For me, The Curse of Frankenstein would mark the official change of the guard in horror films from Universal to Hammer. Not only did it revamp the now stagnant monster franchise, but propelled a new identity in the Gothic scene thanks to the vision of its director Terence Fisher; its two leads Peter Cushing in stoic form as the titular Baron Frankenstein and the heavily made up Sir Christopher Lee as the creature; but also the X factor charged with and championed by the films’ producers, setting a tone that would be replicated for another couple of decades to come. It also would have in its company writer Jimmy Sangster and composer James Bernard, who would both be part of Hammer’s signature. Above all else though, it would be Hammer’s first colour creature feature; one that would highlight all the blood, gore, and extravagant costumes with a vibrancy not seen on the big screen before.
Cushing and Lee would also prove to be a formidable duo before the camera for Hammer, for another 7 times with varying degrees of success. Lee would have to endure two to three hours in the makeup chair as Phil Leakey crafted the final, repulsive look from mortician’s wax, cotton wool, and rubber. The look deliberately steered away from Universal’ previous incarnation due to legal rights, allowing Hammer to present a unique spin on Mary Shelley’s classic tale.
The narrative is told in flashbacks as Baron Frankenstein awaits a trip to the gallows, but never wavers from his pursuit of achieving and creating life beyond the grave. What is starkly different from its predecessor is the cold and meticulous manner that Frankenstein’s actions are driven to in order to attain his goal. It is this characterisation and Cushing’s portrayal that offers a darkly disturbing version and one that is explored further throughout the various instalments that follow, most notably Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed which Cushing and fellow star Veronica Carlson believed crossed the boundaries of good taste.
The British press would initially turn up their noses to Hammer’s adaptation, with a general feel that it was purely for sadists. Both the British and American public would lap it up, which may or may not say something about our society. Regardless, it was enough of a reaction that was considered huge for its time that it would cement the foundations for Hammer Films and pave the way for their success to follow. It would also spawn a cult following and be an inspiration for many filmmakers to come.
Horror cinephiles would be deeply aware of the Austrian psychological trauma film released back in 2014 that made a significant impact on the genre. For those not in the know on why such a ripple was made, it’s hard to discuss without talking about the specific shift in narrative, that puts a completely different spin on our initial perception. It is this combined with the unsettling tension imbued throughout that resonates after viewing and lifts it out of the quagmire of predictability.
So in the throes of continuing remakes of European films that have struck a chord in the outer ridges of the popular mainstream, Goodnight Mommy gets its own turn in the limelight.
Charged with carrying out this vision is Director Matt Sobel who also has the luxury of Naomi Watts as his lead. Apparently this is her 9th film which is a remake. I’ll have to cross check that one though as I can only think of The Ring off the tip of my head.
What I can say about Goodnight Mommy though is that the film centres on two twins, Elias and Lucas (Cameron and Nicholas Crovettii) who return back to their mothers care. At this stage it is not known why they have been absent but there’s enough uncertainty there to instil a sense of doubt about their mother and one the audience harbours along with them. It doesn’t help that their mother is predominantly masked due to recovering from surgery. A haunting image that evokes fear, tantalising playing with our emotional responses to the situation as it unfolds. The mystery and mounting tension escalates to the point of desperation to seek the truth about what happened but Elias and Lucas’ pursuit will come at a price.
The Prognosis:
It treads a similar line to the original but utilises all of its strengths to provide a decent psychological flick. Naomi Watts is particularly solid, playing a convoluted mother with juxtaposing positions, swinging between neglectful and cold, with loving and protective.
The dalliance of drifting towards the unknown and being fearful of the truth is pitched well from beginning to end, delivering a well paced story, playing with perspectives from all sides.
Saul Muerte
Goodnight Mommy is currently streaming on Amazon Prime.
Hats off to Shudder in building a platform that showcases the global lens of the horror genre. With The Sadness; On The 3rd Day; Good Madam; and Molochall depicting a wide variety of voices to vent their individual plights. The latest offering on the Exclusive and Original platform , Saloum sets the scene predominantly in the East African countries of Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Guinea Bissau.
