Monthly Archives: August 2024

C.H.U.D. (1984) – A Cult Classic That Crawls from the Sewers

31 Saturday Aug 2024

Posted by in Movie review, retrospective

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Celebrating its 40th anniversary, C.H.U.D. (1984) remains a quintessential example of 1980s B-movie horror that has somehow survived the passage of time to become a cult classic. Directed by Douglas Cheek and featuring an unexpectedly strong cast, the film has earned a special place in the hearts of genre fans despite its many flaws. As we revisit C.H.U.D. four decades later, it’s clear that while the film is far from perfect, its blend of camp, social commentary, and creature-feature thrills continues to captivate audiences.

The film’s title, an acronym for “Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers,” sets the tone for what’s to come. The plot revolves around the mysterious disappearance of homeless people in New York City, which leads a small group of investigators—including a photographer, a police captain, and a soup kitchen operator—to uncover a horrifying government cover-up. Toxic waste has transformed the city’s homeless population into grotesque, flesh-eating mutants lurking in the sewers.

One of the most intriguing aspects of C.H.U.D. is its social commentary. Beneath the surface-level monster mayhem, the film touches on issues like homelessness, government negligence, and environmental hazards. While these themes are never fully developed, their presence gives the film a bit more depth than the average creature feature of the era. The gritty depiction of New York City in the 1980s, with its urban decay and pervasive sense of danger, adds an extra layer of authenticity to the story.

The film’s cast is surprisingly strong for a B-movie, with John Heard, Daniel Stern, and Christopher Curry all delivering solid performances. Heard’s portrayal of photographer George Cooper and Stern’s turn as the eccentric but earnest soup kitchen operator, A.J. “The Reverend” Shepherd, give the film a bit more gravitas than one might expect from a movie about sewer mutants. Their performances help ground the film, even when the plot veers into outlandish territory.

However, C.H.U.D. is not without its shortcomings. The film’s pacing is uneven, with stretches that feel sluggish and others that are frenetic but disjointed. The low budget is evident in the creature effects, which are charmingly cheesy but lack the polish of higher-end productions. While the monsters themselves are memorable, they’re not utilized as effectively as they could be, often appearing only briefly and in poorly lit scenes that obscure their design.

The film’s tone is another area where C.H.U.D. falters. It walks a fine line between serious horror and campy fun, but it never fully commits to either. This ambiguity can be jarring, as the film oscillates between scenes of genuine tension and moments of unintentional comedy. This tonal inconsistency is part of what gives the film its unique charm, but it also prevents it from being a truly great horror movie.

Despite these issues, C.H.U.D. has endured as a beloved cult classic. Its blend of horror, social commentary, and dark humor resonates with fans who appreciate its quirky, DIY spirit. The film’s influence can be seen in later horror and science fiction movies, as well as in pop culture references that have kept it in the public consciousness long after its initial release.

As we celebrate the 40th anniversary of C.H.U.D., it’s worth acknowledging its place in the horror canon—not as a masterpiece, but as a scrappy underdog that has managed to claw its way into the hearts of genre fans. While it may not be a perfect film, it’s undeniably memorable, and its mix of urban horror and mutant mayhem continues to entertain. For those who haven’t yet ventured into the sewers with the Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers, there’s no better time to take the plunge.

  • Saul Muerte

Fanatic (1965): Stefanie Powers Shines in Hammer’s Low-Budget Dive into Psychological Terror

31 Saturday Aug 2024

Posted by in retrospective

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

By the mid-1960s, Hammer Films had firmly established itself as a powerhouse of Gothic horror, but the studio was also exploring new directions, particularly in the realm of psychological suspense. Fanatic (1965), also released under the more sensational title Die! Die! My Darling!, is a prime example of Hammer’s foray into the thriller genre. While not as widely celebrated as their more iconic horror offerings, Fanatic stands as a testament to Hammer’s versatility, driven largely by a strong central performance from Stefanie Powers.

Based on the novel Nightmare by Anne Blaisdell, Fanatic tells the story of young American woman Patricia Carroll (Powers) who visits the eccentric Mrs. Trefoile (Tallulah Bankhead), the mother of her deceased fiancé. What begins as a courteous visit quickly spirals into a nightmarish ordeal, as Mrs. Trefoile’s fanatical religious beliefs and obsession with her late son lead to Patricia’s imprisonment and psychological torment.

