Evil is everywhere and just keeps finding ways to come back and terrorize new victims. Usually it doesn't matter if they appeared to be absolutely dead after the last encounter. If there is a demand for more then someone out there will come up with some idea to bring the monster back. This is the game in Hollywood Horror sequels, which find both new ways to kill and resurrect the villain for another round. But eventually things can become old and tired and people want the evil laid to rest so they can move on to something else. Too bad there aren't enough people putting a stop to this, but sometimes the outcome is better than expected.
The first couple of 'Howling' sequels each tried to take the story in different directions, but then IV took a step backwards. The decade was nearing the end and the interest in Horror was waning, but that didn't stop another installment from being made. The makers of the next film were really going to have to step up to the plate if they wanted to renew interest in the series. After a film that was a more a thinly veiled remake of the first film, it was going to be interesting to see what came next. It appeared V would be another sequel in-name-only, but if the film is actually any good then that's no big deal really. The good news is that what we got is not only an improvement, but also better than all earlier sequels.
Ten people from different walks of life have all been invited to visit an old castle in Budapest. The place has been closed down for 500 years, but none of them seems to know why. Things seem innocent enough at first and as far as they know they're simply there for the reopening of a local landmark. But soon after they realize they're trapped by the snowstorm one by one they vanish. The ones who are left try to figure out just what is going on and who among them is responsible for killing the others. The answers to all their questions will be like nothing they expected.
After such a lame and forgettable third sequel, this one is truly a much needed breath of fresh air. Ok so maybe the world didn't really need a 'Howling V,' but the film is actually quite enjoyable and well made. One thing that thankfully carries over from the last one is the mystery angle, which this time is executed rather well. It is too bad there really are ties with the characters and events of I-IV, but that hardly keeps the film from being as good as it is. Like the last one, this one lacks the humor of the rest of the series, but this time it works and the film is actually pretty damn scary.
First of all, the opening sequence is really strong and something I don't think a lot of people were expecting. I won't say what happens, but it takes place in the past and is very well executed. There is a rather large cast here and for the most part everyone turns in a good performance. Phillip Davis, who plays the mysterious Count, is a particular standout and may or may not be a suspect. Also another thing that's obvious from early on is that the score is really good. It's really creepy at times and often, like in the beginning, can be very dramatic.
The bulk of the film is set in an old castle, which is a great new setting for the series. It's also appropriately spooky, being that it's so dark and full of long hallways and underground tunnels. Neal Sundstrom is a name I'm sure you've never heard of, but he really does do a great job with the film. He succeeds in creating both atmosphere and suspense, things sorely lacking in the last couple of sequels. And there are a few really good jolts sprinkled throughout the film, most set inside the castle, but there's one set outside in the blizzard that's my favorite. The effects, which are kept to a minimum this time out, are all well done and realistic enough looking.
Of course not everything works so well in 'Howling V,' so let's knock out where it falls short. The plot, which is very similar to Agatha Christie's 'Ten Little Indians,' stretches thin very quickly. Also some of the characters are way underdeveloped, making it hard to get attached to them before they meet their demise. Another fault with the characters is that some of them make some pretty dumb moves, which we know usually gets them killed. The film is strong on many fronts, which helps, but does not totally cover up the fact that not much new can be found here. The setting and murder mystery-style plot are the only things really setting this one apart from the rest of the series in terms of story.
The series was getting increasingly worse with each new installment, with the fourth feeling like the final nail in the coffin. However, this one breaks the cycle and injected some life into a dying franchise. It's not only the best of the 1980s sequels, but also the best since the first. There may be not much here we haven't seen a hundred times, but the film is well executed so it's ok. It's sequels like these that can renew people's interest in a series, so it's no surprise more have come. Where things have gone after this are interesting to say the least.
***1/2/*****
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Howling IV: The Original Nightmare (1988)
Over the last several years remakes have become a major trend in Hollywood. They have proved to be quite lucrative and don't seem to be going anywhere anytime soon. Of course this is not a new thing because it has been known to have happened a number of times in the past. 'The Fly' is an example of a remake that was not panned by the critics and moviegoers and remains a favorite. Sequels also tend to be big money makers, but they are supposed to progress the story began in the first film. However, once in a great while one comes along that is more or a less a remake of the first film.
