All genres of suspense, terror, and horror will be reviewed by Richard Gary. His address to send preview copies supplied upon request to rbf55@msn.com.
Directed by Chris Ethridge Making Monster Productions / Blue Dusk
Productions Apprehensive Films 93
minutes, 2014 www.afcinema.com www.mvdvisual.com
The
fictional town of Morningside is in New Jersey, and the two top cops are a local
(Tom Haulk, played by Robert Pralgo), and one from the Bronx (Klara Austin, embodied
by the underrated Tiffany Shepis, who started out in the Troma camp). I really didn’t
get a Jersey vibe from the film (it’s based on the more rural Wharton area; I
drove through it on 80 more times that I remember) mostly due to the lack of
Tri-State accents, but considering it was filmed in Lawrenceville, GA, that’s
not surprising. All I’m sayin’ is it goes
without sayin’, as I once overheard someone say.
Someone
is gruesomely (of course!) killing off some local drug dealer scumbags while
wearing a hooded robe and a cool ritual mask (see the DVD cover above). Using
various devises such as power slicers and a kind of mace, victims are immobilized
and have internal organs removed; sometimes this happens while they’re still
alive.
There
is nothing exotic or artsy about this film as far as form goes, but sometimes
meat and potatoes is just what is needed. Skip the weird shadows, the strange
angles, the symbolic lighting, and just get to the “meat” of the matter.
Director Chris Ethridge, in his first full length release, cuts to the chase
and gives the audience a taut and bloody drama without the bells and whistles,
just gristle. Perhaps, over time, this will change, but that’s okay, too. I
believe that many directors try too much on their first outing, and find out
that it’s harder work than was necessary to advance the action. The fact that
this release has won a bunch of awards in festivals shows that it’s definitely
reaching where it is needed.
You
know what’s a good sign? I didn’t figure out the killer for a while, which is
rare. I made guesses, and was wrong on three of them. When I did figure it out,
about 20 minutes before the end, I thought “really?”, sometimes the trickiest of
all choices is in front of your face.
For
a first full feature, Ethridge manages to find some real talent, with lots of
credentials. The two leads, for example, are seasoned professionals, with
Pralgo being in a bunch of high-level cable shows and major films, and Shepis has
a long history in the genre. The big name here, though, belongs to Nicholas
Brendon, who was Zander in the popular series Buffy, The Vampire Slayer. Okay, yeah, he’s a pretty one-note
actor, but there is no doubt he is known.
For
me, the fault that is in the film – and this is true of most genre releases
both big and small – is the shallowness of exposition. Why is someone from the
Bronx the Deputy Sheriff? What is her background? Who is the Sherriff’s girlfriend (Catherine Tabor)? The bad guy’s wife
(more cameo than anything by the lovely April Bogenshultz)? There is,
fortunately, some indication of why the Sherriff is so committed to his best
bud’s wife (Amber Chaney, who played Avox in The Hunger Games)?
On
the flip side, what is great about the writing is that it isn’t cut and dry in
that the “monster” is not – er – unhuman (e.g., Jason, Michael). Mistakes are
made, and people who should not be involved become victims by accident. I think
this is a real bonus and one I’d like to see kept up in other films. Kudos. Also,
there is a great red herring a bit over half-way through that is not only well
played, but well placed.
Nudity
is kept at a minimal, and the gore effects look really good. There isn’t an
overabundance of visceral matter, but what is present is nice and messy. Most
of it is post-attack, rather than the actual action.
The
extras are a couple of trailers and an interesting commentary track with the
director/co-producer, writer/co-producer Jayson Palmer, and co-producer Michael
Harper discussing the production, actors, and all that. Though I don’t remember
who is saying what (one of the problems with three or more people on a track),
it’s kind of irrelevant because it’s the info that matters.
I
like that the film doesn’t do the usual killer pseudo-teens + sex = death
(though there is a bit of a nod to that), and that most who die deserve it, so
when those who aren’t “worthy” bite it, it actually makes it more moving. It
may be meat ‘n taters, but as I said, sometimes you can get more accomplished
by going for why the audience is there in the first place.
Text by Richard Gary / Indie Horror Films,
2014 Images from the Internet
Discussed here are two films based on short
stories from about a generation on either side the turn of the 20th
Century. The writers of these tales, HP Lovecraft and Rudyard Kipling, are
known for their verbose language and tales of the wild side of life. Free PDFs
of the original Lovecraft short story can be found HERE, and the Kipling one HERE. The adaptations are updated to the
present, but retain their original pastiches, including first-person narrations.
The 1933
H.P. Lovecraft short story, with the same name on which this film is based, although
apparently considered one of his lesser literary works, has one of the great
and memorable opening lines in 20th Century horror literature: “It
is true that I have just sent six bullets through the head of my best friend,
and yet I hope to show by this statement that I am not his murderer.”