The story itself centres on a trio of legendary mercenaries known as the Bangui Hyenas – Chaka, Rafa, and Midnight. The symbolism of the number three holds strong throughout human history, bringing harmony, wisdom and understanding together. United the Bangui Hyenas present a strong front, and must lay low after extracting a drug lord out of the country. It is the breaking of the three that presents their greatest plight however, when it is revealed that Chaka harbours a secret of his own, that may or may not bring them to ruin. One that ties in with the mysticism that surrounds their choice of sanctuary; and will unleash an entity that will consume all in its path.
The Prognosis:
There is a lot to get your head around in this flick from Director Jean Luc Herbuot, as he switches up genres with the same pace that he enacts his vision. The frenetic energy combined with the beautiful landscape shots lie in contrast to the dark residual energy that lies beneath the surface; one that fuels the East African history and sees the mercenaries carrying the mental and physical scars that their land has ingrained in them through the past, present and possible future,
The weight is certainly felt, but not to the detriment of the narrative. With strong performances from all the cast, Saloum both lulls you into a sense of calm whilst ripping you up through its core as the turmoil is unshackled, so that the healing can begin.
1957 would turn out to be one last hurrah for Universal (for the time being at least) as they produced a number of movies that year. Some were better than others and I would name The Incredible Shrinking Man as one of their more successful outlets, looking back at it for the Surgeons of Horror retrospectives.
Part of this appeal, I believe, is down to the penmanship of Richard Matheson, who would go on to write I Am Legend; A Stir of Echoes; and Hell House, to name but a few. TISM would be his first venture into screenwriting duties, and as such, would share the screenplay credits with Richard Alan Simmons; a gun for hire at the time.
The latter would prove to have its merits as once again our protagonist would come up against a giant from which to defed himself.
Our protagonist in question is Scott (Grant Williams) who is coated one day in a mysterious mist; a macguffin for the film and serves as the agent of Scott’s mysterious shrinking. At first, it’s the small things, such as his waist size, and losing a few inches of height which he notices when standing next to his wife, Louise (Randy Stuart). Over time things get steadily worse, and Scott becomes smaller and smaller, at one stage living in a doll house and fighting off the house cat, before being swept away down the basement and presumed to be dead.
The smarts behind this feature come from the psychological trauma that this has on Scott and to some degree Louise. Scott battles constantly trying to deal with his bizarre affliction, even straying away from Louise at one point when he meets a ‘circus freak’, Clarice (April Kent), who has dwarfism, seeking solace in someone who may understand him. His ailment continues however and he must once again face up to his torment and try to make peace with his woes. It is this rather gloomy aspect to the film that would hang heavy on cinema goers at the time, but one that smacks of a realistic portrayal of the ‘what ifs?’ Scenario that is presented. I am often drawn to movies that leave you feeling disconnected and a star reminder of how small we are in the grand scheme of things, and TISM is the epitome of this example and why I believe it ironically stands head and shoulders above its equivalent features of the late 50s.
It certainly heralds an impact worthy enough to hold discussions about a potential remake. John Landis himself had one in production which unfortunately didn’t manage to see the light of day.
Its resonance is still strongly felt though in the genre community and I wouldn’t be surprised to see something of similar ilk come about eventually.
Unlike Scott, the film is unlikely to disappear into uncertainty, especially among film scholars and science fiction lovers.
In The Retaliators, DirectorsSamuel Gonzalez Jr, Michael Lombardi (who also stars), and Bridget Smith paint a world consumed with hatred, where all the characters are intoxified by fear, rage, and an array of negative emotions. Its one bastion of hope comes in the form of the local pastor (Lombardi), a man who is continuously put to the test throughout the film to push his character to the limits of his saintly demeanour. His world already squashed in this unforgiving landscape, living as a single parent, raising two daughters and hanging onto lifes thin line, becomes further frayed when his eldest daughter, Sarah (Katie Kelly) is brutally killed by one of humanity’s epitome of sin, Ram Kady (Joseph Gatt).
As the trailer teases, what would you do when posed with the option to spend one minute with your daughters’ killer? How far across the line of transgression would you be willing to take yourself in the name of vengeance? And how will this affect your own character or sense of morale, when you do choose to take this path? Our pastor is presented with just this kind of opportunity by brow-beaten and world-weary detective Jed (Marc Menchaca) and with it a wake of carnage and mayhem ensues.
