I Confess (1953)

While not every film that Alfred Hitchcock ever made was a flawless masterpiece, if you ask me a good majority of them were, and the ones that aren’t are damn close to being so. That’s why the term “lesser Hitchcock” has always made me chuckle a bit. It’s been said numerous times over the years by many, myself on here included, that these so called “lesser” films of Hitchcock more often than not wipe the floor with the work of other directors considered to be their very best. Case in point, I Confess. Sandwiched in between the more popular Strangers On a Train (1951) and Dial M For Murder (1954), I wouldn’t go so far as to call I Confess “obscure”, but it does appear to be one of Hitchcock’s least discussed films, at least by more casual film fans that may only know of the bigger names in his body of work, which is a shame as I Confess deserves to be a part of any Hitchcock fans collection. Based on a play that Hitchcock first saw performed in the 1930’s, I Confess was a very personal project for Hitchcock considering the subject matter and his Catholic upbringing, Hitchcock had been toying with the idea of brining the play to the screen for at least 14 years before the project finally got the green light. Again, as is the case with a lot of the films to get the “lesser Hitchcock” tag, I Confess is a brilliant piece of work, exactly the type of film that dare I say only Hitchcock could have pulled off this effectively.

When an attempted robbery results in murder, the man responsible, Otto Keller,  immediately retreats to the church where he works as a caretaker/handyman of sorts and confesses the crime to Father Michael Logan (Montgomery Clift). When the police begin to investigate the crime, all the circumstantial evidence points to Father Logan as the murderer, however do to the rules of the confessional privilege, that is a priest cannot divulge anything that is said during confession, Father Logan is unable to speak out in his own defense. When Ruth Grandfort (Anne Baxter), an old flame goes to the police in an attempt to clear Father Logan’s name, her plan backfires as she not only fuels the police’s case against Father Logan, but implicates herself in scandal in the process.

I Confess may be one of Hitchcock’s more low key films but it quickly reveals itself to be no less gripping than his more widely seen works. All the classic Hitchcock elements are in play here. You’ve got murder, the wrong man accused, blackmail, scandal, and of course, repression. What makes I Confess a bit different from other Hitchcock films is the way Hitch puts all these devices to work. Not many filmmakers can get away with having all the seemingly crucial information regarding a murder spelled out for the audience within the first 10 minutes of the film, but Hitchcock uses the murder as a primer to build additional drama and keeps piling on intrigue after intrigue. In a way it’s somewhat similar to what he did 5 years earlier with Rope (1948). The suspense you’ve come to expect from Hitchcock is ever present, but it’s a different kind of suspense, if you will. Really an interesting way of telling a story, and in the wrong hands has the potential to horribly misfire. Hitchcock’s mastery of audience manipulation is on display beautifully here, tricking you into thinking the film is going in one direction than taking a sharp left turn so it’s hard to not be completely engaged for every frame. Another aspect of the film that makes it stand out  bit is the humor that Hitchcock was known for usually injecting into this films is all but gone here, although with the heaviness of the material, it might have seemed a tad out of place, so the absence is understandable.

One thing that’s apparent throughout the entirety of I Confess is nobody utilized the black and white medium quite like Hitchcock. Very much a film of shadows,  it’s obvious Hitch really had fun playing around with the lighting here, as evidenced in the films ominous noir-like opening complete with the aforementioned shadows, including a large silhouette projected on stone wall and the outline of a shady character walking down a dark alley in the night (wearing a black derby and long black coat of course). Other times Hitchcock will only light certain portions of a scene, such as focusing on Clift standing in the middle of an extravagantly decorated altar while also highlighting the section of the massive cathedral ceiling hovering above Clift in an otherwise pitch black church. Naturally the film is overflowing with Catholic iconography and visual metaphors which take center stage during a particular memorable sequence involving Father Logan contemplating his fate. The visuals in the film tell just as much a story as the actors, oftentimes representing the mood of the characters, which would account for the overt darkness on display. It’s as if Hitchcock wants that preverbal dark cloud following Father Logan around to follow the audience as well. In sharp contrast to this is the segment of Baxter’s character of Ruth reminiscing about the past, which has a very soft, light and romantic look. The film was mostly shot on location in the gorgeous city of Quebec, and as a much welcomed added visual bonus Hitchcock takes great pleasure in showcasing the cities old world-esque architecture.

For 1953, a lot of the film’s thematic elements were considered quite taboo, and indeed Hitchcock found himself at odds with not only the Hayes Production Code but also with some church officials where he originally had intended to shoot some of the film who had some major issues with the original script which was very faithful to the play and demanded changes be made. The film even found itself banned in Ireland. What’s also not surprising are the stories of Hitchcock constantly butting heads with star Montgomery Clift during the production as Clift was a method actor which drove Hitchcock nuts, something he would encounter again later in his career with Paul Newman during the production of the equally underrated Torn Curtain (1966). Probably the most famous anecdote involves the filming a scene which had Father Logan simply approaching another character taking well over 2 hours to shoot because Clift wanted to get the mannerisms just right. Whatever Clift’s methods were, they paid off big time, resulting in a phenomenal performance, really one of the best leading men Hitchcock ever had in a film that deserves way more recognition than it gets. I Confess might be missing Hitchcock’s unique brand of humor and while the film might not feature one stand out scene that has gone down in cinematic history ala North By Northwest (1959) or Psycho (1960), as it stands, the film really doesn’t need one. In the grand scheme of things, I Confess should be considered essential Hitchcock.