Stephanie Powers, then in the early stages of her career, carries the film with an earnest portrayal of a woman trapped in a living nightmare. Powers’ performance is commendable, particularly given the film’s low budget, which required her to anchor the tension and suspense with limited resources. Her ability to convey both vulnerability and resilience adds depth to a role that could easily have been one-dimensional.

Tallulah Bankhead’s turn as the fanatical Mrs. Trefoile is the film’s other standout performance, providing a chilling counterbalance to Powers’ youthful energy. Bankhead, in her final film role, delivers a memorably menacing portrayal of a woman unhinged by grief and religious fervor. Her theatrical background lends a certain gravitas to the role, elevating the material beyond its modest origins.

Fanatic is also notable for its place within Hammer’s broader pivot towards suspense thrillers during the early to mid-60s. Following the success of Paranoiac (1963), directed by Freddie Francis and starring Oliver Reed, Hammer recognized the potential of psychological thrillers as a complement to their established horror lineup. Films like Maniac (1963) and Nightmare (1964) explored similar themes of mental instability, isolation, and the thin line between sanity and madness, all wrapped in a Hitchcockian veneer.

While Fanatic may not reach the heights of these earlier efforts, it remains a solid entry in Hammer’s suspense catalog. The film’s claustrophobic setting—a decaying, isolated mansion—serves as a perfect backdrop for the escalating tension, a hallmark of Hammer’s atmospheric storytelling. Director Silvio Narizzano, better known for his work on the British New Wave, brings a certain stylistic flair to the proceedings, though the film occasionally struggles to maintain its momentum, particularly in its slower middle act.

In retrospect, Fanatic is a film that, while not groundbreaking, offers a fascinating glimpse into Hammer’s experimentation with genre during the 1960s. It’s a film that bridges the gap between their Gothic horror roots and the psychological thrillers that would continue to evolve throughout the decade. Stephanie Powers’ performance, coupled with Tallulah Bankhead’s swan song, makes it a worthy watch for fans of Hammer’s broader oeuvre, even if it doesn’t quite achieve the same level of suspense as its contemporaries.

Overall, Fanatic is a modest but intriguing chapter in the Hammer Films legacy. It showcases the studio’s willingness to push beyond its comfort zone and embrace new forms of terror—this time not through monsters and mad scientists, but through the all-too-real horrors of fanaticism and psychological abuse. As Hammer’s suspense thrillers go, Fanatic may not be the most polished, but it certainly leaves its mark.

  • Saul Muerte

Dr. Terror’s House of Horrors (1965) – A Star-Studded Anthology with Chilling Charms

30 Friday Aug 2024

Posted by in retrospective

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Dr. Terror’s House of Horrors is a prime example of the horror anthology format at its most entertaining, blending eerie tales with a rich atmosphere and a roster of legendary stars. Directed by Freddie Francis and produced by Amicus Productions, this 1965 film capitalises on the anthology craze of the time, delivering a package of five macabre stories wrapped in a sinister framing device that keeps the audience on edge from start to finish.

The film’s plot revolves around five men sharing a train compartment, each of whom has his fortune read by the mysterious Dr. Schreck (Peter Cushing), using a deck of tarot cards. Each card reveals a terrifying glimpse into their potential future, serving as the springboard for five distinct stories, each with its own unique flavour of horror.

The stories range from tales of vengeful plants and werewolves to voodoo curses and vampire lore, offering a diverse mix that keeps the film engaging. While not all segments are equally strong, there’s a consistency in tone and execution that makes the entire anthology satisfying as a whole. The direction by Freddie Francis, a seasoned cinematographer and director known for his work with Hammer Films, ensures that even the weaker segments are visually compelling and atmospherically rich.

The star power in Dr. Terror’s House of Horrors is one of its biggest draws. Peter Cushing is superb as the enigmatic Dr. Schreck, imbuing the role with just the right mix of menace and mystique. He is the glue that holds the anthology together, and his presence is felt in every story, even when he’s not on screen. The supporting cast is equally impressive, featuring Christopher Lee, Donald Sutherland, Michael Gough, and Roy Castle, each of whom brings their own charisma and gravitas to their respective segments.