The Prognosis:
Despite its vengeful premise, The Retaliators is a pot-boiler of a movie, allowing time for our protagonist to go through the wringer of emotions, building up his character in a tormented world before unleashing his full fury at this demented place. Quite rightfully, this allows the audience to seep into the purification of the setting and forces us to identify with the protagonist’s plight before embellishing in the justification of his actions. The turmoil is angst-ridden and repeatedly questions the merits of a good man, one who is without sin, when choosing to cast the first sinful stone in the name of revenge. Is the ‘Eye for an eye’ token grounds for vindication when the world is filled with sin and the deprecation of sinners?
This is a great conundrum to set the tone of the film, and when the fury is unleashed, the audience (who in no doubt have come to witness the carnage) are gifted with their own cathartic release. It helps that the soundtrack is seriously kick ass, fueling all these emotions in a bottleneck of rock from the genre’s key players.
Saul Muerte
The Retaliators is screening in cinemas nationally on the 14th and 16th September 2022 with a streaming release from the 21st October 2022.
The lure of Dracula entices moviegoers to the cineplex once more with this latest adaptation of Bram Stoker’s tale. This time the setting has a modern approach with the idea that the notorious nosferatu has been living all this time and set up his abode in new Carfax Abbey. The wheels that turn in order to pull us into the narrative are a little slow and cumbersome, placing our focus on orphan, Evie Jackson (Nathalie Emmanuel) who resides in New York, struggling to make ends meet in the catering business, when she receives the result of a DNA test through a new software programme. This leads to a connection with an estranged cousin and his family who live in England, and the promise of another life with wealth and romance to entice her further into their world. So Evie and her streetwise ways land her in prominent society into the path of Walter De Ville (Thomas Doherty), the charismatic lord of the manor. Behind the visage though is something more sinister with old world rules at play.
Australian director, Jessica M. Thompson does well to craft this new vision of an age-old Gothic tale for her sophomore feature length outing, but it has to be said that the writing is clumsy and falls prey to cliches all too often. There are bold attempts at providing this fresh spin, but in doing so, there are choices made that leave one groaning in response. Perhaps I am showing my age, but The Invitation succumbs to modern trappings, where some of the details and depth are glossed over for the sake of image, but this comes at the destruction of the story’s essence. As such, one is more likely to fall into a sense of lull as we are guided through each of the steps towards the film’s climax.
The ending even feels a little mismatched too, as if trying to force a potential franchise out of this. The way it is handled makes no sense whatsoever. If it were not for Emmanuel’s performance, who is once again showing that she is a force to reckon with on screen and more than deserves the lead status here, this film would be positively dormant with no hope of resurrection throughout.
The Prognosis:
The Invitation is a bold attempt at reinventing an old tale for a modern audience. Its delivery however leaves you wanting, missing the mark on numerous occasions. Nathalie Emmmanuel shines in an otherwise lacklustre narrative that rests too easily on its laurels, failing to drive the direction into a riveting new place.
Ever since I saw Kamacuras stalking around in the Kaiju movie Son of Godzilla, I’ve had a deep dread of this (let’s face it) fairly timid mantises. Whenever I watched the movie, I must have been at that impressionable age where this triangular headed insect embedded into my mind. Its essentially one of the things that initiated my aerozoophobia.
So imagine my trepidation upon learning that amongst Universal Pictures scifi horror canon during the mid fifties is movie entitled The Deadly Mantis.
Set in the South Seas, a volcanic eruption unearths a 200 foot long praying mantis that has been frozen in ice for hundreds of years.
When one of the remote Canadian outposts fails to return any calls, Col. Joe Parkman (Craig Stevens) is sent into investigate. Upon his arrival, Parkman discovers no sign of life and strange marks imprinted in the snow.
Later, an Air Force plane is grounded by the giant insect and Parkman notices the same slash marks he’d witnessed from the outpost. Only this time who also finds a five foot long spur. Fuelled by curiosity, he hires his top scientist to work our its origin but without success. So, in steps paleontologist Nedrick Jackson (William Hopper) who traces it to the praying mantis species.
