathleen’s death but his brother Richard (William Campbell) — a temperamental artist — would prefer to bury the incident and simply marry his lovely American fiancee (Mary Mitchel). Meanwhile, the family’s longtime doctor (Patrick Magee) hopes to resolve Dunn’s perpetual angst by getting to the bottom of Kathleen’s tragic death.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Francis Ford Coppola Films
  • Horror Films
  • Inheritance
  • Murder Mystery
  • Old Dark House
  • Roger Corman Films
  • Serial Killer

Response to Peary’s Review:
This reasonably effective low-budget serial killer flick is primarily notable as the first “mainstream picture” directed by Francis Ford Coppola, who “was working as Roger Corman’s soundman in Ireland during filming of The Young Racers when he wrote this horror script in three nights”, “got Corman to match his $20,000 investment, borrowed the stars from Corman’s film”, and used “a Dublin castle and estate as his main setting”. Peary writes that he finds “the story hopelessly confusing”, but I must say I disagree: in typical whodunit fashion, there are plenty of red herrings and mysterious passages throughout the film, but they all clearly build towards a “big reveal” of how and why Dowling died, and which of the many suspicious characters has turned into a vicious axe murderer in an attempt to hide the truth. Peary does acknowledge that “the horror sequences are very exciting”, and that the initial death of a main character “is [an] extremely well done”, “gory, creepy sequence” that is also “erotic and poetically filmed.” He further notes that “the composition on night shots is extremely impressive”. It’s fun to see Coppola’s explicit narrative nod to Psycho (1960) as well as other “Old Dark House” films.

Note: Peary puzzles over the film’s odd title, which has since been clarified: an earlier cult film was already named Dementia (1955), so 13 was added “to get the film played on the 13th of each month” (according to an interview by Coppola with James Lipton).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Fine direction by Coppola
  • Atmospheric cinematography
  • Excellent use of authentic locales
  • Ronald Stein’s score

Must See?
Yes, as Coppola’s impressive debut film.

Categories

  • Important Director

Links:

Inheritors, The (1983)

Inheritors, The (1983)

Comments 1 comment

“Let us build a new fatherland. It is time we awoke from this vile coma!”

Synopsis:
A teenager (Nikolas Vogel) with emotionally abusive parents befriends a rebellious motorcyclist (Roger Schauer) and finds himself increasingly drawn into Schauer’s subculture of fascism and neo-Nazi ideology.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Coming of Age
  • German Films
  • Nazis

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “terrifying, important” film — about “how in present-day Germany and Austria bored, alienated, out-of-work youths are joining neo-Nazi organizations to find excitement, a sense of power and importance, sexual fulfillment (with Nazi groupies), and camaraderie” — “caused riots when first shown in Germany”: a reminder that the type of backlash uncovered in the 2006 documentary The Unknown Soldier (about a controversial museum exhibit showcasing war crimes by “ordinary” German soldiers) was already alive and well in the early 1980s. Given that right-wing ideologies continue to flourish in Europe, America, and elsewhere, The Inheritors — conceived after producer-director-screenwriter William Bannert “and some friends were attacked in a pub by a Nazi youth gang” — feels, sadly, more relevant than ever. Unfortunately, it’s a flawed film, with overly simplistic home lives presented for its two main characters, and weirdly “exploitive” [sic] sex scenes that make it inappropriate to show to younger viewers. But it’s worth a one-time look if you stumble upon a copy.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • A frightening look at neo-Nazi ideology continuing to flourish

Must See?
No, though it’s worth checking out for one-time viewing if the topic is of interest.

Links:

Slime People, The (1963)

Slime People, The (1963)

Comments 1 comment

“It looks as if the slime people have won — for now.”

Synopsis:
A pilot (Robert Hutton) landing in fog-filled Los Angeles learns from a professor (Robert Burton) and his two daughters (Susan Hart and Judee Morton) that the city has been overrun by reptilian Slime Men emerging from underneath the ground. Joined by a Marine (William Boyce), the small group of survivors attempts to fight back against the monsters while developing romantic relationships.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Mutant Monsters
  • Science Fiction
  • Survival

Review:
Appropriately lampooned by MST3K, this clunker of a low-budget ’50s monster flick is hard to watch — literally. About half the movie is filmed in a deep (deliberate) mist of fog meant to represent a solidified wall constructed by the Slime Men, thus leaving audiences simply listening to the characters interacting and guessing at who’s on set. The monsters’ costumes are the most effective element of the film by far (see still below), and they’re revealed within the first few minutes, making it unnecessary to sit through the rest unless you’re a serious fan of awful cinema.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • The effective monster costumes (which apparently consumed half the film’s ~$80K budget)

Must See?
No; definitely feel free to skip this one. Listed as a Camp Classic in the back of Peary’s book.

Links: