The Seventh and Last Feature for our Wes Craven Season 1 discussion centres on his first sequel and with it a potential to start a franchise.
Needless to say, The Hills Have Eyes Part 2 would not live up to expectations and the franchise would end up dead in the water despite reaching a cult status. Subsequently there have been 2 recent film adaptations based on the original and a comic book to boot.
Wes Craven has distanced himself from the project, citing it as an unfinished piece when he handed it in to the producers to review. The producers, aka the money and finance would accept the film as its first draft and push this out into cinemas with the need to market swiftly. The result speaks for itself.
As for Craven, this was no passion project. It did however, provide funds for him to create horror cinema gold, A Nightmare On Elm Street, (More on this in an upcoming season) and along with it the iconic character of Freddie Kruger.
When sidled next to A Nightmare On Elm Street, The Hills Have Eyes Part 2 pales in comparison. The film picks up with survivor from the first film, Bobby, discussing the horrific events that unfolded and the devastating impact it had on him and his family.
Bobby now runs a bike racing outfit and endeavours to take them back out to the sticks for them to compete in a race, but this task appears to be too great an ordeal and he reluctantly chooses not to go.
So, it is down to fellow survivor, Ruby / Rachel (and the dog, Beast of course) to take our intrepid team of victims / youths to certain doom when they once again come face to face with the mutant family in horror poster icon, Michael Berryman reprising his role as Pluto and The Reaper (Papa Jupiter’s brother).
So much is inherently wrong with this movie. Bad characters, poor set up, and no plot. It’s a wonder that it got off the ground. Perhaps is it wasn’t resting on its stronger predecessor and Craven’s now recogniseable name attached to it, it probably wouldn’t have.
And with the already mentioned, A Nightmare On Elm Street, and its success, along with it cane a much longer lifespan for The Hills Have Eyes Part 2 would ordinarily have occurred.
Check out the surgeons of horror podcast below for more thoughts and views.
Based on the short story by Edgar Allen Poe and directed by B-Movie legend Roger Corman, this macabre story centres around a prince who lords it up whilst sheltering from the plague-ridden scenes that envelop the town around him.
He’s more than happy to delve into his riches and ignore the plight of others.
In fact he relishes in it and goes to great strengths to terrorize the peasantry.
Playing the role of the villainous tyrant Prospero is another horror icon, Vincent Price who becomes embroiled in a satanic cult and despite being known for his hammy antics, in this role his very nature is well suited to the character and he appears to be incredibly comfortable in his skin.
Corman was also evidently a huge fan of Poe’s work, this movie being the seventh of eight series, which included The Pit and the Pendulum and The Raven. The Masque of the Red Death is definitely the stronger of these titles, with Corman hitting all the right notes and belying the negative image that has been depicted upon him by critics.
This movie has a great lead in Price and plays with the melodrama and nuances with great style and substance and is a fine example of a director at the height of his craft.
THE MOMENT THAT THIS SEQUEL begins you know that you are already in for a completely different beast from its predecessor.
Dick Durock returns as the man in the suit and struts his stuff with the kind of machismo campness that only the 80’s could get away with.
Before you know it, the opening credits roll over a series of comic images from DC’s publications with Creedence Clearwater Revival’s Born On The Bayou kicking in with its upbeat rhythms and you are drawn into the groove from the get-go.
Yes – the acting is hammy and Louis Jourdan returns as the villainous Arcane, eats up the scenery and appears to be enjoying every moment that he’s on screen, but the movie is completely aware of its identity and is delivered with tongue firmly in cheek.
We have some familiar faces in Heather Locklear (Melrose Place) as Arcane’s daughter and the heroine / love interest of the piece.
Along with the magnificent Sarah Douglas (Ursa in Superman and Taramis in Conan the Destroyer) both playing to the same tune.
All of which, leaves the audience with an upbeat, feel-good notion to the movie, mainly because it doesn’t take itself seriously and dare I say, marginally better than the original?
