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.
Over the past few years, I
have seen tee-shirts that read “Eat the Rich.” While not a cannibal myself, I
understand the deeper meaning of this slogan. Now let us add a little Covid and
some H.P. Lovecraft, whaddya say?
This was filmed in Indiana
during the Covid crisis (yes, it was real), and right away during the b-roll’d
credits, lots of people are wearing masks. Cool cloth types, not the n95
medical ones. I still wear mine in crowded places, but I digress…
Senator Jim Richardson
(Raymond Kester) is a right wing racist, homophobic, and misogynistic jackhole Congressman
who harasses wait staff in a restaurant (for example) and uses words like “cuc”
about people wearing masks, even if it is mandated. Total DeSantis-ville
mentality. Less than five minutes in, and I hope some comeuppance is in store
for this yahoo, as I feel about any of these morons going around annoying
workers who have no say in policy and especially if they put it online. But
again, I digress…
Statuesque Evie Elkins (Morgan
Bow), a single mom, works in a dead-end job as a waitress for a tyrant boss and
lives with her parents. Money is tight for her and her friends as well. They
are Joey (Dakota Bruton) and her level-headed boyfriend Mark (Evan Lahee), and Evie’s
new boyfriend Adam (Cody Alexander). They all hang out on Zoom playing Dungeons
and Dragons, and complain about their fates, the mandates, and having to deal
with MAGAs in the workplace, as Joey states.
Adam’s politics are as far
Left as Richardson’s is to the Right, spewing a Marxist-kinda vibe and jibe,
saying things like “plutocratic oligarchy.” And now he has done gone and
kidnapped Richardson and taken him to a hideaway house (cabin in the woods?)
with a hot tub, dragging the other three into danger with the law, and so much
more. As we see in the very opening, there is something “different” about Adam.
Thing is with kidnapping anyone, especially politicians, someone must end up
dead, either the kidnappers or the kidnappee. Way of the world, and especially genre
films.
Yes, there is some deep
shit politics going on here, but it takes the side of the people who are
struggling, which thanks to the Trump tax cuts for the one percent, high costs
of medical care in the middle of a pandemic, and just trying to survive, this
is not about power – well, perhaps it is for Adam – but more about the
desperation of the working class in a country in which those in the money and power
(usually the same) spew hatred towards society’s base. I do not mean for this
to sound like a screed, though it is plain which political side I am on.
This is obviously
micro-budget (for which I support) and it could have easily have just been a
tale of a kidnapping, a la Death and the Maiden (1994), but more like SheepSkin(2013), this takes it to a horror level with a beastie (the title kinda gives it away, as
does the prologue, but I will not reveal the details).
This makes me think of the
flip of the attempt to kidnap Democratic Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer,
where in this case it is Lefties doing the deed rather than the Right’s
attempt. Perhaps that almost-taking inspired this story?
When the film starts, what
confused me is the added visual glitches and (sometimes literal) noise added to
the film, without it being found footage. But it is not just a stylistic choice:
as things become clearer, the more unnerving it gets (a good thing), the more
it becomes a character, representing chaos and entropy.
Once the social strata
commentary stops and the woo part of the story begins, the action certainly
picks up.
The film looks good, employing
some filters to give moods, or a deep blue one to represent night. It all works
together well. The digital SFX are, honestly, quite cheesy looking, such as some
electric flashes looking like it came from a 1980s low budget sci-fi film.
Again, this is a micro-budgeter, so it is more the meaning than the
demonstration.
This is the director’s
first feature, and while it has some issues here and there, such as being weighed
down a bit by philosophy and social commentary, the story itself is enjoyable,
and just from viewing this, I can tell that there is some good work coming out
of Key going forward. This is definitely a solid start.
Want to get my attention about a genre release? Well,
there are lots of ways, of course, but one is to mention HP “Lovecraft-inspired.”
Yes! Bring me some of those tentacled Old Gods.