Christopher Lee, in particular, shines as a snobbish art critic who finds himself at the mercy of a vengeful painter, while Donald Sutherland’s turn as a newlywed doctor who suspects his wife might be a vampire adds a chilling twist to the film’s final tale. These performances elevate the material, ensuring that even the more outlandish plots are delivered with conviction.

While the film is undeniably fun, it does have its limitations. Some of the stories feel a bit predictable by today’s standards, and the special effects, though effective for the time, may come off as quaint to modern viewers. However, these are minor quibbles when set against the film’s many strengths. The pacing is brisk, with each story moving swiftly to its inevitable twist, and the film never overstays its welcome.

The real charm of Dr. Terror’s House of Horrors lies in its ability to create an unsettling atmosphere with minimal resources. The film relies on suggestion, shadows, and the power of storytelling to evoke fear, rather than on gore or shock value. This restraint is refreshing and gives the film a timeless quality, making it a must-watch for fans of classic horror.

The Prognosis:

Dr. Terror’s House of Horrors stands as one of Amicus Productions’ finest contributions to the horror anthology genre. It’s a film that understands the appeal of a well-told tale, and while it may not be the most groundbreaking of horror films, it remains an enjoyable and memorable experience, especially for those who appreciate the genre’s golden era.

  • Saul Muerte

Two on a Guillotine (1965) – A Middling Slice of Horror

29 Thursday Aug 2024

Posted by in retrospective

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

In the vast landscape of 1960s horror cinema, Two on a Guillotine occupies a curious space. Directed by William Conrad, the film aimed to combine psychological thrills with a touch of macabre humour, but unfortunately, it never quite manages to pull off either convincingly. What we get instead is a somewhat paltry entry that fails to leave a lasting impression, both in its execution and in its impact on the genre.

The film stars Connie Stevens as the daughter of a famous magician (played by Cesar Romero) who mysteriously disappeared years before. Upon her father’s death, she is tasked with spending seven nights in his creepy mansion in order to inherit his fortune. The setup is classic horror fodder, but the film struggles to deliver on its promises. The haunted house elements, complete with secret passages and ominous shadows, are all there, but they feel more like props in a stage play than genuine sources of dread.

Stevens, better known for her work in television and musicals, is serviceable in the lead role, but her performance lacks the depth needed to carry a horror film. Romero, on the other hand, brings a certain charm as the sinister magician, but his screen time is disappointingly brief. His presence, though magnetic, isn’t enough to elevate the film above its middling script.

One of the film’s biggest issues is its pacing. At nearly two hours, it feels overly long, with many scenes dragging on without building the necessary tension. The plot meanders through a series of predictable twists, and while there are a few moments of genuine suspense, they are few and far between. The supposed scares, like the titular guillotine, never quite deliver the thrills one might hope for. Instead, they come off as more gimmicky than terrifying.

Two on a Guillotine attempts to balance its horror elements with light-hearted humour, but this balance feels off-kilter. The comedic moments often undercut the tension, leaving the viewer unsure of whether to be scared or amused. It’s a tonal mishmash that ultimately works against the film’s intended atmosphere.

The production values, while decent for the time, don’t do much to make the film stand out. The sets are uninspired, and the cinematography, though competent, lacks the stylistic flair seen in other horror films of the era. Even the score, which could have added a layer of tension, feels generic and unmemorable.

The Prognosis:

Two on a Guillotine is a film that had potential but never quite realized it. It’s not outright bad, but it’s certainly not a standout either. For those interested in 1960s horror, there are far better options to explore. This film, while not entirely without merit, ultimately feels like a footnote in the genre’s history—a curiosity rather than a classic.

  • Saul Muerte

Movie Review: Satranic Panic (2024)

27 Tuesday Aug 2024

Posted by in Movie review

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

If you haven’t heard the name Alice Maio Mackay being discussed in horror circles by now, then you need to wake up and smell the coffee. In the space of three years, Mackay has produced 4 movies with a fifth due before the close of the year. While one can question this kind of output and the quality involved, Mackay brazenly kids down the door with low-budget dynamics and more than makes up for this with down to earth, topical conversations under the guise of the horror genre, making for a powerful and relevant mouthpiece for the transgender community.