Let me make this clear – It’s not the best of movies – not by a long shot, but somehow because it wears its identity firmly on its sleeve, the audience almost forgives its sins and happily plods along with it regardless of its flaws, but only marginally.
AS IT STANDSThe Conjuring is sandwiched in the middle of James Wan’s directorial career, nestled nicely alongside Insidious, which was released two years earlier.
When you combine this with the likes of Saw, Insidious 2 and now The Conjuring 2, Wan has firmly established himself as a master in the horror genre field.
This movie was potentially (and arguably) a game changer for Wan and is most certainly an indication of a man coming into his own within his craft.
Upon closer scrutiny, the film treads familiar ground centring on a family haunted by an evil, malevolent spirt, that wishes to do some serious harm to them all.
There are even obvious homages to the original Poltergeist movie, but where it starts to tread new ground and where Wan shines brightly is through his storytelling and excellent use of light and shadow.
The pace of the movie is handled with great care. The balance of tension is beautifully interspersed with scares. And when those scare come, they come with genuine spine-tingling reality.
In fact, part of the appeal of The Conjuring is through its gritty realism. Throw in some strong performances from Lili Taylor, Vera Farmiga, and Patrick Wilson, and you’ve got yourself a credible and believable movie that captivates and entertains throughout.
– Saul Muerte
For more insights on the film check out the podcast discussions below, but be warned, I handed over host duties to Mr Antony Yee for this one and he pushed the time limit just a tad. But not without his charm and knowledge thrown into the mix.
IN KEEPING WITH our Flashback Friday Features, this week we turn our attention to Cujo based upon the book bearing the same name by Stephen King.
Man’s best friend goes wild in this psychological horror, which sees the dog go from family protector (as seen in our recent podcast discussions, The Hills Have Eyes) to violent and rabid attacker.
The dog in question, an St Bernard, normally identified as a rescuer, is turned when he chases a rabbit into a bat cave, where a bat bites him.
From then on it’s only a matter of time before he would strike, taking down his neighbour and even his owner.
This leaves Donna (Dee Wallace) facing off against the beast whilst also protecting her son – Tad, who is probably the most anxious kid in history with a fear of monsters.
Donna and Tad end up trapped inside their car when they pay the mechanic (and wild dog owner) a visit.
Donna must face up to her fears and confront the dog to save herself and her son.
Whilst not the scariest Stephen King vehicle, Cujo must rely on the strength of Wallace’s performance.
The character of Donna is going through martial difficulties and has been having an affair, which rightly or wrongly, automatically makes her a flawed person.
Wallace certainly plays her with the right level of vulnerability and strength to keep the viewer engaged throughout it’s 90 minute running length, but just barely.
Which I personally wonder if this is the tight restrains that the novel is willing to allow?
My answer may come when a remake entitled C.U.J.O comes to light, but early reports suggest that this will stray from the original source material.
One last thing to add is that the cinematographer for this movie was Jan De Bont who would go on to direct Speed and Twister.
ABOUT 9 YEARS AGO a major Hollywood A-lister approached the subscription TV network I worked for with a proposal. If you sent his production company a kick ass proposal, he would pony up $10 000 000 for you to make it. In terms of Hollywood features that wasn’t (and still isn’t) a lot. But by Oz standards it was better than a kick in the nutz.
Unfortunately the whole enterprise folded after one mediocre movie and a reality show starring the A-Lister’s old school mate (who, admittedly was quite lovely once you got to know him).
But the point I am so laboriously trying to make with the horror thriller The Boy is that a quick scan through Wikipedia will tell you that it was made with a budget of $10 000 000. But does that money appear on screen?
Well as of writing, The Boy has made over 6 times that in return! But being 6 times richer doesn’t necessarily mean 6 times better. Is it any good? (A phrase I am told has since been copyrighted by fellow horror surgeon Ben Skinner, and so I must now pay him 50 cents).