The focus of this story is on Silvia Carroll, who is
missing (but not with Meagan). She and her creepy stoic boyfriend, Jacob (Matt
Blackwell) were star graduate student researchers at the local university (Miskatonic
was not mentioned; there is also no indication of it being in New England, as
this is filmed in Kyle, Texas), under the direction of the wonderfully named
Dr. Rathbone (Dimitrius Pulido). Seems they were studying the tunnels of their
town that branch off a road overpass above a stream, and she disappeared. Silvia’s
twin sister, the thick-make-up-wearing Sam(antha) (cute Kristin Cochell), is on
a quest to find her missing sibling.
Jordan Michael Brinkman, Kristin Cochell, Paula Marcenaro Solinger
Also in the equation is the police in the form of hard-bitten
– and a bit cliché – Detective Richie (Marvel Comics artist/writer Val Mayerik,
who co-created Howard the Duck and Man-Thing). He suspects Jacob of some shenanigans
about Silvia – as does Sam – and is peripherally doin’ some ‘vestigatin’. Joining
in the search proper is Sam’s friend – and ex-girlfriend – Lucy (Paula
Marcenaro Solinger) and her present boyfriend, Noah (Jordan Michael Brinkman),
all of whom, of course, distrust Jacob. Though I will not reveal the answer,
early on I wonder if Jacob becomes the villain or saves the day.
The four head out into the tunnels after the early expository
first act that introduces everyone and their personalities (e.g., who is on who’s
side). Silvia talked about other dimensions before her disappearance, and once
they are in the tunnels, things…change. It reminds me of Grave Encounters (2011),
where corridors and rooms transform as you pass through them. Here, tunnels
become houses and back into tunnels, day is suddenly night, and people start
seeing things. One confusing thing to me is how Jacob knew where the bathroom
was in this mysterious abode; either it’s a continuity error, or he knows more
than he is letting on. Hopefully, it’s the latter.
That’s when the tentacles come in. The introduction is
almost like Japanese tentacle Hentai, or something the W.A.V.E. Video company used to produce. The tentacles are slimy and have a hook at the
tip; but more importantly, they are practical SFX rather than digital, so they
look pretty cool. Soon, the group becomes tentacle fodder and the other-dimensional
creature becomes stronger. For a long time, you see the tentacles, but not the
creature itself (perhaps Cthulhu?). Which brings me to the point of the further
influence of Lovecraft. These inspirations are both direct and indirect, but
sometimes both, such as the mention of The Hound of Tindalos, which was created
by Frank Belknap Long, and used in a story by Lovecraft (I’m not a Lovecraft scholar
though I am a fan; I just used Wikipedia).
Matt Blackwell
When we see the full creature back in the tunnels at
some point near the third act, it reminded me of the space alien from an
episode of “The Outer Limits” called “Cold Hands, Warm Heart.” In other words,
it was an enjoyable SFX design.
I have to say, the film is quite imaginative, in a
kind of mind-fuck way, and I mean that as a compliment. There is no consistent
narrative as the space and events change dramatically and often, and yet the
story can be followed. That being said, it does not talk down to the viewer.
There are parts you may be scratching your head over (as I did a couple of
times), but stick with it, it’s worth the watch.
Helping with that is the interesting and creative cinematography
by Anthony Gutierrez, considering the limited space and lighting in the tunnels.
Usually when a picture is dark, I whine about it, but here it actually works to
made the passageways even more ethereal and claustrophobic. They walk around
with flashlights, so we see only what the director wants us to see. Most of the
photography is single-camera (often focusing on a particular person, rather than
a group) that is often hand-held, but not in a found footage kind of nausea-inducing
shaking.
Is this creature from another dimension? From space?
Only in the imagination of one of the characters? More to keep the viewer
intrigued. While there are some plot cliches, one of which I saw coming early
on, there are also quite a few surprises as well, which I genuinely enjoyed.
The acting is occasionally stilted here and there, but mostly everyone does a
decent job of it. The dialogue is occasionally complex, especially Blackwell’s,
but he handles it respectably.
There are a lot of little details that are presented
to us, such as a recurring Nefertiti statue (she was the wife of King Tut) that
has its eye whited out as a reference to later events. Also, the cast is
relatively small with six main characters, but they all mostly get used well.
This is the director’s first feature after a few
shorts, and it is definitely a push of the envelope for a relative newbie.
There are indications of growth on work to come, and I for one welcome it.
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)
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.
