Reviews: Bram Stoker’s Shadowbuilder; HP Lovecraft’s The Unnameable

Text © Richard Gary / Indie Horror Films, 2019

Images from the Internet

These two reviews are together because both were based on the literature of master writers who are as vibrant today as they were in their own time around the turn of the 20 Century. Bram Stoker’s Dracula is a must read, and HP Lovecraft’s tales of the Old Ones and Cthulhu resonate today. However, these films are based on lesser known works, which I believe make them compelling. Are they loyal to the source work? Of course not, much like depictions Dracula and the films about the octopus-headed evil god. But that doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy, right?

Bram Stoker’s Shadowbuilder (aka Shadow Builder)

Directed by Jamie Dixon
Applecreek Communications / Hammerhead Productions /
Imperial Entertainment / Moonstone Entertainment / MVD Rewind Collection
101 minutes, 1998 / 2018
www.mvdvisual.com

“The Shadow Builder,” on which this is kind-of-based, is from Under the Sunset, Bram Stoker’s first collection of short stories (HERE) that was published in 1881.  In the original, the titular character could be envisioned as a sorrowful “Death” (sans scythe), who comes for a family when it’s their time (yes, I’ve read it). Like many tales of its period, where authors were paid by the number of words, it’s filled with imagery and adjectives more than narrative story, e.g., “The lonely Man’s heart grows heavier and heavier as he waits and watches, whilst the weary time passes and the countless days and nights come and go.”

And then there is this film, in which nearly everything changes or is given a more structured plotline than the original. A coven led by an evil priest resurrects the Shadowbuilder [SB] through a sacrifice and blood ritual. Rather than morose, it/he is an malevolent being with no foreboding or sadness, but rather is a creature who is after a young boy, Chris (Kevin Zegers) who is pure of heart and may become a Saint one day (yes, you read that correctly).



Andrew Jackson

In some ways, the SB (Andrew Jackson) is a cross between a vampire and a platonic incubus, in that as it passes through a victim, it sucks the energy right out of the person, leaving what looks like a burned out husk, which sometimes comes back to life (reminiscent of 1985’s Lifeforce, sans Mathilda May, but I digress…) for nefarious reasons. Also, being more demon than Death Proper, he is harmed by light, and must remain in the darkness.

On the side of light is a warrior priest, Father Vassey (Michael Rooker, of Guardians of the Universe fame, though for us genre fans, he will always be the titular mass murderer of 1989’s Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer), Chris’ mom Jenny (Leslie Hope), and her boyfriend, Sherriff Sam (Shawn Thompson). Also in a quirky extended cameo role is the great Tony Todd as a nutzoid Rasta dude with an eyepatch named Covey who, of course, is an important lynchpin to the storyline.



Michael Rooker

As time goes on, the influence of the Demon on the town (filmed in Paris, Ontario) is one of violence and mayhem, and the folks go on rampages with axes and stripping on crosses for the gratuitous nudity. There is some nonsense of course, where the SB needs a certain amount of souls for a solar eclipse to gain full power, and he’s one shy… like he couldn’t just go over to anyone in the town who have gone nuts and just grabbed one, and the opportunities are ripe with fodder. To me that’s the big hole in the plot.

I really liked the religious aspects of the film, which both assures and questions religious fervour at the same time; whether God actually does intervene or is a “stand-back” kinda guy. On one hand is mentioned “an eye for an eye,” and then someone smarmily calls the end of the world “The Book of Rationalization.” It is smart to swing both ways like that, even though it’s pretty obvious they stand by God of Creation and certainly Jesus: while it does get only a little bit heavy handed in that way, it does not interfere with the story, so I’m okay with it, being the non-religious person that I am.

There’s lots of jump scares that work, some nice blood effects, a ton of digital effects that are reminiscent of Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), and a large body count that help boost the payload of enjoyment.

The Blu-ray has many extras, most of which are new for this re-release: The first one up is the “Making of the Shadowbuilder” featurette (32:22), which presents the director, writer Michael Stokes and its actors Jackson and Todd. There is also a “Shadowbuilder: Visual Effects” featurette (13:26) and also a look at “Shadowbuilder: Kevin Zegers” piece (5:00); it is pretty obvious they were all recorded at the same time and then edited into different groups. Luckily, all three are entertaining, especially the effects one as the director describes how he helped create a digital layering technique that was used in a ton of mainstream features, such as Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1990).

Tony Todd

Then of course, there’s the full-length audio commentary by the director, Jamie Dixon. This is actually a nicely paced talk that reflects and rebounds off what the viewer is seeing on the screen. Dixon doesn’t just ramble on about technical aspects, it’s directly tied to the images present on the screen. This style is very informative yet low pressure for the viewer.  

Some other cool odds and end extras include a reversible, two-sided cover artwork, the trailer for the original release as well as other coming attractions, a poster folded into the clamshell case, and some subtitles that didn’t really work well off my Blu-ray player.

Like I said, some of the plotline is questionable, and other than the barest of connection to the original short story, but it’s a fun ride.