By III, the 'Howling' series had not only become very odd, but it had also gotten way off track. The attempt at something different was alright, but the lack of ties to earlier films is unfortunate. It was good the makers of both II and III tried to not simply rehash the first film. But after the bizarre second sequel where could they possible go from there? As it turned out the makers of IV would go back to the original source material, Gary Bradner's first 'Howling' novel, and attempt a more faithful adaptation. Instead the result was the weakest in the series up to that point, but not without some merit.
Marie (Romy Windsor), a bestselling author, has started having frightening visions. Her doctor orders her to take a vacation away from the city, so she and her husband Richard (Michael T. Weiss) rent a cabin. The place is beautiful and seems to be harmless enough, but looks can be deceiving. Marie's visions continue and get worse, plus she claims to hear howling coming from the surrounding woods. Along with a new friend (Susanne Severeid) she tries to unlock the mysteries of her visions and the nearby town. What they find is more than they ever bargained for.
The film actually sounds compelling when reading a brief synopsis, but somehow it just didn't quite turn out that way. Supposedly it really is more faithful to the book than the 1981 film, but that doesn't save it from being mediocre at best. If I were to describe it in just a few words I'd say ultimately it's like an inferior remake of the original. If the people responsible actually thought they were going to top it with this unwarranted sequel-cum-remake they didn't succeed. It plays more like a made for TV movie of the week, for the most part lacking the bite of it's predecessors. There are a few things at least that keep it from drowning though.
The acting is actually pretty good all across the board, especially when talking about Romy Windsor. You actually do care about her and she comes off as really likable. It's just such a same such strong performances were wasted in such a forgettable film like this. Another area where the film shines is in the scenery, which is really beautiful. The film, which is supposed to be set in California, was shot on location in South Africa and it's pleasing to the eyes. The score for the film is decent, but what really stands out in terms of the music is the cheesy yet catchy main title song that'll likely get stuck in your head.
Though not a terrible exciting movie, 'Howling IV' does actually move along at an ok pace. One thing that elevates this film a little is the mystery angle, which was lacking in the previous sequels. Had it not been for this the films would probably be a total bore. The effects in the previous film were quite disappointing and considering this one's low budget you'd expect the same. Fortunately the effects here, minimal as they are this time, are excellent and prove that you don't need millions of dollars to create impressive effects. That is about all the positive thing I could say about this installment however.
One thing that sets this apart from the others is that unlike them IV is actually pretty tedious. There are long stretches where not much of interest happens, plus the film is talky. John Hough is known for directing films like genre favorite 'The Legend of Hell House,' so you would think he'd be able to spice things up here. Unfortunately apart from the dream sequences, his direction is actually pretty flat and more suited for small screen. He's one of the reasons that other film is scary, but this one is really lacking in that area and that's a huge blemish.
There's no doubt that II and III are not very good film, but you have to admit they are different. This one however brings absolutely nothing new to the table and that only adds to the tedium. But as if that weren't bad enough, this film barely has any werewolves in it. They don't really make a big splash until the final third and by then you'll probably be too bored to care much. I understand if they were trying to keep us in suspense and not throw everything at us too fast and too soon, but the film is just too dull until then. It's no wonder that this was the first of the series to go straight to video.
Every profitable franchise runs out of steam at some point and I guess this was it for the 'Howling' series. Not that II and III could be called great films, but at least they tried to keep things fresh. This one basically just tells the same story as the first film, but with way inferior results. They didn't even try to do it in an interesting way and instead delivered a totally unnecessary continuation of a series that started really strong. If you hadn't given up after part III then I guess you could check this one out, but don't have high expectations. It's at least not the most embarrassing installment in the series, but that's a whole other can o' worms.
**/*****
By III, the 'Howling' series had not only become very odd, but it had also gotten way off track. The attempt at something different was alright, but the lack of ties to earlier films is unfortunate. It was good the makers of both II and III tried to not simply rehash the first film. But after the bizarre second sequel where could they possible go from there? As it turned out the makers of IV would go back to the original source material, Gary Bradner's first 'Howling' novel, and attempt a more faithful adaptation. Instead the result was the weakest in the series up to that point, but not without some merit.
Marie (Romy Windsor), a bestselling author, has started having frightening visions. Her doctor orders her to take a vacation away from the city, so she and her husband Richard (Michael T. Weiss) rent a cabin. The place is beautiful and seems to be harmless enough, but looks can be deceiving. Marie's visions continue and get worse, plus she claims to hear howling coming from the surrounding woods. Along with a new friend (Susanne Severeid) she tries to unlock the mysteries of her visions and the nearby town. What they find is more than they ever bargained for.