Before
I start discussing the film on a deeper level, let me explain what we’re lookin’
at here: Betty (Jessica Zwolak) works hard for the Double D Collections company
(“Proudly handling your assets”), but she is the only woman in the office with
a low-end cleavage, so her chances of advancement by her boss (the
irrepressible Michael Thurber!) fall kind of – er – flat. Her boyfriend Dutch (Sam
Qualiana) is no longer interested, and even the horndog cat-callers on the
corner won’t even give her the time of “woot.” She has such a low self-image,
she can’t see that her friend and co-worker, Tim (Paul McGinnis) is in love
with her. Even her therapist (Lloyd Kaufmann, King of Troma, plays an actual
role, though it is a bit of an extended cameo, rather than his usual quickies)
is on the snide side to her.
Debbie Rochon
She
visits a shady doctor (who’s has the words “Plastic Surgeon” handwritten on a
piece of paper and taped to the door) named Dr. Cate Thulu (Debbie Rochon, one
of my fave queens of indie horror). Thulu has her own agenda, as she serves a
Dark God by the name of Mammora (you heard me), and plans to help it control
the world by… well, I’m guessing you’re already there.
This
is a comedy on a few different levels. It is stupid and goofy as hell, but
there is a very sharp intelligence that runs through it if you’re paying
attention and can look up to it in the face. Similarly to Monty Python’s Flying
Circus, you can get out of it what you want, but there is definitely more than
it appears. I’ll get to that in a paragraph or three.
Most
of the acting is expectedly just a bit over the top as well, but it’s definitely
less demonstrative than the awful AC-ting
work of, say, John Lithgow in 3rd Rock
from the Sun. There definitely are some shining moments from most of the
cast, especially from Rochon, who has a particularly good sense of comedic
timing, even when her eyes are so emphasized; the brows look like they could be
about six inches above her head. She and Thurber actually co-starred in one of
my favorite films in the last few years, the very dark drama Exhumed (2011), though they share no
scenes together in this one.
Shot
around the Buffalo and Cheektowaga area (what, no Tonawanda?), City Hall makes
its appearance in the first scene, a place I visited often in the 1980s when I
would go and visit a record collector friend who worked there for many years. Most of the filming is
actually indoors, but it is good to see some recognizable places. But, as I’m
wont to do, I digress…
Jessica Zwolak, Paul McGinnis
One
of the great things about this film is the savviness of references that run throughout.
Some are quite obvious, such as Betty showing up the first day after the enhancement
saying “Tell me about it…stud,” but it’s the more subtle ones that made me
laugh the hardest. For example, after the operation, Dr. Thulu’s assistant,
Nurse Herbie (Robert Bozek) takes the exact same stance as Ernest Thesiger in
the 1935 classic, The Bride of
Frankenstein (see at 1:54 HERE).There is also a moment where some demonic-sprayed
breast milk starts melting a businessman’s face, who whines, “Oh, no, not
again!” This is particularly funny because he is played by Roy Frumkes, who wrote
and produced the 1987 film, Street Trash.
An alternative poster
Along
with the bizarre non-sequitur musical showtune number in a dream sequence (“All you need
is a pair of funbags”), there is a lot – and I mean a lot – of out-there humor. For example, there are take-offs of other
films such as Tim saying “With great cup size comes great responsibility,” one frustrated
co-worker of Betty snidely comments, about Betty’s enhancement, that for
herself, “They’re real, and they’re spectacular,” and a great line at the end a
comment made by two detectives that I can’t repeat because it could ruin the
ending. Speaking of which, the two detectives? They are named Bartles and
James.
Pay
attention whenever Dr. Thulu and Nurse Herbie get together, because they are hysterical,
and play off each other so well. For example there is this dialog:
Nurse:
I don’t have any good lines! [he says
breaking the fourth wall, reminiscent of a line from Monty Python during the
mattress sketch, when Carol Cleveland laments, “But it’s my only line!”]
Dr.:
You’re the assistant! All you need to say is, “Yes Mistress!”
Nurse: I refuse to be Igor; I’m way too pretty!
Rochon
really does steal the film, and not just because I’m a fan. Just her reading of
impatience at Betty’s getting undressed for an examination, saying “For the
sake of the Dark One, would you take it off already?! C’mon, chop-chop!” gives
some idea of her acting – er – chops.