The Guardian (1990)

If you’ve read my musings on Rampage (1987), Bug (2006) and Killer Joe (2012) then you’ve probably guessed that I’m a big William Friedkin fan. One of the things that I’ve always admired about Friedkin is despite being one of the most well known and established names in film, the last thing you could describe him as is being “in the system”. If you’ve ever read, listened to or watched an interview with the man you know that he’s always quick to call out the studios on their bullshit as well as openly voice his displeasure with the reliance of lame trends in current American cinema. He doesn’t make films with the thought of box office receipts or being commercially appealing in mind. To call The Guardian one of his least popular films would possibly be one of the biggest understatements of this young year. When this film was released in 1990, it was Friedkin’s return to pure horror after 17 years. That alone meant the film was already working at a disadvantage. Think about it, no matter what type of film he could have decided to make within the genre, be it a slasher, a ghost story or what have you, ultimately it was going to end up being unfairly compared to The Exorcist (1973). Of course leave it to Friedkin to come out with something so out of left field such as The Guardian. I’ve seen this film get more than a fair amount of shit flung it’s way over the years and surprise surprise, I’m going to come to it’s defense.

Young couple Phil (Dwier Brown) and Kate (former Bond girl Carey Lowell) have just celebrated the birth of their son Jake. After interviewing several potential nannies, the two finally settle on the charming Camilla (Jenny Seagrove). On the surface, Camilla seems to be the perfect caregiver, taking care of not only baby Jake but the cooking and housework as well. Unbeknownst to Phil and Kate however, Camilla isn’t exactly human, as she’s a druid, supernaturally liked to a tree with an evil spirit housed inside of it, who’s life-force is fueled by the pure blood of infants, and Camilla has plans for baby Jake that include much more than diaper changing and naptime.

Not to sound condescending although I’m sure it’ll come off as such no matter how I word it, but my response to those who dismiss The Guardian simply based on the, as they put it, “ridiculous plot” is suspension of disbelief anyone? I will grant you that yes, the idea of sacrificing a baby to an evil tree is a bit loopy, but there are films out there, and I’m not just talking about horror/fantasy films, that require you to set logic aside a lot more than this one. The Guardian could best be described as a nightmarish, surreal fairytale, and it’s one of those situations where if you just go with it the experience will probably be a lot more rewarding. I’m not going to lie, along with this being a Freidkin film it was the film’s outright weirdness that attracted me to it. Love it or hate it you have to at least admire the films sheer bizarreness, it’s defiantly one of the more out there genre films you’ll ever see. Setting aside all the films eccentricities for a moment, the characters of Phil and Kate are established right off the bat as likable people, and Friedkin employees the device of having the audience know more than the characters making them even more sympathetic. Then of course, there’s Camilla. Really a one of a kind horror villain, Jenny Seagrove nails it in the role. The woman is alluring beyond belief, possessing an undeniable magnetism that draws you to her character immediately, not to mention her enticing accent and menacing coyote minions that appear out of nowhere!

The Guardian certainly gave Friedkin license to flex his stylistic muscle, putting off ominous vibes from the very first frame. The film is thickly coated in atmosphere, atmosphere aided immensely by the cinematography. There’s a ton of blue in the film which works winders during all of the nighttime shots. If there’s a scene taking place in the woods at night, rest assured it’s going to look fantastic, such as the shot of Camilla “becoming one”, I suppose is how you would describe it, with the tree being surrounded by her coyotes. The tree itself and all it’s surroundings are all quite sinister looking which only pile onto the dark fantasy-esque mood of the film, made even more striking by the sight of infant faces which appear to be frozen in mid scream/cry carved into the wood. Friedkin even threw in a nice hallucinatory dream sequence, which despite it being completely obvious that it was just that, a dream sequence, totally fit the aura of the film. There was obviously a good sized budget behind the film, aside from a few instances I don’t really think any of the effects look particularly dated at all. The actual tree effects are well done and whenever the tree attacks it’s simply a blast to watch (ever see someone decapitated by the tree branch?). Friedkin doesn’t skimp out on the gore either, whether it be during the first time we see the tree in action or a vicious coyote attack. Then there’s of course the films blood drenched, “bleeding tree” finale. Quite the sight to behold if you ask me.