The film actually sounds compelling when reading a brief synopsis, but somehow it just didn't quite turn out that way. Supposedly it really is more faithful to the book than the 1981 film, but that doesn't save it from being mediocre at best. If I were to describe it in just a few words I'd say ultimately it's like an inferior remake of the original. If the people responsible actually thought they were going to top it with this unwarranted sequel-cum-remake they didn't succeed. It plays more like a made for TV movie of the week, for the most part lacking the bite of it's predecessors. There are a few things at least that keep it from drowning though.
The acting is actually pretty good all across the board, especially when talking about Romy Windsor. You actually do care about her and she comes off as really likable. It's just such a same such strong performances were wasted in such a forgettable film like this. Another area where the film shines is in the scenery, which is really beautiful. The film, which is supposed to be set in California, was shot on location in South Africa and it's pleasing to the eyes. The score for the film is decent, but what really stands out in terms of the music is the cheesy yet catchy main title song that'll likely get stuck in your head.
Though not a terrible exciting movie, 'Howling IV' does actually move along at an ok pace. One thing that elevates this film a little is the mystery angle, which was lacking in the previous sequels. Had it not been for this the films would probably be a total bore. The effects in the previous film were quite disappointing and considering this one's low budget you'd expect the same. Fortunately the effects here, minimal as they are this time, are excellent and prove that you don't need millions of dollars to create impressive effects. That is about all the positive thing I could say about this installment however.
One thing that sets this apart from the others is that unlike them IV is actually pretty tedious. There are long stretches where not much of interest happens, plus the film is talky. John Hough is known for directing films like genre favorite 'The Legend of Hell House,' so you would think he'd be able to spice things up here. Unfortunately apart from the dream sequences, his direction is actually pretty flat and more suited for small screen. He's one of the reasons that other film is scary, but this one is really lacking in that area and that's a huge blemish.
There's no doubt that II and III are not very good film, but you have to admit they are different. This one however brings absolutely nothing new to the table and that only adds to the tedium. But as if that weren't bad enough, this film barely has any werewolves in it. They don't really make a big splash until the final third and by then you'll probably be too bored to care much. I understand if they were trying to keep us in suspense and not throw everything at us too fast and too soon, but the film is just too dull until then. It's no wonder that this was the first of the series to go straight to video.
Every profitable franchise runs out of steam at some point and I guess this was it for the 'Howling' series. Not that II and III could be called great films, but at least they tried to keep things fresh. This one basically just tells the same story as the first film, but with way inferior results. They didn't even try to do it in an interesting way and instead delivered a totally unnecessary continuation of a series that started really strong. If you hadn't given up after part III then I guess you could check this one out, but don't have high expectations. It's at least not the most embarrassing installment in the series, but that's a whole other can o' worms.
**/*****
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Howling III (1987)
One thing we want from movies is that they entertain us, but we also like it when they take us into new and exciting places. Films are an art form, but when they started reminding us too much of other films it shows a lack of imagination. When this happens the only reason for it is to make lots of money. It's great when filmmakers experiment and attempt new things with an old concept, but nowadays the studios seem to be so afraid of this. Sure it may not always be successful, but it shows that at the people responsible had their hearts in it and were trying to hold our interest.
Sequels often times repeat what worked so well about their predecessors, but without a good result. This gives them a bad rep, which is too bad since so many are actually quite good. For instance, 'Demons 2' is pretty much the same story set in a different location and the result is a film that's not nearly as much fun. However, sometimes even sequels that don't just retread the same ground don't turn out so hot either. 'Howling II: Your Sister is a Werewolf' was laughed off the screens in 1985 and is considered to be one of the worst films of all time. Bad movie or not, you have to give them credit for trying something different.
In an attempt to try and make up for II, director Philippe Mora went on to both write and direct the next installment. Since there was a third novel it seemed only natural to make a third film, right? Mora however was not interested in adapting that book nor continuing the storyline of the first two films. In fact, what he did make was another bizarre werewolf picture that barely qualifies as a Horror film. Come to think of it there really aren't any other films like it I can think of, but whether or not that's a good thing is up to the viewer.