Without
giving away too much, Daniel (Rob Dalton), the rascally rich lifelong pal of
the narrating character, Edward (David Bunce), falls for a mysterious woman
named Asenath Waite (portrayed by the film’s writer, Mary Jane Hansen). Asenath
has a dark reputation as a hypnotist at good moments, and a necromancer/witch
at less forgiving times. Added into the mix is Daniel’s pregnant wife, Marion
(Susan Cicarelli-Caputo). This is a major variance from the original story, as
Marion is barely mentioned by H.P., but is thankfully given full personhood
here.
As time goes
on, it is pretty obvious that Edward and Asenath’s relationship is becoming
increasingly mystical and toxic. I’m grateful I read the original (see the link
in the blog’s opening paragraph) before seeing the film, for a few reasons. The
most obvious is that I could compare the two. Also, there were a couple of gaps
here and there in the film that were not major flaws, but the story helped fill
in. For example, the first couple of pages explain the relationship between
Daniel and Edward, whereas in the movie adaptation, which has been modernized
to the present, they are friends, but the exposition is kind of iffy.
One of the
aspects that interested me is that it is generally known that Asenath is one of
the few strong female characters in Lovecraft’s literary camp, but the two points
that stick in my craw is that (a) she keeps wishing she were a man because men
have stronger brains, and (b) she may only be a woman in meat puppet form. I
was wondering how the film would present this men’s vs. women’s argument, which
it does, but writer Hansen balances it by having Asenath make the same argument
only to be refuted by Marion. I believe bringing up this argument from the book
and addressing it in this way was a brave – and somewhat necessary – thing for
Hansen to do.
Hansen
actually takes some other wise steps, like adding in a psychological aspect on
top of the pure mysticism of the original. She does this without losing the
power of the story, and considering this is her first screenplay, that’s quite
impressive. Asenath’s session with psychoanalyst Marion gives the impression
she is talking about Daniel, but there is more afoot that will come to light.
In the book,
Asenath is attractive but weirdly bug-eyed (not in those words), but Hansen is
quite fetching in a young Blythe Danner sort of way. She is just one of a relatively strong albeit
mostly unknown cast.
Shot in
Saratoga Springs, in Upstate Eastern New York, Gliserman gives the film a
dated, eerie feeling, making it almost claustrophobic with many close angles.
Even an overhead shot of a car on the highway seems limited in space. This is
achieved in part by muting the color tones into a sepia-filtered light, so it’s
in color, but there are no bright hues. There is also some interesting shots
and editing, giving it an arty feel without going into the obtuse. Gliserman
did the cinematography, and job well done.
For me, the
flaw of the film, as it were, is the title creature, which looked a bit like it
needed the touch of someone with a more SFX experience. Otherwise, the creep
factor stays high. Lovecraft is hard to adapt, given his language (for which
the dialog here gratefully borrows plentiful) and the more than 80 years since its
release. Sure, you could just totally revamp it, like Stuart Gordon’s infamous Re-Animator (1985) and From Beyond (1986), but it takes courage
to keep it loyal even with the updating.
Rudyard
Kipling was more known for fantastical stories of India, where boys live in the
jungle and converse with animals, or brave British/white men fight battles
against raging local/Indian wild jungle men. But there is also a darker side to
Kipling, who would occasionally write about the more mysterious, dangerous, and
supernatural view of life.
Mark of the Beast, in the original 1890 story,
also has its loci in the dark wilderness of India, but in this retelling, we
are logically and micro-budgetedly moved to (possibly) rural America, where
somehow natives (I am assuming they mean Native Americans, though it could just
be a cult, it’s not explained well) still manage to worship a monkey god.
The basic
premise of the story is that Fleete (genre writer and Film Threat editor Phil Hall) is a drunken lout, and manages to
offend the monkey god worshipers by putting a cigar out on its alter. He is attacked
by a leper (in the States, while extremely rare, can be apparently contracted
from armadillos, I kid you not) or something more sinister for his misdeed, who
is known as the Silver Man due to the way the light reflects off his…er…skin. Fleete
starts quickly turning into a similar creature, gnarling and gnashing, eating
raw meat and attacking others, but that is only the beginning of the story, and
I won’t give away much more.