The Guardian was released on DVD in 1999 courtesy of Anchor Bay but it’s since gone long out of print and commands a pretty astronomically (read that as unnecessarily) high price these days. Said DVD contains a commentary from Friedkin which would really be interesting to listen to seeing as you hardly hear him ever mention the film. Jenny Seagrove’s memories of the film unfortunately not so fond, stating in a 2007 interview with, how appropriate, the Guardian: "It was about this druid nanny who became a tree. I begged Universal to make it about a real nanny who kidnaps babies. “No, no, we can't do that,” they said, “the thirtysomethings in America won't come and see the film.” I said, “I think you're completely wrong, this film is total fantasy, and it's just awful”. She also claimed that “the screenplay was appalling” and that it was “written on the hoof”. That’s a shame as she really is fantastic in the film. Perhaps she’s changed her mind since then. Oh well. I realize that I’ll probably forever be in the minority when it comes to thinking The Guardian is awesome, but I’m in the minority when it comes to most things regarding film anyways. So be it. It might not have had viewers fainting in their seats or exiting the theatre en mass in hysterics, but it’s a unique film that has a lot to offer visually and has more original ideas and creativity behind it than the last 5 genre films I’ve seen TV spots for. Haters gonna hate as the saying goes.

Killer Joe (2012)

Chances are if you’ve somehow stumbled onto my lowly corner of the internet you’ve probably guessed that I don’t make it out to the movie theater all too often, and you would be correct in that assumption. So naturally when the rare occasion arises that a new film comes out that I actually want to go to the cinema to see, the film in question, Killer Joe, get’s a ridiculously limited theatrical run in the US on account of it‘s NC-17 rating, only playing in very select theaters  none of which were anywhere near me. From the second this film came to my knowledge, Killer Joe had “me” written all over it. Not only was it the new film from William Friedkin, but it was the new film from William Friedkin written by Tracy Letts, the same team that brought us the underappreciated and still quite frankly misunderstood Bug (2006), which I consider to be one of the very best films in recent memory and has subsequently became my favorite Friedkin film. Just like Bug, Killer Joe was based on a play by Letts, his first in fact, and promised to be something very different to anything else happening in film these days, quickly gaining a word of mouth reputation on the festival circuit which only made me more eager to finally see it. I’m positively giddy to say that not only were my high expectations met, but were exceeded beyond the beyond as Friedkin and Letts did it again as the saying goes, making one of the best and most memorable films of the last decade.

Desperate and in debt to some seriously bad guys, Chris Smith (Emile Hirsch) approaches his father Ansel (Thomas Haden Church) with the idea of putting a hit out on his estranged mother, the owner of a very inciting life insurance policy, by hiring “Killer” Joe Cooper (Matthew McConaughey), a detective who doubles as a hitman to do the deed. Unable to front Joe’s advance, Joe proposes the idea of taking Chris’ younger sister Dottie (Juno Temple) as a retainer until payment can be made. Reluctantly, Chris and Ansel agree along with Ansel‘s wife Sharla (Gina Gerson), Chris‘ stepmother, although a wrench is thrown into the operation causing the plans of all parties involved to go wrong. Horribly, horribly wrong.  

It didn’t take long for Killer Joe to become infamous due to a scene involving Gina Gershon and a piece of fried chicken, and although the film is indeed gleefully fucked up in parts, making no apologies for it, rest assured that the film consists of so much more than just shock value for shock value’s sake. First and foremost Tracy Letts is a brilliant writer with a real knack for creating interesting characters. Characters that may be completely despicable in one way or another, but you’ll sure love spending time with them, most likely due to their eccentricities, which is exactly the case when it comes to the Smith clan. Easily the most dysfunctional “family unit” this side of my old neighbors, it really is fascinating to watch these people make one horrible decision after another, the way they react to certain situations and their “interactions” with each other, IE hurling insults at one another that would possibly make even Jerry Springer blush, the altercation between Chris and Sharla early on in the film being a standout. The film could easily be described as the blackest comedy since Man Bites Dog (1992). While the film’s depraved sense of humor obviously isn’t going to be everyone’s bucket of K Fried C, if it is than you’re going to have a field day. There are instances, the chicken scene in particular not to mention the dozy of a finale, where many will be unsure whether or not to gasp in horror or piss themselves with laughter, or do both at the same time. Exactly the reaction Friedkin and Letts were going for I’m sure.

Once again Friedkin hit the jackpot in the casting department. If I were to dedicate a section of this to each member of the cast, that in itself would be 5 paragraphs long so I’ll try and keep it as condensed as possible. Anybody who’s seen the film can attest to the fact that Matthew McConaughey puts on a clinic of epic proportions, a performance that’s destined to become iconic and from the looks of things it’s already starting to become just that. The key word when discussing McConaughey’s performance is stealth. Joe isn’t a ranting, raving lunatic frothing at the mouth or anything like that. McConaughey gives a suave, calm and collected performance, leaving the audience to guess just what Joe capable of, and when the crucial moment arrives when he demonstrates his true colors,  maximum impact is felt. He has the ability to change the tone of any scene on a dime, going from funny to awkward to incredibly tense in the span of seconds with ease. While Emile Hirsch, Thomas Haden Church, who’s comic timing in the film is perfect, and Gina Gershon, who really outdoes herself here, going places most actresses probably wouldn’t even consider going, all kill it (pun defiantly intended) in their roles, knocking it out of the park, if there’s one member of the ensemble who stands out alongside McConaughey, it’s Juno Temple. Temple is not only convincing as the dimwitted (yet we get the sense that she’s the wisest person in the Smith family trailer) Dottie, but her character is probably the most interesting in the entire film, alongside Joe of course.