An professor (Barry Otto) is studying a possible new race of marsupials in Australia. What he doesn't know yet is that a tribe of half-human/half-marsupials lives in the Outback. A young member (Imogene Annelsey) runs away and falls in love with a young film producer (Lee Biolos) and it's not long before he finds out her secret. Now she is being chased by both her tribe and scientists who want to study her, but she wants to be able live as normal a life as possible. This leads to a conflict between the humans and human-like creatures and lives are lost.
Now the previous sequel is pretty strange, but maybe this installment takes things a bit further. What Mora has made here is something that's not uninteresting, but also that doesn't totally work. Still you have to respect the guy for trying to keep things fresh for the series. There actually is a lot of good in the film, such as the performances. Everyone in the cast, which is made up of people you probably have never heard of, actually delivers a good performance. They're in such a bizarre situation, but manage to come off genuine rather than ham it up.
The story, though pretty out there, is actually quite engrossing and ambitious. It actually sort of brings up issues touched on in the first film, but takes them a bit further. Since this was shot in Australia you can count on lots of beautiful scenery and great shots of the city of Sydney. There are several memorably weird moments throughout the film that you won't likely forget. For example, the birth of the female lead's baby has to be seen to be believed. Also some of the goofy humor is actually amusing, such as the ending which we'll get to later.
Mora's attempt at something different not only for the series, but as werewolf films in general is a respectable one. The trouble is that there are a lot of issues with the film that kind of overshadow that, but it's interesting none-the-less. Even though there is quite a bit of dialogue and not tons of werewolf action in the first half, the whole films moves at a quick enough pace. The surreal atmosphere and images alone should be enough to sustain interest through the film's 95 minutes. Speaking of which, the ending is a real hoot and kind of an homage of the original's conclusion.
One thing that can really hurt a film like this is if the effects are not up to snuff. The bad news is that nearly all of the effects are cheap looking, especially in the transformation sequences. I can understand if the budget was low, but that was the case with the first film and it's effects are amazing. One thing II was sorely lacking that this one is even more so is in the scare department. A lot of Horror films have successfully blended humor and horror, but there is not one good scare or amount of tension here. The film goes more for the yuks and honestly a lot of the humor ends up falling flat.
Philippe Mora may not be one of our greatest directors, be he actually did a pretty darn good job on part II. However, this time his direction for the most part is really bland and the film looks more like it was made for TV or video. Also disappointing is the film's score, which is totally forgettable when it should have had an impact. Now not all films made in the 80s have aged poorly, but 'Howling III' really does look like it was set in 1987. For example, the professor's apartment near the end of the film looks like a typical yuppie pad from that era.
This is a really hard movie to critique because it's a mixture of the very good and very bad. Unlike II it's a sequel in-name-only, but like it can be considered more of a camp film. There actually is a good film somewhere in here, but due to the quality of the effects and production and uneven tone it just doesn't quite work. And since it's not scary or suspenseful it also doesn't succeed as a Horror film. However, there is just something about it that keeps it from being mediocre and it's one of those films you have to see at least once. Just go in with an open mind, especially if you're a fan of the first film, and you may find something to like.
***/*****
Sequels often times repeat what worked so well about their predecessors, but without a good result. This gives them a bad rep, which is too bad since so many are actually quite good. For instance, 'Demons 2' is pretty much the same story set in a different location and the result is a film that's not nearly as much fun. However, sometimes even sequels that don't just retread the same ground don't turn out so hot either. 'Howling II: Your Sister is a Werewolf' was laughed off the screens in 1985 and is considered to be one of the worst films of all time. Bad movie or not, you have to give them credit for trying something different.
In an attempt to try and make up for II, director Philippe Mora went on to both write and direct the next installment. Since there was a third novel it seemed only natural to make a third film, right? Mora however was not interested in adapting that book nor continuing the storyline of the first two films. In fact, what he did make was another bizarre werewolf picture that barely qualifies as a Horror film. Come to think of it there really aren't any other films like it I can think of, but whether or not that's a good thing is up to the viewer.
An professor (Barry Otto) is studying a possible new race of marsupials in Australia. What he doesn't know yet is that a tribe of half-human/half-marsupials lives in the Outback. A young member (Imogene Annelsey) runs away and falls in love with a young film producer (Lee Biolos) and it's not long before he finds out her secret. Now she is being chased by both her tribe and scientists who want to study her, but she wants to be able live as normal a life as possible. This leads to a conflict between the humans and human-like creatures and lives are lost.