In a nutshell the story of The Boy (if you haven’t seen the trailer) is about an American woman in her early 30’s who runs away from an abusive relationship and straight into the arms of a wealthy old English couple looking to hire a nanny to look after their young son Brahms .
The couple live in a classic creepy mansion in the middle of country nowhere (naturally) and the woman (Greta) we soon learn is the latest hire in a string of nannies who have failed to stay with the job. The reason? Brahms is a porcelain doll. About the size of a ventriloquist dummy, the elderly couple dress and treat him as if he is real. The reason being is that the real Brahms died back in 1991 at the age of 8 in an unexplained house fire, and in an effort to navigate through this tragedy, his parents have invested a lot of emotional resonance in what appears to be a coping mechanism gone too far.
The couple lay down rules for Brahms – when he is to be woken in the morning, what music he is to listen to and at what time. Even setting a place for him to eat breakfast, lunch & dinner. Greta, who we also learn is the youngest of the nannies trialled – that is sort of relevant later on – understandably thinks they are all bat-shit bonkers; but they are also willing to pay, and what’s more, their locale is far from her abusive ex-boyfriend.
The elderly couple are also long overdue for a holiday and leave Greta alone with the dummy (because apparently he ‘approves of her’) and so she figures this is easy scratch because following the rules is so much easier when there is no one around to enforce them.
Or so she thinks.
Because once left alone the shenanigans begin as things inevitably start to happen in the mansion that can only be attributed to doll Brahms coming to life behind her back. Is it possessed with the spirit of ‘real’ Brahms? A little boy we soon discover in life was a little….odd? Or is all this Greta’s descent into madness brought on by isolation (the mansion has no WiFi and cell service, natch) combined with the unresolved tragedy of having lost an unborn child (see abusive relationship mentioned earlier).
With basically one (admittedly giant) location and a cast you can count on one hand, is the 10 million immediately visible on screen?
Or, approaching it from the other direction, have the film makers been clever enough to come up with a compelling cinematic story whilst using a minimal amount of cast and locations?
By and large the answer is yes. The look & feel of the film is very much like an old skool Hammer Horror flick given a 21st century coat of paint.
The storytelling tricks the director William Brent Bell employs to give life to an inanimate doll (short of making it get up and move ala Chucky) are clever enough, and one I picked before seeing the film – the use of revolving light – is well used here without being abused. (For a famous demonstration of what I mean click on this clip: below)
The Boy is a solid B movie effort. For non-horror fans it will tick enough boxes, and for aficionados of websites like this, what it arguably lacks in straight up scares it should make up for with its intriguing/creepy set pieces and actual story.
Other comments I feel worth mentioning – the lead playing Greta is Lauren Cohan, from The Walking Dead fame. She takes a while to reconcile as her face isn’t caked with grime, blood & dirt, and working in everyday make up I would imagine was a pleasant change of pace for her.
Her performance is likewise solid, and her progression from relatively stable to “holy shit is this dummy real?” is a line that she straddles quite well. Of course that means there are times where delving into “too much” or “not enough” territory may have been the way to go too…
The only other thing I’d like to mention is that although it’s set in the UK, one look at the trees in the opening shot told me it was shot somewhere in America. As it turns out I was half right. It was Canada. Which is how the movie was able to retain an authentic damp/drizzly feel.
So after insulting 3 separate western cultures I will conclude with this, The Boy holds you to the end to find out exactly what the hell is going on. And that’s all any movie can ask for.
Want to know more? Fine – it also borrows heavily from these 2 movies, but if you DON’T want any spoilers – don’t click….
IT’S CURIOUS AND YET strangely fitting that I Spit On Your Grave should be our first feature to focus on our Flashback Friday posts.
Fitting because it follows on the theme of revenge horror films from our podcast discussions on The Last House On The Left of which this movie is arguably the pinnacle.
Banned in numerous countries around the world and severely panned for its crude and exploitative focus on rape and the vilification of its lead female character Jennifer causing film critic Roger Ebert to cite it as the “worst movie ever made” and a “vile piece of garbage.”