Again, Killer Joe was released with the NC-17 rating in tow as Friedkin refused to cave to  the MPAA stating "Cutting would not have made it mass appeal. Cutting it would have been the equivalent of what members of the United States government and military leaders said about the Vietnam War. They said, "We have to destroy Vietnam in order to save it," and that's what I would have done to Killer Joe. To get an R rating, I would have had to destroy it in order to save it and I wasn't interested in doing that." Even still when the film hit disc late last month Lion’s Gate opted to release 2 separate versions of the film, fully uncut and a toned down R rated cut, which I guarantee was just to appease certain retail outlets and something else I found odd was some sites had the R rated version available for pre-order before the uncensored version! Not that it matters now though, what does matter is that the director’s cut is fully available for everybody to see, and see it you should. The sooner the better. You know, the way things are in American cinema these days, it’s really inspiring to know that films like Killer Joe are still being made by a maverick director not giving 2 shits about commercial appeal and a fearless cast willing to go for it with reckless abandon. Just like I did with Bug, I can’t recommend Killer Joe enough, and every chance I get you bet I’m going to preach it’s gospel. This, as the kids say, is where it’s at.

The Whip and the Body (1963)

AKA The Whip and the Flesh and What

Normally I like to start off these damned things with an intro of some sort, preferring to not jump right into a plot synopsis. It just seems more, I don’t know, “proper”, I suppose to me (I guess you could say that’s one good thing I took away from high school English class). Normally, I’ve been pretty lucky in this department but for the life of me I could not think of an intro of any kind for this film. I’ve even put off writing this on a few occasions in the hopes that something would come to me but alas, nothing. I know it’s just for a dumb blog and I’m probably over thinking something that I’m sure most would view as trivial but I’m weird like that. It is what it is. Therefore, in this instance, I’m admitting defeat (I can probably see this happening in the future as well). Consider this rambling a cop out for the lack of a proper intro. I think I’ve stalled long enough, so let’s get into it, my all time favorite Mario Bava film, The Whip and the Body!

After being banished for causing the suicide of a servant he seduced and subsequently abandoned, Kurt Menliff (Christopher Lee) returns to his family’s seaside castle upong hearing the news that Nevenka (Daliah Lavi), the woman that was once promised to him is now married to his brother Christian (Tony Kendall). It isn’t long after Kurt’s return that he and Nevenka find themselves revisiting their favorite pastime, with Nevenka being on the receiving end of Kurt’s whip, although later that night Kurt is mysteriously murdered in his room. Soon after Kurt’s funeral however, Nevenka beings to see Kurt appear to her in her room at night, and the whippings being again, and although nobody believes Nevenka and her ghost stories at first, soon Kurt’s presence begins to be felt throughout the entire castle.

A ghost story/murder mystery complete with major psychological and sadomasochistic overtones, The Whip and the Body (La frusta e il corpo) is certainly made up of an odd collection of ingredients seemingly on the opposite ends of the spectrum, but it works, and works well. One of the major keys to the success of the film is how well balanced it is, in the sense that neither one of the aforementioned elements override one or the other, they’re all working hand in hand to create a truly unique film experience, I doubt you’ll see anything else even remotely like it. The mystery element is pretty standard at first, following most of the classic whodunit motifs (it’s been said that portions of it could be considered proto giallo) IE who was where and with who when such and such happened, but as the film progresses it becomes something else entirely when taking the ghost story elements into consideration. Far from your average spirit haunting a castle story, the ghost story is unquestionably one of the most enticing devices of the film, as it’s simpatico with the psychological and S&M aspects. The character of Nevenka is a fascinating one, and Bava uses Kurt’s spirit as a primer of sorts to explore Nevenka’s complex range emotions regarding her relationship with Kurt and her masochistic personality, as well as the fear that, even in death, Kurt still seems to strike in those in the castle. On top of all that, Bava even manages to take the film into romantic and tragic territories at times, which both fit right in with all attributes of the story. One dimensional this film isn’t.

Do forgive me for using the tired saying the film looking like a painting come to life, but when taking into consideration the barrage of beautiful, beautiful colors which Bava showcases mere seconds after the opening credits, plus the lighting and cinematography, I’ll be damned if that saying wasn’t specifically invented for a film like this. Throughout the film Bava particularly shows an affinity for red, blue and green (amongst many others of course) using said colors to create some incredibly striking images, some of the most memorable in his entire filmography in fact, such as Kurt’s green ghost hand lurching towards the screen out of the darkness, or in one sequence choosing to present the face of Kurt as a sharp, ghastly yet gorgeous shade of crimson. There’s plenty of substance to go along with all the style as Bava took full advantage of the fact that when the events of the story take a turn for the delirious it gave the visuals and the sound design license to do so as well, such as Nevenka constantly hearing sounds resembling lashes of a whip, pretty much any scene taking place within Kurt’s tomb, and my personal favorite, the shot of a vine apparently “whipping” in the wind. The castle setting, complete with secret passages is not only prime for the whodunit subplot, but the gothic atmosphere that naturally comes with such a place couldn’t have been more fitting for the ghost story. Bava also threw in some nice beach shots for added beauty, the same beach by the way that he would later return to for the underappreciated Five Dolls For an August Moon (1970).