When another attack happens at an Inuit village in the Arctic, the press become interested and magazine editor Marge Blane (Alix Talton) talks her way into joining the expedition posing as a photographer.
Its indicative of the time when Marge turns up to the base, all the men are instantly smitten by her presence, but its out hero Parkman that is the most taken by her, and the feeling is mutual between them. As with most trauma based narratives, these events often draw people together and as the the story unfolds between military and mantis attacks, their bond becomes further united.
The films conclusion smacks of earlier giant creature movies, most notably King Kong and Them, where the military bombard the monster with aero dynamic arsenal, this time forcing the Deadly Mantis into the Manhattan Tunnel. Trapped inside, Parkman takes a number of troops inside to kill it once and for all, armed with rifles and chemical bombs.
The feature didn’t live up to its gigantic proportions in the box office however, and failed to ignite massive interest. Looking back at it now, one can’t help but identify with this reaction as i struggled to connect with the plight, nor any fear that it tried to invoke, despite my own animosity.
Much like other sci-fi features of the era it would find itself subject to ridicule in Mystery Science Theatre 3000, a symbol of how these movies were received and the fall from grace that Universal was starting to find itself in.
Sequels. They were the lament of the 80’s. Well – they were endemic enough that it became trendy to complain that they “were never as good as the original”. Which was, and still is (more or less) accurate. But not completely. And the phenomena has morphed these days into Franchise-ism, which is more World Building than straight up sequel-ing. (A loop-hole of lawyer-like proportions that any former president would die for right now).
But another side trend seems to be prequel-ing! From Game of Thrones, to Lord of The Rings to Star Wars, for some reason content creators seem to think we want to know what happened before “once upon a time” rather than after “happily ever after” when it comes to The Next Instalment. So with that in mind, we turn to Esther – or more specifically it’s re-worked title of Orphan: First Kill. A prequel to the 2009 movie, Orphan. And with it comes a highlighted picadillo all prequels face. The age-old problem of aging. (Double edged in a film that is about a fully grown woman, pretending to be 10, in a prequel made MANY YEARS AFTER its sequel).
Before we get into the mechanics of the review itself, it must be said this film seemed to fly under the radar of this reviewer and a lot of the Surgeon’s team of a similar age bracket. Before being told about this movie, I would have said I was vaguely aware of a young girl in pigtails on the poster and that’s about it. She was probably evil and does evil things to her adoptive family ‘cause you know… she’s an (evil) orphan… Probably Satan infused in flavour (judging by the artwork etc). That’s because a story about a pale skinned girl with dark hair appearing at the end of a decade that had already produced The Ring, The Grudge and Silent Hill meant that there was probably a fair amount of “evil kid” action going on in this movie, and fatigue (for me at least) had well and truly set in. (Although in defence of Orphan, it did make a strong enough profit ratio – roughly 1 to 4 in fact – to justify some sort of new chapter).
Anyway. Orphan: First Kill explores the story that saw how Esther transitioned from Estonia to America – a plot hole from the first film that bugged a few people. Apparently. The solution the film makers came up with was inspired – in part – but the real-life adoption case of Natalia Grace, herself a 22-year-old posing as a 9-year-old in a caper that was inspired, in part, by the original Orphan film! (Google it – what an Ouroboros world we live in).
So straight off the bat young (sic) Esther tries to inject herself into the lives of a wealthy American family (the matriarch of which is played by Julia Styles. Good to see her back on the silver screen after getting killed In The Bourne Forgettable in a scene that we THINK was supposed to have some sort of emotional resonance…?) And Esther does so by claiming to be this family’s long lost 10-year-old daughter (the real one having gone missing 4 years before) and thus ensues the usual shenanigans of her pretending to be something she isn’t. How? You may ask (if you don’t know…) Esther suffers from a genetic condition that roughly translates to “proportional dwarfism” meaning she can effectively play someone much younger than she actually is. Added to that, she has a healthy dose of psychopathy so killing in her own best interest/preservation is not a problem for her.