Now the previous sequel is pretty strange, but maybe this installment takes things a bit further. What Mora has made here is something that's not uninteresting, but also that doesn't totally work. Still you have to respect the guy for trying to keep things fresh for the series. There actually is a lot of good in the film, such as the performances. Everyone in the cast, which is made up of people you probably have never heard of, actually delivers a good performance. They're in such a bizarre situation, but manage to come off genuine rather than ham it up.
The story, though pretty out there, is actually quite engrossing and ambitious. It actually sort of brings up issues touched on in the first film, but takes them a bit further. Since this was shot in Australia you can count on lots of beautiful scenery and great shots of the city of Sydney. There are several memorably weird moments throughout the film that you won't likely forget. For example, the birth of the female lead's baby has to be seen to be believed. Also some of the goofy humor is actually amusing, such as the ending which we'll get to later.
Mora's attempt at something different not only for the series, but as werewolf films in general is a respectable one. The trouble is that there are a lot of issues with the film that kind of overshadow that, but it's interesting none-the-less. Even though there is quite a bit of dialogue and not tons of werewolf action in the first half, the whole films moves at a quick enough pace. The surreal atmosphere and images alone should be enough to sustain interest through the film's 95 minutes. Speaking of which, the ending is a real hoot and kind of an homage of the original's conclusion.
One thing that can really hurt a film like this is if the effects are not up to snuff. The bad news is that nearly all of the effects are cheap looking, especially in the transformation sequences. I can understand if the budget was low, but that was the case with the first film and it's effects are amazing. One thing II was sorely lacking that this one is even more so is in the scare department. A lot of Horror films have successfully blended humor and horror, but there is not one good scare or amount of tension here. The film goes more for the yuks and honestly a lot of the humor ends up falling flat.
Philippe Mora may not be one of our greatest directors, be he actually did a pretty darn good job on part II. However, this time his direction for the most part is really bland and the film looks more like it was made for TV or video. Also disappointing is the film's score, which is totally forgettable when it should have had an impact. Now not all films made in the 80s have aged poorly, but 'Howling III' really does look like it was set in 1987. For example, the professor's apartment near the end of the film looks like a typical yuppie pad from that era.
This is a really hard movie to critique because it's a mixture of the very good and very bad. Unlike II it's a sequel in-name-only, but like it can be considered more of a camp film. There actually is a good film somewhere in here, but due to the quality of the effects and production and uneven tone it just doesn't quite work. And since it's not scary or suspenseful it also doesn't succeed as a Horror film. However, there is just something about it that keeps it from being mediocre and it's one of those films you have to see at least once. Just go in with an open mind, especially if you're a fan of the first film, and you may find something to like.
***/*****
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Howling II: Your Sister is a Werewolf (1985)
One downside to success is that things that once were fresh and exciting often get beaten to death. You can never recapture the magic of something that was done so well the first time, but some never learn. In the film industry this comes in the form of numerous sequels, some of far lesser quality than their predecessors. Though some films do warrant a sequel or two, some are films that no one asked for in the first place. If not every important loose end was tied up, then a follow up can be beneficial. One of the great things about sequels is that if done right they can take the concept in new and interesting directions.
Unfortunately some sequels fall into the wrong hands and the result is something inferior to what came before. So many in the business are far more interested and making a lot of money and could care less about the art of moviemaking. Otherwise we wouldn't have so many 'Friday the 13th' films, eight of which were released within ten years. It's a real shame when a great genre film, which leaves the door open for a part 2, is sometimes followed by something that misses what worked about it's predecessor. One thing that can make this a less painful blow is if the sequel is so bad that it's hilarious.
'The Howling' stands on it's own very well, but does end with the impression that the nightmare is not over. I'm sure this thrilled fans of the film at the time, but they would have to wait four years to see what happened next. No one involved with the first film would be returning for the sequel, which is sometimes a very bad sign. The trailer for the film didn't help it's image much either, instead making it look really goofy. However, it is a good idea to give a film a chance on the chance that it could defy expectations. I don't think anyone expected 'Howling II' to be as out there and silly and it turned out to be.