The latest feature to be presented by Mackay sees Aria (Cassie Hamilton) and Jay (Zarif) grieving for the loss of her brother and Jay’s boyfriend Max at the hands of a cult. Beneath the veil of the diva attitudes and larger than life persona that Aria carries though is an inner turmoil, lurking within. One that has her in tune with the darker elements that run riot in the underworld, and threaten to bring about the ride of demonkind. Part of this conflict also comes the mix of a tormented gift that allows Aria to sense when demons are near. Can Aria and Jay put aside their differences and the wedge that comes in the form of the mysterious Nell (Lisa Fanto), and conquer their demons?

While Satranic Panic may be the most straightforward feature from Mackay’s work so far, it certainly doesn’t shy away from the core themes of oppression, isolation and flipping the label of victim into one of assailants in order to regain the power that has been struck from the key protagonists. Hamilton scintillates on screen and packs a powerful portrayal of Aria. There’s moments of musical renditions as she storms the stage and grabs your attention. This is counterbalanced by the serene-yet-earnest Jay, proving to the back bone of the couple thrown together through their shared grief to overcome the obstacles and blatant privilege that confronts them day in day out. 

The Prognosis:

Another fine entry into Mackay’s canon of work so far. Real characters dealing with real issues in surreal circumstances. The performances are strong and once again Mackay calls the shots with a voice uniquely their own. 

  • Saul Muerte

Satranic Panic available to buy or rent now.

Useful Links:

Movie Review: So Vam (2021)

Movie Review: Bad Girl Boogey (2023)

Movie Review: T-Blockers (2024)

Movie Review: Butchers Book Two: Raghorn

25 Sunday Aug 2024

Posted by in Movie review

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Director Adrian Langley seems determined to step beyond mediocrity with his Texas Chainsaw Massacre-inspired Butchers trilogy. The second installment, Butchers Book Two: Raghorn, was released on Home Entertainment this month and continues the familiar theme of a small group of youths who break down in the middle of nowhere, only to encounter some unscrupulous, unsavory characters with a taste for human flesh.

This time, Langley takes a slightly novel approach with his core group of protagonists: Sarah (Hollie Kennedy), her cousin Josh (Sam Huntsman), Rico (Miguel Cortez), and Brian (Dave Coleman). The group hatches a plan to kidnap and ransom Ash (Corgand Svendsen), a wealthy child whose parents might pay a hefty sum for their child’s safe return. However, their grand plan quickly unravels when their getaway vehicle crashes headlong into a buck in the backwoods. This collision leads to an encounter with Clyde (Nick Biskupek), who takes charge of the situation, turns the tables on the group, and leads them back to his lair. There, Clyde, with the help of his brother Crusher (Michael Swatton)—a name that directly references his preferred method of dispatching victims—unleashes unspeakable forms of torture.

What struck me about the first film in the series was that, despite being fairly average, it resonated in a way that hinted at something more promising bubbling beneath the surface. It was brutal and savage, traits that Butchers Book Two: Raghorn also boasts in abundance. However, while the sequel continues to glorify gore, it feels as though someone has shifted the car into neutral and is content to coast along without making any real impact. What this film desperately needs is a monstrous obstacle—a metaphorical buck in the road—to jolt it out of its complacency and allow the carnage to truly unfold.

Unfortunately, each character in Raghorn feels a bit one-note, making it difficult to care about who survives. The film attempts to build hope through the character of Ash, a gender-fluid individual who could have added a compelling layer to the narrative. However, Ash is left on the sidelines for far too long, making it hard for the audience to invest in their ordeal or root for their survival.

The Prognosis:

Butchers Book Two: Raghorn represents a missed opportunity to elevate the profile of the Butchers trilogy. While it delivers a steady supply of brutal and torturous events, these are not enough to compensate for the weak characters and ultimately mediocre plotline. Let’s hope that for the conclusion, Langley steps up his game and delivers the satisfying climax this series needs.

  • Saul Muerte

Axes, Anguish, and Twists: Strait-Jacket Still Cuts Deep in the World of Psychological Thrillers

24 Saturday Aug 2024

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

William Castle, the maestro of gimmick-laden horror, struck gold once again with Strait-Jacket, a psychological thriller that plays expertly with twists, turns, and the audience’s expectations. Released in 1964, the film stars Joan Crawford in a role that both revitalized her career and added another layer of depth to the “woman on the edge” persona she had so famously crafted.