Along with the mystery going on in the story, there’s a few other things regarding the film that I’ve always found to be somewhat mysterious. First, why Christopher Lee’s lines were dubbed over post production, when it’s obvious they were done in English. To be perfectly honest, the dubbed voice doesn’t really sound all that different than Lee’s natural voice and it never affects the film or Lee’s performance in a negative way, but it just seems so unnecessary. Secondly, why the film was released in the U.S. under the alternate title What. Why? There’s been some strange alternate titles given to a lot of films over the years, but What sure as hell takes the cake for the most bizarre. Finally, just how badly the film was butchered by the censors when it was first released. Watching the fully uncut version today you’ll probably be left scratching your head wondering what was considered so offensive, but take offense people did, and certain scenes that were absolutely essential to the story were cut. What’s even more surprising is how lenient and more liberal Europe is considered to be when it comes to things of that nature, but I guess for 1963 the film went too far. As I stated above, The Whip and the Body is my favorite Bava film, as to me, every single one of Bava’s strength’s as a filmmaker are on display here. Couple that with the original storyline, one of Christopher Lee’s most imposing performances and Daliah Lavi’s dumbfounding beauty, you’ve got a masterpiece. It’s considered by many to be Bava’s best work, and while a statement like that is bound to cause debate, I share that mindset.

Castle Freak (1995)

As quick as a lot of people are to dump on the 90’s referring to it as a “down” time for horror, I’m always as quick to jump to said decades defense. On one hand, I can somewhat understand the discouragement if we’re talking post-Scream (1996) when it literally did seem like every genre film being released was a copycat featuring the hottest teen stars of the day. On the other hand, prior to Scream there were basically no bandwagons to be hopped on and the early to mid 90’s had more than it’s fair share of gems. The thing was though, looking back a lot of these films didn’t fare so well in theaters and therefore had to wait until they hit home video to really find their audience, or they went direct to video, a market which was in fill swing by the mid 90’s. That was one of the coolest things about going to video stores, finding these aforementioned gems that you might have missed in the theater (most likely due to poor distribution, a number of films that were actually lucky enough to have a theatrical run may as well have just gone DTV) or stumbling upon a DTV flick out of the blue. Enter Castle Freak, one such discovery. Directed by Stuart Gordon and staring cohorts Jeffery Combs and Barbara Crampton, Castle Freak went DTV courtesy of Charles Band’s Full Moon Entertainment, (who had the DTV market cornered and were really at the forefront of it), and it would subsequently become not only my favorite stand alone Full Moon film, but also my personal favorite of the Gordon, Combs and Crampton collaborations.

John Reilly (Combs), his wife Susan (Crampton) and their blind daughter Rebecca (Jessica Dollarhide) travel to Italy after receiving the news that John has inherited a castle which he was an heir too from the Duchess who had previously lived in the castle. Although arriving as a family, relations between John and Susan are tense, with Susan holding a deep resentment towards John as some months prior John, a recovering alcoholic, was involved in a drunk driving accident which not only resulted in the blinding of their daughter but the death of their son JJ. Not long after arriving, the Reilly’s realize their not alone in the castle when Giorgio (Jonathan Fuller), the hideously deformed son of the late Duchess has broken free from the castle’s basement dungeon where the Duchess kept him chained and whipped him on a daily basis for 40 years, and begins making his presence known, bringing to light a dark family secret in the process.

I love it when a film not only exceeds expectations but takes whatever preconceived notions you may have had about it and throws them right out the window. I’m fairly certain that most would assume a film entitled “Castle Freak” released by Full Moon to be B movie schlock, but it’s the kind of film that just might have you asking yourself “just where the hell did that come from?!” by the time the end credits roll. Castle Freak is as well rounded as they come, serving up it’s horror with a surprising side order of drama and tragedy, and the one thing that always stands out every time I watch it is just how strong the dramatic elements are, never once coming across as ham handed or spilling over into overly melodramatic territory, which is quite the feat considering some of the subject matter. John’s alcoholism, the death of JJ, the blinding of Rebecca and John’s guilt over everything, the domestic issues between John and Susan and the way it effects Rebecca, not to mention the titular freaks tragic back story and the way it intertwines with John’s emotional pain and memories of his son. It’s pretty heavy stuff, and in the wrong hands could have easily been fucked up royally, but this is Combs and Crampton we’re talking about here. Combs in particular puts on a clinic, really showing what he’s made of delivering not only a heartfelt but dare I say complex performance. The same could be said about Crampton in the sense that while you’ll legitimately feel for John, yet all the while understand where Susan is coming from, never forgetting just why she harbors such  harsh feelings. Together, the two are the definition of chemistry, coming off like a legitimate dysfunctional married couple, and it’s performances like theirs that help put Castle Freak on another level.