After the untimely death of Karen White (Played by a Dee Wallace look-alike here), her brother Ben (Reb Brown) is approached by a mysterious gentleman named Stefan (Christoper Lee) who knows all about Karen and what she went through. At first Ben doesn't want to hear anything the man has to say, but after he is shown proof of the existence of werewolves he joins Stefan in Transylvania. It is here that werewolves are gathering to celebrate the return of Stirba, who is their queen and she needs to regain all her power. Ben, Stefan, and Ben's girlfriend Jenny (Annie McEnroe) search the streets of the town where Stirba allegedly resides and fight for their lives against her minions. They must destroy her or else werewolves will invade the world.
The film begins innocently enough, picking up soon after the conclusion of the first film. Of course Dee Wallace does not reprise her role since all Karen gets to do is lie in a coffin and scream a couple times. However, if you go into this expecting something along the lines of the original you'll be in for quite a shock. There are a lot of really bad films that no one wants to remember, but then there are some that are impossible to forget. 'Troll 2' is considered to be the greatest bad movie of all time, but 'Howling II' really isn't too far behind. It's full of some pretty laughable elements, but if you're in the right mood you may find the film to be quite entertaining.
None of the performances in the film are very good, including the one from Christopher Lee, but everyone at least seems to be game. Sybil Danning, known for her work in b movies like this one, is obvious enjoying her role as the evil werewolf queen. It's actually kind of surreal to see her and Lee together in a scene, which is of the film's most memorable. Director Phillipe Mora is no master, but he actually does get some great shots here and uses some cool tricks. Also the cinematography is gorgeous, much better than a film of this caliber deserves. Both the production design and architecture of some locations are also really pleasing to the eyes, especially for the werewolves' lair.
The score, though not one of the best you'll ever hear, is still pretty good and the main theme song is catchy. It also plays several times throughout the film and so you may get tired of it pretty quick. The humor in the original is never over-the-top or anywhere near camp, but the opposite is the case in this one. The camp factor is quite high, so if that's something you dig then you should definitely give this film a watch. One thing that works so well in the original are the effects, and though inferior the ones here are still pretty good. And to top it all off all of this craziness happens at a really quick pace and never gets dull.
Like so many bad Horror films, this one doesn't have much in the way of a plot. It does attempt one, but I guess the filmmakers were more interested in the effects and bizarre sequences like a werewolf threesome. Though some of the humor is amusing, a lot of it falls flat like the last few moments. Here it's much broader and lacks the cleverness of the first film. Also some of the effects, mainly the visual ones, have aged very poorly and looked bad even at the time the film was made. This includes lasers of some kind coming out of Stirba's hands, which make the scenes laughable rather than scary.
Even though the first 'Howling' has humor too, it also has it's share of good chills. However, those are totally scarce in II, except for maybe perhaps a scene involving Christopher Lee and a possessed Dwarf. There is also an awful lot of padding, including many shots of the concert scene where the main song is played. In other cases this is actually really amusing, like during during the closing where some scenes like Stirba's disrobing is repeated several times. Made obvious by much of the clothing, hairstyles, and concert sequence this film has not aged well at all, which only makes look even more ridiculous compared to it's predecessor.
'Howling II: Your Sister is a Werewolf' is a special kind of movie, which is a movie critic's nightmare. I really shouldn't enjoy it as much as I do, but I have such a soft spot for low budget Horror schlock. Also interesting is that out of all the sequels this is only one to have any real ties with the first one, but by comparison it's just so weird. Why the people behind this film made it the way they did is a mystery, but it sure delivers the bad movie goods. Seeing Christopher Lee at a punk concert wearing 1980s shades alone makes the movie worth a look.
***1/2/*****
Unfortunately some sequels fall into the wrong hands and the result is something inferior to what came before. So many in the business are far more interested and making a lot of money and could care less about the art of moviemaking. Otherwise we wouldn't have so many 'Friday the 13th' films, eight of which were released within ten years. It's a real shame when a great genre film, which leaves the door open for a part 2, is sometimes followed by something that misses what worked about it's predecessor. One thing that can make this a less painful blow is if the sequel is so bad that it's hilarious.
'The Howling' stands on it's own very well, but does end with the impression that the nightmare is not over. I'm sure this thrilled fans of the film at the time, but they would have to wait four years to see what happened next. No one involved with the first film would be returning for the sequel, which is sometimes a very bad sign. The trailer for the film didn't help it's image much either, instead making it look really goofy. However, it is a good idea to give a film a chance on the chance that it could defy expectations. I don't think anyone expected 'Howling II' to be as out there and silly and it turned out to be.