 

H.P. Lovecraft’s The Unnamable (aka The Unnamable)

Directed by Jean-Paul Ouellette
Unearthed Films / Yankee Classic Pictures / Unleased Classics / MVD Visual
76 minutes, 1988 / 2018
www.unearthedfilms.com
www.mvdvisual.com

The original short story on which this film is very loosely based was first published in Weird Tales in July 1925 (HERE). While both take the longer route to get to a point or anywhere near a plot, Stoker’s style was languid, while Lovecraft uses his writing editing the same way film does, with sharpness and snippets to express excitement, such as this nameable description of the unnameable: “It was everywhere — a gelatin — a slime; a vapor; — yet it had shapes, a thousand shapes of horror beyond all memory. There were eyes — and a blemish. It was the pit — the maelstrom — the ultimate abomination. Carter, it was the unnameable!” (Yes, I’ve read it, too.)

This is director Jean-Paul Ouellette’s first film, and he takes the initial tale and uses it as the starting point (after the obligatory prologue where we get some of the back story of Alyda Winthrop (Katrin Alexandre), aka the named Unnameable.



Mark Parra, Charles Klausmeyer, Mark Kinsey Stephenson

The focus of the story is two intertwining groups of overaged Miskatonic University (if it’s Lovecraft, it must be there; a guerilla-style UCLA stood in for the locale) students, mostly freshmen/-women, in New England. These are people who will wind up in the spooky house where the Unnamable lives. The first is the trio of snooty and egocentric hyper-intelligent (a Sherlock Holmes meets Sheldon Cooper type, though I supposed he’s symbolically an ersatz Lovecraft) Folklorist and writer Carter (Mark Kinsey Stephenson), always-in-a-suit-and-tie Howard (Charles King aka Charles Klausmeyer) and obnoxious show-off Joel (Mark Parra, who is now a noted Martial Arts expert).


Laura Albert

The second group is jocks Bruce (Eban Ham, who wears a sweater around his neck) and John (Blane Wheatley), who are creepy in trying to seduce Tanya (Alexandra Durrell) and Wendy (cult fave Laura Albert in her first film; she will become a top stunt women in film, but those in the know may always think of her as Mrs. Van Houten in 1989’s Dr. Caligari).  

Of course, as time rolls on, physical contact with the titular creature will be inevitable, leading to some really nice bloodwork effects and a decent body count. The creature also looks pretty good, and it takes quite a while before one gets to see it in whole (other than a quick flash that you’ll need to hit the pause button to catch.

The acting is a bit on the wooden side, but it’s somewhat forgivable as for most of the players, this is their first roles. As I stated near the top, it’s also the director’s first feature, so there is the learning curve of getting good performances from the cast. No, my big issue is something that is endemic in movies of this period, and that is the walking around the house (in this case; in others, it could be the woods) with a flashlight or candle for extended periods. Yes, I have discussed this before in other reviews, but in this film, if combined, it must take up a good third of the entire running time. Then there is door being locked in a house full of windows. Furniture goes out windows, breaking glass. This might be a good time to mention that there is a very dark, subtle humor that runs throughout.

An interesting aspect of the film that is totally dated is the whole subplot of jocks trying to get laid at all means possible, including trying to get the ladies drunk and forced embracing. Or, as is also true here and oft the case in horror cinema, the hot girl is all, “Hello, I just met you an hour ago: let’s fuck!” These two scenarios made my skin crawl more than the beastie, honestly. And yet, I liked the film, as ridiculous and full of holes as it may be, it is definitely a piece of its time.



Eban Ham

Among the extras are separate interviews done in split screens by Jay Kay of the Horror Happens Radio podcast with actors Charles Klausmeyer and Mark Kinsey Stephenson who are friends beyond the film (78:13), Eben Ham (30:55), Laura Albert (46:16), Mark Parra (33:36),and make-up artists R. Christopher Biggs and Camille Calvet (60:03); surprisingly though, none with the director. Kay does a great job in hitting the fine points of asking the right probing questions, and still manages to touch on the marketing buzzwords of the product (i.e., this Blu-ray and its sequel).

A full audio commentary with Albert, Ham, Klausmeyer, Stephenson, Biggs and Calvet in included. As you might guess by the sheer number of people contributing to this aural annotation, it’s kind of a mess with some information, and a lot of talking over each other, sadly.  Stick to the Jay Kay interviews for real info. To add to the extras, there’s a photo gallery and various trailers, including for this film.

There is a sequel by the same director, The Unnamable II: The Statement of Randolph Carter (1992) that has two of the same main male leads, which I have not seen yet. Time will tell.

 

 

 

Review: Terror of Dracula

Text © Richard Gary/Indie Horror Films, 2012

Images from the Internet

                            

Terror of Dracula

Directed by Anthony DP Mann     

World Wide Multi-Media (WWMM)                      

100 minutes, 2012  

wwmm.info/

MVDvisual.com

In the DIY world, if someone won’t do it for you, take it into your own hands. Can’t get a gig? Get some bands, hire a hall and equipment, and put on your own showcase. Can’t get a record deal, even from the indies? Put it out yourself. Fixated on 19^th Century literature and want to make a film about Sherlock Holmes or Count Dracula? Get some likeminded friends together who need some exposure and, as they say in Canada, get ‘er done.