But here’s the thing. And indeed the problem with this type of film. This twist is not (or is no longer) a twist, because we, the audience, already know it. It’s what we here at Surgeons call The Zombie Paradox. For any storyteller trying to make a zombie TV show/movie, they have to contend with viewers who know what a zombie is, and the various associated rules in dealing with them. Which means straight off the bat the story is playing catch up with the watcher and not (as you would want) the other way round. But in the case of Orphan – the ENTIRE film hung off Esther’s strange, dangerous and Omen like behaviour. Is she the child of Satan? NO – she is really 33! Dun Dun Daaaah!
But if that wad is already shot, how do you go about making a prequel?
The only recourse the film-makers basically have is to make Esther the protagonist and not antagonist (d’uh as the working title of the film is “Esther”) but digging deeper into what that means; a balancing act is required. If hers is to be the journey we are on, we need to fear for her when she is threatened and break for her when she is hurt. But she is an unhinged murderer. Not even an anti-hero (like say Dexter is) as she doesn’t kill evil. She kills threats, innocent or otherwise. An exciting writing challenge. If you get it right. But even if you do, IS that keeping in the spirit of the first movie? (See Surgeons of Horror, OUR TOP TIPS ON WHAT MAKES A GOOD SEQUEL).
An additional problem – as was brought up at the beginning of this review when we were all so much younger – is how do we convincingly address the aging elephant in the room? Esther – as a character to be cast – can only really be played by an older woman who physically looks 10, but what are the chances of someone like that who exists, has the right look, and can also act? So you go the other way, and choose someone young who can act old. And since cinema is littered with precociously talented child actors since day dot, the route this film chose back in 2009 was sort of a no-brainer. Especially since the actor in question was the then 12-year-old and fiercely powerful Isabelle Fuhrman. But now we are in (not) the next decade, but the decade after that, and Fuhrman is 25 (just a few years off Esther’s real age) and while she herself still has a youthful exuberance about her (helped no doubt by the fact she is 5’3”…it’s so much harder to play young if you’re 6’2”) ONE look at her in close up it is clear she is no longer a child. So faced with this dilemma what do the film makers do? Why go all Hobbit style and shoot force perspective, CGI and use stand ins. And whilst this worked well for LOTR, that film was 20 + years ago. Our eye had yet to be trained to be CGI cynical like it is now, and force-perspective and other old skool filming tricks were so out of fashion, they were LIKE new! But now we are well aware of such deceits and quite frankly, they really show up. (A bit like when you watch Die Hard now and it is VERY noticeable that’s not Bruce Willis getting thrown through windows or being blown up by flaming helicopters, but his stunt double. We forgave SO MUCH pre-CGI…)
But in terms of Orphan First Kill, the most obvious moments are when we track behind Fuhrman’s body double in WS, and then we cut to her face as we track backwards in Tight MS. A 10-year-old comports themselves differently to an adult. Bones and limbs are in different proportions. Neck and shoulders…it’s all different. A child waddles, an adult walks. And Fuhrman’s face – no matter how many downward angles you employ, or indeed, apple boxes you put under the actors around her – is clearly not a child. And especially when you consider the first movie – where 12-year-old Fuhrman is unmistakably Esther from all angles and frame sizes – it is very conspicuous that the coverage and overall shooting style of First Kill is starkly different. And straight away that means the feel of this film is different.
But is it any good?
Well it must be said – there is a twist at about the halfway mark that isn’t the same kind of reveal that’s in the first movie, BUT it is good enough to make you go “nice one” and sit up for the rest of the film. BUT it also negates certain character behaviours and motivations in the first half, so it also comes across as a twist that is very forced. It also – as a standalone story – really lacks the emotional compression of the first movie. The acts and story beats of the first film does an excellent job of putting Vera Farmiga’s character (who’s journey we are on for that instalment) through the wringer. Helped – as mentioned – by the fact that we the audience just don’t know Esther’s full deal till the end of the story.
The Prognosis:
So First Kill definitely lacks such layers, and with the aforementioned difference in coverage, it doesn’t feel like it’s a close relation to the other film. Although by no means awful, it’s not really worthy of its 2009 predecessor (post-ecessor?) because there is another 3rd difference that the film-makers seemly lost track of during the whole – how-do-we-make-this-story-&-Esther’s-look-work? – hullabaloo, and that is… it’s also not scary.