One of the Killer Racks
I’m
sure this will come into scrutiny as some heavy-handed killer female anatomy,
but actually it’s quite a decent look at the way society views body image.
Feeling inadequate due to small bust size is not male fantasy, but rather the
way we are all mediated by prominence of the likes of the Kardashians and Kate
Uptons. The film also addresses the male version of that at one point near the
end of the film, which would lead perfectly into a sequel that I’m pretty sure
is not in the plan (but would be welcomed by me). Speaking of which, stick
through the end credits.
There
actually is a history (subgenre perhaps?) of one aspect of the film, which is
body extensions, be it for evil or not. On the not side, of course, there’s Marshall McLuhan’s image of technology
being the extension of the body, such as the pen for the hand, glasses for the
eyes, and computers for the brain. The evil side is more Cronenburg’s early
work, such as Rabid (1977) and Videodrome (1973). More recently killer
female anatomy could be seen in Teeth(2007)
or appendages from transplants such as in Dustin Mills’ Night of the Tentacles(2013).
I’ll
admit I was looking forward to this as a bit of empty-headed fun. What I got
instead was a multi-layered social treatise that was intelligent, psychotic,
and yes, goofy. It was one of the more enjoyable films I have seen this year
because it was so smartly ridiculous. And if you’re into it, as a drinking
game, take a sip every time you recognize a reference. If you’re a film maven, I
guarantee you’re gonna get smashed (not that I’m recommending that…).
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.
This is hardly the first adaptation of HP Lovecraft’s
well-known 1927 short story of a meteorite hitting the earth, and the evil
effects it has on a household (or community, depending on the version). Just
off the top of my head, there’s Die
Monster Die (1965) with Boris Karloff and Nick Adams, The Curse (1987) with Claude Akins and Wil Wheaton, and arguably
the Stephen King episode of Creepshow (1982).
This version is also known as Die Farbe, or “The Color,” because this is a German production,
though early parts are filmed in English, and the rest, which takes place in the
Germany countryside, is in Deutsche with English subtitles.
The previous versions were generally really bad, cheesy
horror films (i.e., fun), but this one has an arty-indie feel to it (i.e., not
pretentious), to which the number of world-wide festival winning and
nominations bend. It’s filmed in black and white, except for when the “color” appears,
drenching specific objects in a purplish-pink hue.
It has been way too many years since I’ve read the
original story to speak to its accuracy, so I am going to take this film on its
own story merits.
In present time, a scientist who was an American soldier
stationed in rural Germany at the end of Dubya-Dubya Duce, goes back there and
disappears. His son investigates in the small town in which he had been, and is
told by a local (and we see in a series of long and detailed flashback) how a meteorite
landed in the village even before the war. The stone, however, starts to
disappear / evaporate.
Soon, all the fruit in the area start to grow Monsanto
size, with a weird aftertaste. Hit the hardest is the farm on which the space
rock landed. Everything starts to die, the mom goes mad, everyone gets sick,
and slowly the family starts to melt into lavender droplets.
Over time, this effect would have a lasting influence
that… well, I’m going to stop there, because the film is worth seeing, and I
don’t want to give it all away. The effects, both physical and graphic are
worth seeing. The look of the film is astonishingly crisp, thanks to a
home-made camera (apparently called the DRAKE) that evidently makes HD looks
like 55mm film stock. While the movie is nearly completely humorless (sans a
scene where a German native mocks an American’s grammar), it is also uses the
contrast of light and dark to its utmost, and the digital effects are sometimes
quite understated, and others a bit shocking.
The extras has a couple of the film’s trailers, the
availability of subtitles in many languages, a “lost” scene, a 22-minute day-by-day
making-of featurette (in German with subtitles), and a fascinating 6-1/2 minute
special effects explanation that shows how they used layers of mattes so
effectively. The under 7-minute “Science Horror” short is the one to really
watch, as it explains a bit of the subtle ending, and tells about how Lovecraft’s
story about an alien parasite has some scientific lineage.
There is little gore (certainly no more than an episode
of Bones or CSI), and certainly no sex, just a good story that will keep you at
attention.