The film’s narrative is a carefully constructed web of suspense and misdirection. Crawford plays Lucy Harbin, a woman who, after spending 20 years in a mental institution for the brutal axe murders of her husband and his lover, is released and reunited with her daughter. The plot hinges on whether Lucy has truly been rehabilitated or if she’s destined to repeat her murderous past. Castle masterfully plays with this uncertainty, leading the audience down one path only to jerk them violently down another. The film’s twists are meticulously timed, ensuring that the viewer is constantly kept on edge.

One of the most significant twists comes towards the end of the film, where the true nature of the murders is revealed. It’s a moment that not only shocks but also recontextualizes everything that has come before it, showcasing Castle’s ability to craft a narrative that’s as clever as it is chilling. The film’s climactic reveal is as satisfying as it is unexpected, leaving audiences with that perfect blend of surprise and inevitability that marks the best thrillers.

Crawford’s performance is the linchpin of Strait-Jacket. She brings a raw intensity to Lucy Harbin, capturing the character’s fragility and barely contained rage. It’s a role that requires her to oscillate between vulnerability and menace, and she does so with the ease of a seasoned pro. The film plays off her established screen persona, using her status as a Hollywood icon to enhance the narrative’s tension. Her mere presence in the film adds an extra layer of unpredictability, making the viewer question whether she’s the hero or the villain of the piece.

Castle’s direction in Strait-Jacket is both stylish and efficient. Known for his penchant for theatrical gimmicks, Castle wisely lets the film’s story and performances take center stage here, though he doesn’t entirely abandon his flair for showmanship. The film’s atmosphere is thick with dread, amplified by a haunting score and stark cinematography that captures the claustrophobic nature of Lucy’s world. Castle’s use of visual motifs—like the recurring image of the axe—serves to reinforce the film’s themes of madness and violence.

While Strait-Jacket may not be as overtly gimmicky as some of Castle’s other works, it’s no less effective. The film’s success lies in its ability to keep the audience guessing, all the while delivering the kind of thrills that Castle’s name became synonymous with.

The Prognosis:

In the pantheon of William Castle’s filmography, Strait-Jacket stands out as one of his most accomplished efforts. It’s a film that uses its twists and turns not just to shock, but to engage the viewer in a deeper psychological game. Anchored by Joan Crawford’s tour-de-force performance and Castle’s confident direction, Strait-Jacket remains a standout example of 1960s psychological horror. For fans of classic thrillers, it’s a must-watch that showcases the best of what the genre has to offer.

  • Saul Muerte

SUFF 2024 – Movie Review: Vulcanizadora (2024)

23 Friday Aug 2024

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

In order to connect with Vulcanizadora you can either go in cold like I did and trust in its flow, or try in some ways to understand its creator, American film director and screenwriter, Joel Potrykus. Now into his fifth feature film, Potrykus has established the moniker, “The New King of Underground Cinema” for his dalliance in the newly formed sub genre metal slackerism. In fact, Vulcanizadora is in itself a sequel from his earlier feature Buzzard, picking up with its two central characters Marty (Joshua Burge) and Derek (played by Potrykus. Not that you need to have seen Buzzard before this as Vulcanizadora serves as a scrutiny of these characters 10 years later with a focus on the impacts and hardships of middle aged men who bear no driving force or will to carry them through life and instead are drifting aimlessly. What traumatic history they have ebbs to the surface, threatening to claw its way out of the skin to make an impact, but our two leads are all two willing to wallow and bury their inner feelings to the detriment of their own wellbeing. The psychological impact this has will soon come crashing down around them and the consequences must be addressed before their souls can finally rest.

While all that may sound deep, the manner in which Potrykus handles their journey is painfully funny, and profoundly introspective, that by the journey’s end, will leave its own residual energy with you, to ponder; a sign of a director who not only owns his vision, but utilises it in a fashion that will connect and deliver this message with significant feeling or emotion.

The Prognosis:

Part of this appeal is the synergy crafted in Potrykus’ choice in music, weaving together the harmonious vocals of Maria Callas operatics and then fusing this with a juxtaposing contrast with the raw and gritty chords from Sepultura. This in many ways is a metaphor for the whole film, constantly drifting between a calm, serene experience where nature surrounds us all providing time for transcendence but is swiftly followed by a cut to the cerebral, grounding reality of life and its many obstacles. How we choose to embrace or battle these elements in life will either make us or break us, but to face up to these challenges, one must be true to yourself; a pool that Potrykus enjoys playing in. We encourage you to take the trip and raise your own questions.