Make no mistake though, even with the dramatics Castle Freak is first and foremost a horror film, a grim and at times quite nasty one at that. While the film as a whole isn’t a wall to wall bloodletting, when the violence does hit, it stings, including the unfortunate fate of a cat and the now infamous encounter between the freak and a prostitute which I’m sure will temp a few viewers to look in a different direction. The full body freak make up is absolutely phenomenal, still one of the best make up jobs I’ve ever seen on film. To paraphrase Combs from the making of Videozone segment on the film, if you’ve ever wondered what someone who was chained in a basement and routinely beaten for 40 years would look like, this film gives you pretty good idea. Gordon was wise to wait until exactly the right moment to showcase the freak in full, opting to obscure portions of his frame using shadows,  projecting his figure as a silhouette on the walls or just having him covered by a sheet, gradually building anticipation, and man does it pay off big time when we finally get a good look at Giorgio. Even when the freak is fully exposed Gordon still cleverly plays around with the lighting, even staging the finale during a thunderstorm complete with heavy rain, a masterstroke as the freak manages to look even more incredible in the blue light which is so prevalent during the sequence along with the rain and flashing lightning. Nothing but respect is deserved for Jonathan Fuller, the man behind the make up who not only spent around 6 hours in the make up chair, but who’s mannerisms as the freak will make you ache just watching, and despite having no lines of dialogue, his vocalizations and agonizing moans are more than enough to give you shivers.

Another thing to point out about the film is that the humor that Gordon is known to inject into his film is virtually absent here (aside from one instance where the freak pretends to disguise himself as a piece of furniture), and understandably so. Honestly I’ve always felt that had Gordon tried to sprinkle on some comic relief it would have came across as distracting and would have felt out of place considering the films overall bleak tone. As much as I love the film, I do have to admit that there’s always been one small aspect of the film that I think I’ll forever take issue with, and it’s a perfect example of just how crucial the soundtrack is to a film. Late in the film there is a segment where the music in question is way to upbeat, almost playful sounding for it’s own good and doesn’t mesh with the intensity happening on the screen at all. It should have been way more ominous sounding. Aside from that bit of nitpicking I’d say Castle Freak is a damn near flawless film, bringing so much more to the table than most “creature features” in terms of performances, directing, make up and effects not to mention dealing with certain thematic elements that most films of it’s ilk don’t even attempt to touch. All things considered, Castle Freak is unquestionably a cut above the rest. Not just one of the best direct to video horror films, not just one of (if not THE) best Full Moon films, not just one of the best horror films of the 90’s, but one of the best horror films in general that any genre fan should seek out if you’ve yet to see it.

5 Dolls For an August Moon (1970)

AKA Island of Terror

Could it be that I’ve been operating this damn site for the better part of a year and have yet to discuss a Mario Bava film? It would appear so. Not that there’s any particular reason for that but lets be honest, you really don’t need me to tell you that Black Sunday (1960), Black Sabbath (1963), and Blood and Black Lace (1964) amongst many others are brilliant. Hundreds of others have already done so and have said it ten times better than I ever could. Having said that, I still don’t think a site like this would be “complete” with out at least one Bava flick in the archives, and even still I didn’t want it to be an obvious one either. While nowhere near as obscure as it was once considered to be thanks to DVD, 5 Dolls For an August Moon does seem to be an oddity in Bava’s filmography. Bava himself hated the film as he wasn’t fond of the script at all and the film was rushed into production so fast he literally had no prep time. Fans seem to be torn every which way when it comes to this film. There are those who love it, those who share Bava’s point of view and hate it, then there are those who are totally bewildered by it and aren’t sure what to think. Of all the stances one could take on this film, the third one is probably the most understandable as 5 Dolls is quite the head scratcher. Personally, I find myself in the first and third categories. Despite having revisited it several times after first watching it, there are still some things about it I still don’t fully comprehend, yet the film possesses an undeniable oddball charm, one that immediately drew me in and continues to warrant repeated viewings.

Millionaire industrialist George Stark has invited several of his fellow wealthy friends along with their wives and mistresses (one of which happens to be Euro goddess Edwige Fenech) to his island home for the weekend. The guest of honor is Professor Gerry Farrell, a scientist who has just discovered a revolutionary new formula for an industrial synthetic resin. Still in mourning over the loss of his partner who died during the development of the formula, Professor Ferrell isn’t interested in selling, although George and his fellow businessmen all want the formula and are making huge offers. Tensions soon grow as each man outbids and out offers the other. When George’s houseboy suddenly turns up dead and the boats which are the only means of leaving the island disappear out of the blue everybody is quick to point fingers, although the group quickly becomes smaller in numbers as more and more bodies begin to end up hanging in the freezer.