Oh, I may have forgotten to mention that Terror of Dracula is a Canadian film, based in the lovely (seriously) granite-capital of Kingston, Ontario, a “place I know right well” (to quote the song “Leaving of Liverpool”).

So, Anthony DP Mann, along with Bill Bossert, wrote a screenplay supposedly meant to be accurate to the original 1897 Bram Stoker novel, and then Mann added himself to the main role, and also directed the film, such as he had done with his previous two films, Sherlock Holmes and the Shadow Watchers and Canucla (aka Dracula in Canada). I have not seen these others yet, but would be willing.

As the moving picture show begins, we are presented with title cards, explaining that this release predates most the others, including the Hammer Films, and it has been restored. This is a nice touch, as this was obviously shot on digi, and just released this year. Not a complaint though; just the opposite, as it was appreciated.

With the help of the city’s local Theatre Five troupe (whom I had seen perform a few times in the late 1980s). Actually, I got excited when I saw that Dr. Seward, who runs the institution that houses Renfield, and is the father of the Count’s first on-land British victim, Lucy, is played by Dick Miller. However, it was not the Dick Miller. Oh, well, unlife goes on. Apparently, none of the other cast members have any film credits other than either this, or Mann’s previous Sherlock release.

Oh, there’s lots of other unintentionally amusing bits – and again, this is not meant as a dig, just the eye of a viewer of many indie films – such as the cell where Renfield is kept at the institution is obviously the same we Jonathan Harker’s bedroom at Castle D.

A reason I was hot to watch this film is because of its reputed loyalty to the book, one I’ve read a number of times. It really is nearly impossible, as the novel takes place in various forms of correspondence, after the fact (for example, a paraphrase may be something like, “Oh, what a horrible series of events occurred last evening, and here is why…”). Like all other retellings before this one (while Hammer was especially bad for loyalty to the original, they were usually great films), there is – and has to be – quite a bit of original input by Mann and Weil… I mean Bossert, including the unsurprising yet fun ending.

One disappointing aspects of this film is the slow pacing. In a stilted verbal manner or through chewing of scenery to express angst, the cast plays this like a stage drama, with overwrought tones and non-literal handwringing, in part due to way the cast reads the 19^th Century-ish dialog, a trap that most period pieces fall into. This is not helped by the extreme and claustrophobic close-ups that are the core of nearly every scene. It’s sort of like when you watch a filmed concert, and they focus on the strumming hand rather than both that and the one playing the chords. I kept wanting more visual information that just when eyebrows are lifted. I was almost expecting the actors to turn around too fast as hit their nose on the camera (yes, Mel Brooks did perfect that).

Another is how dreadfully serious they seem to be taking the production. Truly, a low budget and a newbie cast is much better serving the audience if there seems to be some sense of camaraderie with those on- and off-screen. Sure, the tale of Dracula and his ilk deals with evil beings out to suck the world dry in high drama fashion, but even in the original novel, one could argue that Renfield and his insistence on entomophagy was a comic thread on some level. The Hammer Films versions also had moments of dark humor. Mix together the dead (pun intended) seriousness and the stilted language and acting, you end up with a product that is self-important and pretentious, even if that is not what was meant as the outcome. I’m just sayin’…

Mann plays the titular character either with static intensity or overdrawn – er – intensity. The beard looks okay, but there is no explanation of why it turns from white in Transylvania to dark in Kingst… I mean England.

While I’m at it, there were a few parts in the book that are terrific, but were left out here, I’m sure due to financial constraints, so I’m not blaming, I’m just noticing. An example is the terror aboard the Demeter, the ship that brings ol’ Drac and his many boxes filled with native soil to the UK. In the book, it is a very palpable set piece, and it is even well done in the original Nosferatu (1922), though I do have to admit it is barely shown in the more famous Lugosi-led Dracula (1930).

The rest of the cast also meanders over stilted language and emotions, as I’ve indicated above, although Angela Scott fares well as Lucy, with minimal ham-foolery. It would have been easy to do the dying character as a Camille, with arms amok, but she stays true. However, the three women who play the “wives” of the Count are jaw-droopingly overdone performances. To be fair, this is actually a hard part to play, because there’s three of them vying for notice always in the same scene, and again, there’s an overwrought level to them; even in the book, as they cower from their “master” and bound after their prey (a baby), so perhaps I’m being too hard on them.

I respect what Mann is trying to do, but perhaps he is doing too much. He needs a cinematographer who knows how to back the hell up, a dialog coach (especially if he continues to film costume dramas), and an AD who will have the balls to tell him that he needs to either ramp a scene up, or clamp it down.

Note that this film has been getting a lot of really good notices, so I may be one of the few who had some difficulty with it. The only extras on the disc are two versions of the trailer, so if you watch the VoD version, you won’t miss much. Perhaps check it out for yourself. See it… for your mother’s sake.