Having watched Shudder’s latest exclusive and original feature, Who Invited Them, I was immediately struck with how much I dig Ryan Hansen as a performer. Here he plays Adam, one half of a couple who have recently bought well into an influential neighbourhood. Now wanting to show off this asset, Adam and Margo (Melissa Tang) throw a housewarming party to celebrate with friends and who they consider to be the social elite from their contacts.
Beneath this affable exterior however is a more sinister and unsettling characteristic that they both share, and it is this that writer, director Duncan Birmingham, along with the mysterious “neighbours” Sasha (Perry Mattfeld) and Tom (Timothy Granaderos) wish to expose.
Once the party has settled, Sasha and Tom hang back and slowly work together to find the cracks and flaws in Ryan and Margo’s world to break them. At first, they tease and play with their would-be victims, like predators toying with their prey. Soon, they begin to dial up the trauma and crank up the tension between them all.
The Prognosis:
It’s fairly slow-paced, but Birmingham’s exposure of society under the lens of a wealth facade is delicately tweaked out to a macabre and destructive end.
Where it mars a little, it’s in some of the forced performances that at times don’t ring true (Hansen excluded) and this jars the flow of the dialogue in places. There are some nice comical moments in the mix of the lurid lamentations. It leans heavily into the unbelievable by the films’ end which some may embrace and others will turn away from.
Saul Muerte
Who Invited Them? is steaming on Shudder from Thurs1st Aug.
Fifty years ago, horror history was made as an integral part of the genre came to fruition. The Last House On The Left would see the creative combination of Wes Craven as Director for his first feature length film, and Sean Cunningham as producer. Cunningham would of course go on to spearhead Friday the 13th and Craven would herald notable works such as A Nightmare on Elm Street and the Scream series to name but a few. Amongst the crew would be another essential creative, serving as production assistant and an uncredited cameo to boot.
It is not just about the crew, all of whom were on the cusp of greatness, but the steps taken to produce a gritty and hard hitting tale of revenge.
TLHOTL was born out of the basis of The Virgin Spring by Ingmar Bergman, and a response to how the bloody realism that Western movies were being depicted by at the time. Craven seeking to distil the glamour attached to such violence and to provide a much more realistic depiction would strike a chord in the popular mainstream. The fact that the vengeance is carried out by the parents would also flip the switch on everyday Americans pushed to the limit of despair, and take on justice of their own proceedings; much like Craven would review again in his follow up feature, The Hills Have Eyes.
Where most movies would look to have the next generation or youths providing the answer to lifes’ torment and with it the hope for humanity, here would see them as either the threat or the victim. It is the parents who take on the role of judgement and through their misguided understanding of their children, seek retribution.
Pivotal to the graphic nature depicted on screen is the portrayal of the antagonists, Krug Stillo (David Hess, who would also provide the soundtrack to the film); Fred Podowski (Fred Lincoln); Sadie (Jeramie Rain); and Junior (Marc Sheffler), who all sink their teeth into their respective roles and ground the violence and despair with disturbing realism. This is further strengthened by the innocent carefree Mari (Sandra Peabody) who falls headlong into a world which she has no control over, and has everything ripped away from her. It should also be noted that some scenes were questionably pushed beyond the limits of decency; a sign of creative freedom at the risk of the players involved. Furthermore, keen observers will recognise familiarity in the lead protagonist Krug’s name, extended to Kruger to take on an alternative threat in the realms of horror in A Nightmare on Elm Street.
Its initial release would spark protests due to its content, but the film would gain business at the Drive-In theatres alongside the double billing of Mario Bava’s Twitch of the Death Nerve. Plus a decent hook tagline of “Repeat. It’s only a movie… It’s only a movie” to draw punters in.
Looking back at it now, TLHOTL has its obvious flaws, namely through some of the performances and the comical tones from the flappable police force. One of whom cinephiles will notice is Martin Kove who would go on to play sensei John Kreese from The Karate Kid franchise. What it does hold is the brutality and uncomfortable scenes that make you shift and squirm in your seat. These moments still are difficult to view even with a modern lens, and this is why it stands strong half a century later.
Surgeons of Horror 