It’s not just the act or several acts that follow and the torment that is inflicted upon her, but the sheer relentlessness of it all these actions that make for incredibly uncomfortable viewing.
So much so that you can’t help but question the reason for such gratuitousness.
If it was about the revenge, then the that revenge had best be sweet, and even though the poor excuse for humans are duly dispatched, by the time it comes around, you are left not caring.
By the time it comes around, you’ve been turned off by all that unfolded previously.
The acting is poor.
The plot is left wanting.
And the subject matter is badly handled.
I Spit On Your Grave may have reached cult status and will probably stay as such whilst it stays in the limelight. (The recent remake and subsequent sequels have strengthened that at least for the time being.)
And yet in this Horror Surgeon’s eyes, the movie doesn’t deserve such a high place on the classic horror mantle.
Especially when placed alongside the likes of Friday the 13th or A Nightmare On Elm Street.
SUCH WAS THE IMPACT that Wes Craven’s feature, The Last House On The Left had on the film industry, it was inevitable that Hollywood would look at a remake.
What is interesting about this film is that the masterminds behind the original, Wes Craven and Sean Cunningham came on board as producers.
Certainly the theme still could hold strong with a modern audience, as parents seeking revenge on their daughters’ near-death experience at the hands of some vile representatives of humanity.
The key difference from the original though is that in this instance, the daughter survives and is also on hand to exact revenge.
Where as the character was not so fortunate in the first instance.
There are other obvious differences too.
We’re dealing with a much more polished vehicle this time around and dare I say it? A higher level of acting ability on show too.
Most notably for me though is how the horrid affair plays out in the woods when our antagonists prey on their victims.
This time around, it has a much harder edge, and the brutality and physicality of their actions seem a lot harder to bear.
The 1972 movie was shocking for the fact that it didn’t allow the viewer to shift away from the ordeal that took place and were left empty at the daughters’ demise.
Here though, she survives, but just barely, having to fight tooth and nail to escape with every once of her being.
Once in the ‘safety’ of her home, then things just get crazy as all hell breaks loose.
Definitely one to watch and a lot better than I thought it would be, perhaps due to Craven and Cunningham’s eyes watching over the project?
Stars: Tony Goldwyn (Ghost – and no he will never shake that off), Monica Potter (AlongCame A Spider, Saw), Garret Dillahunt (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles), Spencer Treat Clark (Unbreakable), and Aaron Paul (Breaking Bad)
THERE IS SO MUCH that is going right for this feature and I’m probably its’ biggest champion being a fan of the mystical, fairytale nature with its dark, dark storytelling.
And there is indeed much to be said about this approach from director Corin Hardy’s directorial debut.
It also holds a strong cast in its ranks with Joseph Mawie (Game of Thrones, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter), Bojana Novakovic (Drag Me To Hell, Devil) who move to a remote millhouse in Ireland with their baby son, only to be hounded by these creatures from deep within the forest.
There is a lot to like in this believable couple who are at odd ends when they come face to face with a hidden danger, and the build up to the creatures reveal is handled with the right side of tension, but once they are revealed, this is where the film starts to fall short for me.
I do like my horror to have a certain mystery surrounding it, particularly when it comes to creatures.
The element of the unknown is often much more scary than the real thing.
Supposedly, Hardy searched Britain to find his answer to Stan Winston’s creature design approach and although John Nolan provides a fine effort in these mythical beings, it does feel that once we know of them, the mystery and therefore the scare factor drops a little.
There are elements that play really well and the world that is created is a believable one, captured by the stunning scenery that is on show.
Mix that in with plenty of backs to the wall, fight for their lives scenarios and you have the recipe of a solid horror movie.
It’s not perfect, but it can stand tall as an original piece with plenty of promise.
Hardy is definitely a director to keep an eye on and this is why The Hallow is our movie choice of the week.
Surgeons of Horror 