As with many
of the fictions of the period, most were written by men about men. In the
original short story, there is talk of a nurse, but all the main characters are
male. Co-directors Gorman and Seymour not only take a turn at the gender, they
have the lead and first-person narration personified by Debbie (in the original
story, the narrator is unnamed) voiced over by B-Queen goddess Debbie Rochon,
giving yet another top-notch-yet-underappreciated performance; I would arguably
say she gives the most naturalistic performance of the lot. It’s kind of a shame
that the person who receives top billing, who seems to be there mostly so the
film has a name, is the diminutive Ellen
Muth, the star of the spectacular Dead
Like Me series. It is good to see her work as I certainly enjoyed the AMC
show, and she is a superb actor, but she doesn’t really do much here more than
be in the shots as a brought-along friend (lover?) of another character (Margaret
Champagne) who was not in the Kipling story. Yeah, it’s great they’ve added
women roles, as I said, but I would like it to be more substantial than just
peripheral characters who are there to scream and panic, or be fodder for… nah,
not giving it away.
One of the
comments often made about the original story is that there is a bit of torture
thrown in by two of the main characters, including Strickland (Dick Boland) who
is a police officer trying to get information, and to help his obnoxious friend
(acquaintance?), Fleete, recover. In the original, Kipling skips over this part
and a couple of other gruesome moments as the narrator refusing to put it down
to writing. But now, we live in a post-9/11, Homeland and 24 world.
Many people in the West are having attitude changes towards getting information
any way possible because of their fears, real or imagined. For example, the
torture report about the CIA under the Bush Administration is released to a
resounding “Is Miley pregnant?”
attitude. Now, during the commentary the directors say they are against the practice,
but there is a bit less of the shying away of Kipling’s to the technique. Here the camera lingers on
the gruesome inflictions.
There are
some nice additions and touches added here, such as uber-Christian Strickland
trying – with Debbie’s help – in an exorcism. Strickland, once realizing that
Christianity isn’t going to change anything, and that the monkey god may also
have some power in the situation, decides he and Debbie need to take matters in
their own hands, with cudgels in hand in a nicely blue tinted day-for-night
chase. Going from God loving to torturer seems like a natural progression. And
what does one gain if one loses their own soul, is the – er – soul of the
story, both the original and this interpretation.
What I find
amusing about adaptations like this, where they take a story from another time
and culture zone and update it is how they leverage the older with the modern.
Even though some of the language is the same, the addition of profanity seems
to be a way to say, “Hello! This is now, people, not then!” I don’t believe
it’s a good or bad thing, just a bemused observation.
The make-up
effects look better than the budget implies, with the blisters and dusky, scaly
skin of the leper working into the story. The bite marks left by Fleete look
appropriately gory in an almost modern zombie touch, if shown – er –
fleetingly. Much of the cast also doubles as crew, including producers and many
other hats. That is a sign of dedication that I respect, being willing to work
hard on both sides of the camera, and more than just as a cameo appearance
(such as the opening party scene), which is always needed in a micro-budget
indie.
Filmed
around Voluntown, Connecticut, the woods look mysterious and deep, and isolated
(the sign of decent camerawork). The footage is color graded to give
impressions, such as the previously mentioned blue-hued night shots. Unless
used garishly in extremes, such as in, say, Creepshow
(1982), if used correctly as it is here, it can convey subtle moods and
ambience, pushing those micro-dollars quite a bit further.
I think it’s
important to note that the film has added a really nice touch to the ending of
the story, beyond where Kipling tread, showing the futility of… well, I’m not
going to say. This is definitely a film worth watching, but know that there are
squeamish parts because of the humanity/inhumanity of it (unlike, say, torture porn) for those mainstream
viewers. For the genre fan, this may actually seem a bit mild in the action,
but in the larger picture, it points to the flaws in the way we may think or
believe.
The “Making
of The Beast” extra is 12 minutes of
the first and last day of shooting, and keeps it interesting as we meet the
make-up mavens, introductions to most of the cast, and general discussions thankfully
on-set as opposed to talking head interviews, which can be fun but are less
in-the-moment. Other extras are two of the film’s official trailers, and two
winners of a college contest for best editing of a trailer and teaser. They
take Sergei Eisenstein’s posit of editing = action seriously, and both are well
done. However, the feature itself actually uses very lax editing, using longer
than usual shots, which is noted with joy by me in this post music
video/mainstream action film world.
Lastly,
there is the Commentary Track with the two directors. They had previously
directed the Bikini Bloodbath series, so it’s good to hear them talk about the
film from various technical as well as personal aspects. They are obviously
knowledgeable about cinema history, not just horror, so the pace keeps up.
There is a bit less of goofiness between them here, and more actual film talk
so I can say positive things about the track, as they take it seriously, but
not dryly so. The biggest revelation to me was that they intended this to be
vague as far as time and location, though considering the lack of melanin (with
one exception in a b-roll cameo, who was also part of the crew) and tans of the
cast, I can only say “USA.”
I’ve watched
it twice now, and it has kept its integrity throughout, so I say go for it.