French poster and VHS under the Island of Terror (L'ile de l'epouvante)
title




With a title like “5 Dolls For an August Moon” (5 bambole per la luna d'agosto) you’d probably expect this film to be pure giallo, and while it does contain certain giallo elements, it wouldn’t be fair to classify it a such. It also wouldn’t be fair to call it a straightforward murder mystery either because to be honest this film isn’t really a straightforward anything. It’s as much a black comedy as it is a mystery/thriller, and “straightforward” is the last way you’d describe the way the film goes about it‘s business. With a storyline like this, there’s bound to be at least some intrigue, and indeed there is once we get to know these characters and all their eccentricities, so there is the feeling that it really could be anyone in the group, as most are pretty shady characters. The film does a good job at keeping you totally in the dark when it comes to the killers identity as the majority of the murders happen off screen, and along the way we’re thrown a real curveball making things even more confusing, and the sense that there could even possibly be more than one killer will possibly spring to mind. As I said above it’s the films overt quirkiness that kept me interested, and as the film gets weirder and weirder as it goes along the more you’ll wonder just where the hell it’s all going to end up, although once you get there there’s a chance you’ll be even more dumbfounded than you were while watching the film. Of course there’s also the darkly comedic elements, stemming from the nonchalant “another dead body, in the freezer you go” reaction the group has whenever finding one of their fallen friends, and it is chuckle inducing hearing the same piece of music played whenever the contents of the freezer are presented.

Soundtrack

Even if Bava wasn’t entirely behind the story it’s apparent that he cared enough to make the film look as good as possible. Right after the opening credits Bava begins the film on a strange note with an extended party scene featuring the cast of characters basically behaving like jackasses, giving us a pretty good idea at the type of people we’ll be spending the next hour and a half with, complete with delirious close up’s, zooms and Edwige doing a much welcomed enticing dance all the while Piero Umiliani’s sexy  psych-lounge plays overtop everything. Bava makes excellent use of the island and beach locations, not just in the sense that they’re naturally amazing looking, which they are, but the way Bava uses them as a backdrop for little things he added on the fly to make the film more visually appealing (more appealing than he probably thought it deserved to be) like for instance, a creatively displayed body, and Bava’s brilliant use of color (for this film the focus is on blue) shines through during the nighttime exterior shots. Bava also benefited from having already stylish looking interiors to shoot in. The design of Stark’s villa is quite the sight, very “chic” and “modern“, if you will, for the time I suppose. There’s also the way Bava chose to hang the dead bodies in the meat freezer, making them look like a collection of prime cuts wrapped in plastic. The film may have been made in 1970 but there is an obvious aura of leftover psychedelia from the previous decade lingering throughout the film, aided by Umiliani’s aforementioned score, which as any fan will tell you is along with Bava’s direction, a main selling point of the film.

When 5 Dolls was initially released in Europe in 1970 the reaction was pretty apathetic and it wasn’t until 31 years later when Image released the film on DVD as part of their Mario Bava collection did the film finally see an American release. Hey, I say a mixed reaction 31 years later is better than no reaction at all. Also this is a totally random tidbit of information (which seems appropriate when considering the film) but the legendary doom metal band Cathedral cleverly referenced the film (“Five dolls for an August moon, on this island I await my doom”) along with several other films featuring Edwige Fenech in their tribute tune to the queen of giallo movies “Edwige’s Eyes” on their 2010 album The Guessing Game. Have a listen here. There are those who will tell you 5 Dolls For an August Moon is for Bava completists only. I say that’s a bunch of hooey. Granted it might be one of his most difficult to get into 100% in full during just one viewing, but it’s far from his worst film as he often considered it to be, and just a good example as any of Bava’s mastery behind the camera. Even if you end up not liking the film as a whole, there is a good possibility that something about it that will stick with you, and you might just find that something compelling enough to revisit the film again and again, finding even more things to like each time you come back. Plus the fact that it’s a film directed by Mario Bava that features Edwige Fenech should be enough to make you want to check it out.

Rampage (1987)

I confess that I’ve always been one of “those” weird people who’s always had a morbid interest and curiosity when it comes to serial killers. I’ve done my fair share of reading over the years on most of the “big” ones (you know, Ed Gein, Richard “The Night Stalker” Ramirez, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Zodiac, Dennis Raider (BTK), and Gary Ridgway (the Green River killer) just to name a few) not to mention having watched countless interviews, documentaries and TV specials detailing their cases, trials and the frenzy that usually comes with them. Can’t help it, there will always be something fascinating to me about what makes these people tick, and I’m obviously not the only one when you consider the extensive and more often than not sensationalistic media coverage these types of cases normally get. William Friedkin’s criminally (pun intended) under seen Rampage was loosely based on the real life case of Richard Chase AKA “The Vampire of Sacramento”. I knew next to nothing about Chase and his crimes, but that didn’t matter one bit in regards to me wanting, wait, scratch that, needing to see this film. As if a film about a blood drinking serial killer directed by Friedkin wasn’t enough, add the fact that Ennio Morricone did the score and you’ve got material that needs to be seen much sooner than later. Friedkin fan’s have been all about Rampage for years, although as most fans will tell you, much like the majority of Friedkin’s post-Exorcist (1973) output, Rampage is a film that still needs to be seen much sooner than later by a greater number of people.