  • Saul Muerte

Catch the screening of Vulcanizadora at the Sydney Underground Film Festival at Dendy, Newtown.

Screening times and tickets available below:

FRIDAY 13TH SEPTEMBER – 3PM

SUNDAY 15TH SEPTEMBER – 1:30PM

Movie Review: Alien: Romulus

23 Friday Aug 2024

Posted by in Movie review

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Prequel, sequels, threequels, and whatnumberisthisoneagain-quels… has there been a more wildly heartbreaking body of work than the Alien franchise?

From 2 absolute master class films, to a litany of dross to follow, we come to it again and again hoping this next instalment – whatever it may be timeline wise – will be different. And no amount of pre-hype or pedigree (can you say David Fincher boys & girls?) seems to make a scrap of difference.  They either range from “it was ok” to “what the fuck was that?”

So when yet another one is announced and the trailer hits the socials – we hold our collective breaths and say “well… it looks slick. But so did Prometheus…”. And then we see the name of the director and we dare to do the one thing years of alien vs predator movies told us not to.  Hope.

Fede Álvarez is the helmsman of The Girl in the Spiders Web, Don’t Breathe and the Evil Dead remake.  All decent outings with Don’t Breathe a very notable one.

And with his name on the credits for this Xenomorph outing, will he do the impossible and create the spiritual 3rd film (ALL THE OTHERS DON’T COUNT) that the Alien trilogy cries out for?

Can this auteur from Uruguay carve out a name worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as Cameron and Scott?

Let’s dig in, shall we?

Firstly, there is not a Romulan to be seen, so that’s a letdown straight away…

Secondly, this venture takes place some 20 years after the end of Alien, so Ripley is still floating around out there asleep with her cat in a capsule, and that’s interesting to think about.

Because one of the more annoying aspects of this franchise is that post Aliens, all the instalments (crossovers included) bar Three & Resurrection are PREQUELS.  Which means they continually have to retcon (in some way or another) humanities “first” interaction with the Xenomorph.

In fact, it’s gotten to the point that when Ripley & crew first encounter the Alien onboard the Nostromo, they’re basically the only humans who HAVEN’T met it yet!

But I digress.  Set up wise this film takes place on a mining moon, laced in the gritty low light aesthetic that is a moniker for all these movies now.  Life for the workers there is basically indentured, so ways to get off-planet are few and far between.

Thus when an opportunity presents itself in the shape of a seemingly abandoned orbiting spacecraft that for some reason NO ONE on the surface of this world can see other than a bunch of space Gen Z-ers, who happen to have a working spaceship (that belonged to their now dead parents, because the mines are filled with space asbestos, apparently) they see a way out of their bondage.  Because their ship has everything a group of kids need to travel to another world EXCEPT Cryosleep capsules.  Something this mystery spaceship above must surely have…

And thus we have our blueprint to get the ball rolling.  1 – Set a cast, 2 – throw them into a contained location, and then 3 – sprinkle them with Facehuggers. 

4 – rinse.

The how and the why there are Facehuggers on this mystery ship is a fine enough idea…but for the purposes of exploring more abstract and interesting observations, we shall leave that for you to discover on your own time.  For now, I will list off the immediate thoughts that struck me whilst watching this movie.

One – all the other Alien filmmakers have tipped their hat to Ridley’s and Cameron’s outings, naturally, but we are now entering an era of films from storytellers who were children when those first 2 flicks came out, and Álvarez is clearly printing out a love letter to them both with Romulus.  It is littered with numerous nods, ranging from set design, to television computer screens, 70’s 8-bit GFX, sound FX, Pink Floyd lighting, and of course, a perpetual motion beak dipping bird.

And that’s just the tip of the “let’s-see-what-else-we-can-jam-in-there-iceberg”.  

Two – it suffers – as you would expect – from the “Zombie Conundrum”.  Ie: We, the audience, know what the peril is and how it works.  The characters in the movie do not.  So we wait patiently whilst they play catch up, which means the film burns through valuable attention grabbing time.  There are of course creative ways around this – the best one is to show something new about the Alien’s “process”, but with so many films under the bridge, this is very difficult without completely retconning its history.  And that violates our list of what makes a great sequel (see below).