During the Christmas season of 1986 in the community of Stockton, California, Charles Reece (Alex McArthur), the seemingly normal all American boy next door type, snaps and goes on a murderous rampage, killing four people. As a result of suffering from paranoid delusions, Reece drinks his victim’s blood, mutilates the bodies and harvests the internal organs. He is subsequently captured and brought to trial. The defense is claiming insanity, although the prosecuting attorney Anthony Fraser (Michael Biehn) isn’t buying it, fearing that if Reece is found not guilty by reason of insanity there is a risk of him eventually being falsely declared “cured” by psychiatrists and re-released back into society. When faced with the brutality of Reece’s crimes and after meeting with the husband and son of one of the victims, Fraser vows to never let that happen and decides to seek the death penalty, going against his liberal beliefs, all the while coping with a personal tragedy of his own that has resurfaced as a result of the case.

Morricone's soundtrack

Part psycho-thriller, part courtroom drama, Rampage packs one hell of a punch. It’s a very balanced film in the sense that it gives us not only the visual horror of Reece’s crimes and their after effects, but the emotional horrors inflicted upon the victims (the time between Fraser and the husband of one of the victims is well spent) plus the moral tug of war we see Fraser go through by having his legal beliefs turned upside down. Fraser’s personal tragedy angle is played just right, giving us just the right amount of need to know information without interfering with the main storyline. For a film dealing with topics as heavy as the death penalty and the insanity plea, the film never comes across as preachy to me. Rather than being pro or anti, Freidkin treats the viewer as if they were a juror in the case, giving you the facts and having you form your own opinions regarding such issues. Friedkin presents everything with an in your face realism that’s quite raw and at times can downright nasty, mixed with moments of high style giving us a glimpse at Reece’s hallucinations where we briefly see though his eyes, and an expertly photographed scene taking place inside a church which makes particularly memorable use of the color red (the whole film makes particularly memorable usage out of that color as you can probably guess). Never once during the courtroom scenes did it feel like I was watching a movie. One scene always sticks out is when the defense attorney is grilling a psychiatrist testifying for the prosecution asking him if it’s true his nickname is “Dr. Death”. It may sound like a very cinematic and scripted line but I can totally see some hotshot lawyer making a statement like that hoping to get a sound byte or be quoted on the evening news. Morricone’s surprisingly subtle yet somber and unnerving  score works hand in hand with Friedkin’s visuals, amplifying the grim feelings of loss and grief felt throughout the entire film.

Something tells me Alex McArthur studied interview footage of real serial killers because everything from his mannerisms to his delivery is spot on. There’s almost a childlike quality to Reece which only fuels the question of his sanity in the legal sense of the word,  but then there’s also the way he calmly states, assembly knowing full well just what he’s saying, how he loves to cut people with a knife and watch their faces turn white, all the while with a smile on his own face. What’s even more striking is the resemblance he bears to the “Night Stalker” Richard Ramirez (who was captured two years before the film was shot) in the beginning parts of the film, what with the long hair and aviator sunglasses. Damn eerie. One of the greatest, most unheralded serial killer portrayals that’s for sure. Michael Biehn really gets to show off what he’s made of here, and I’d go so far as to call his performance in Rampage his finest hour. You’ll not only buy into the inner debate his character is going through, but feel it, particularly when his past comes into the picture. He especially shines during the trial sequences, always passionate, yet never once does he spill over into melodramatic territory. Totally pro. One of the coolest things about Rampage is it’s supporting cast which is made up of some pretty familiar faces such as legendary character actor Billy Green Bush who plays the judge overseeing the trial. To me though, he’s always be Jay Brown from the original Critters (1986). Twin Peaks fans will no doubt geek out over the presence of Grace Zabriskie, who plays Reece’s loopy prescription drug addled mother, and of course the son of one of Reece’s victims is played by Whit Hertford, probably best known to genre fans as Jacob, the titular “Dream Child” from A Nightmare on Elm Street 5 (1989).

Rampage had quite the release history. The film was shot in 1987 but before the film could make it to American theatres it’s distribution company De Laurentiis Entertainment Group went bankrupt which caused the film to be shelved. It wasn’t until 5 years later in 1992 that the film actually saw a theatrical release and even then it seemed to fly quietly under the radar. Before the film made it to cinemas, Friedkin went back and re-shot parts of the film and changed the ending. Having seen both versions, I can say that I much prefer the later version, as I felt the original ending was somewhat out of place and didn’t really mesh with the rest of the film and it’s harsh realism. Of course the film isn’t officially available on DVD in North America, only in Poland and I have no clue what version of the film is used. Normally I’m a pessimist when it comes to things like this, but there was a time when fans thought the chances of Friedkin’s infamous Cruising (1980) making it to disc were slim to none, but that finally received a worthy DVD release a few years back, so I’m a glass (of blood) half full guy when it comes to Rampage hopefully receiving the digital treatment one day, and I know I’m not alone in thinking that it’s long overdue. Rampage is a real kick in the balls, and I mean that as a compliment. It’s rare to see a film tackle such subject matter the way this film does, and closely mirror reality in the process. Maybe even closer than some would rather admit. It isn’t always pretty, presenting you with things that I’ll wager a good number of people would rather not even think about, but I wouldn’t expect anything less from Friedkin.