Three – The Sequel Checklist.  Does this hit it?  For fans of our reviews, The SOH Sequel checklist (AKA: Things you need to make a great sequel) looks like this…

  • Does it respect the first film and not shit on it?
  • Does it “fail” to be carbon copy of the first film?
  • Does it add/expand on the legend/universe started by the first film?
  • Does it still stay within the SAME SPIRIT established by the first film?
  • Does it stand on its own 2 feet as a standalone film?

To which answer wise, I give it three yeses’, one kinda (but not really) and a sorta.

The Prognosis:

As to what answer goes with what point, I’ll leave that up to you to see & agree.  For Romulus is definitely worth checking out, but ultimately as a story it could have taken a few coins out it’s “homage” budget and drop them into its “make em care & they’ll scare” budget.

For the film only has 2 memorable leads (the actual leads) who are played by Cailee Spaeny and David Jonsson.  A brother and sister duo with a twist.  Or it would have been had the trailer not given it away.  So that means with the rest of the cast, you’re kinda just waiting for them to get ganked.  Or not.  But you’re not holding your breath too hard when they do.  Or don’t.

They have one cool action set piece that is original.  Although several scientist friends of mine have already lamented its floating inaccuracy.  And for all its tributes towards the first 2 films (the only 2 worth tributing) it does dips into a controversial idea first explored in Alien Resurrection, and to its credit, actually pulls it off.  At least visually.

Overall, its not the spiritual threequel I’m still looking for (and I accept, may never find) but I will definitely be keen to see Alien Klingon Homeworld when it comes out. (See what I did there nerds?)

  • Antony Yee

“Coalescing Madness: A Retrospective Look at Pyro… The Thing Without a Face (1964)”

23 Friday Aug 2024

Posted by in retrospective

≈ Leave a comment

Pyro… The Thing Without a Face is a lesser-known entry in the psychological horror-thriller genre that attempts to carve its niche by blending elements of revenge, disfigurement, and the madness that ensues. Directed by Julio Coll, the film stars Barry Sullivan as Vance Pierson, an American engineer whose life spirals into a nightmare of revenge after a tragic love affair.

The film draws upon a rich tapestry of influences, coalescing into a narrative that’s both familiar and unsettling. One can trace the roots of Pyro back to the brooding atmosphere of classic noir, with shades of films like The Big Heat (1953), where the theme of vengeance is just as central. In The Big Heat, Glenn Ford’s character pursues a relentless quest for revenge after the murder of his wife, setting a precedent for the kind of obsession that drives Vance Pierson in Pyro. This thematic coagulometry creates a bridge between genres, infusing Pyro with a sense of dread and inevitability.

The film also owes a debt to the disfigurement horror trope, seen in earlier features like Eyes Without a Face (1960) and The Phantom of the Opera (1962). In these films, physical deformity becomes a symbol of internal turmoil and madness, a concept that Pyro adopts with Vance’s disfigurement following an act of arson. His transformation into a vengeful figure echoes the pathos of these earlier characters, though it lacks the same depth and psychological complexity.

While Pyro seeks to meld these influences into a cohesive whole, it often falters in execution. The film’s pacing is uneven, and the script occasionally struggles to maintain tension. The character of Vance, though compelling in his descent into madness, doesn’t quite reach the heights of other tragic figures in cinema. Sullivan’s performance is solid, yet the material doesn’t allow him to explore the full range of his character’s psychological unraveling.

Where Pyro does succeed is in its atmosphere. The cinematography captures the stark landscapes and claustrophobic interiors, reflecting Vance’s isolation and obsession. The score, while somewhat generic, complements the film’s darker moments, enhancing the sense of impending doom.

The Prognosis:

In the broader context of horror-thrillers, Pyro… The Thing Without a Face is a film that attempts to build on the foundations laid by its predecessors but ultimately falls short of greatness. Its coagulometry of influences from film noir, revenge thrillers, and disfigurement horror is evident, but the final product is more of a patchwork than a seamless blend. Still, for fans of vintage horror and psychological thrillers, Pyro offers enough intrigue and atmosphere to warrant a watch, even if it doesn’t leave a lasting impact. A solid effort that stands as a curious footnote in the evolution of maniacal cinematic narratives.

  • Saul Muerte