After the untimely death of Karen White (Played by a Dee Wallace look-alike here), her brother Ben (Reb Brown) is approached by a mysterious gentleman named Stefan (Christoper Lee) who knows all about Karen and what she went through. At first Ben doesn't want to hear anything the man has to say, but after he is shown proof of the existence of werewolves he joins Stefan in Transylvania. It is here that werewolves are gathering to celebrate the return of Stirba, who is their queen and she needs to regain all her power. Ben, Stefan, and Ben's girlfriend Jenny (Annie McEnroe) search the streets of the town where Stirba allegedly resides and fight for their lives against her minions. They must destroy her or else werewolves will invade the world.
The film begins innocently enough, picking up soon after the conclusion of the first film. Of course Dee Wallace does not reprise her role since all Karen gets to do is lie in a coffin and scream a couple times. However, if you go into this expecting something along the lines of the original you'll be in for quite a shock. There are a lot of really bad films that no one wants to remember, but then there are some that are impossible to forget. 'Troll 2' is considered to be the greatest bad movie of all time, but 'Howling II' really isn't too far behind. It's full of some pretty laughable elements, but if you're in the right mood you may find the film to be quite entertaining.
None of the performances in the film are very good, including the one from Christopher Lee, but everyone at least seems to be game. Sybil Danning, known for her work in b movies like this one, is obvious enjoying her role as the evil werewolf queen. It's actually kind of surreal to see her and Lee together in a scene, which is of the film's most memorable. Director Phillipe Mora is no master, but he actually does get some great shots here and uses some cool tricks. Also the cinematography is gorgeous, much better than a film of this caliber deserves. Both the production design and architecture of some locations are also really pleasing to the eyes, especially for the werewolves' lair.
The score, though not one of the best you'll ever hear, is still pretty good and the main theme song is catchy. It also plays several times throughout the film and so you may get tired of it pretty quick. The humor in the original is never over-the-top or anywhere near camp, but the opposite is the case in this one. The camp factor is quite high, so if that's something you dig then you should definitely give this film a watch. One thing that works so well in the original are the effects, and though inferior the ones here are still pretty good. And to top it all off all of this craziness happens at a really quick pace and never gets dull.
Like so many bad Horror films, this one doesn't have much in the way of a plot. It does attempt one, but I guess the filmmakers were more interested in the effects and bizarre sequences like a werewolf threesome. Though some of the humor is amusing, a lot of it falls flat like the last few moments. Here it's much broader and lacks the cleverness of the first film. Also some of the effects, mainly the visual ones, have aged very poorly and looked bad even at the time the film was made. This includes lasers of some kind coming out of Stirba's hands, which make the scenes laughable rather than scary.
Even though the first 'Howling' has humor too, it also has it's share of good chills. However, those are totally scarce in II, except for maybe perhaps a scene involving Christopher Lee and a possessed Dwarf. There is also an awful lot of padding, including many shots of the concert scene where the main song is played. In other cases this is actually really amusing, like during during the closing where some scenes like Stirba's disrobing is repeated several times. Made obvious by much of the clothing, hairstyles, and concert sequence this film has not aged well at all, which only makes look even more ridiculous compared to it's predecessor.
'Howling II: Your Sister is a Werewolf' is a special kind of movie, which is a movie critic's nightmare. I really shouldn't enjoy it as much as I do, but I have such a soft spot for low budget Horror schlock. Also interesting is that out of all the sequels this is only one to have any real ties with the first one, but by comparison it's just so weird. Why the people behind this film made it the way they did is a mystery, but it sure delivers the bad movie goods. Seeing Christopher Lee at a punk concert wearing 1980s shades alone makes the movie worth a look.
***1/2/*****
The Howling (1981)
Werewolves made quite an impression in the early days of filmmaking when Universal released the first films to ever feature them. However, apart from that they were rarely seen in mainstream American films for quite some time. Sure they'd make an occasional film or television appearance, but were mostly played for laughs like on 'The Munsters.' There was no shortage of films about vampires and Frankenstein, which were being made all over the world. There was of course the Waldemar Daninsky series from Spain, but it was time for these hairy terrors to make a major comeback in the States.
With the Horror boom of the 80s some classic monsters and lore were brought up to date. It had been done successfully with vampires, so it was a matter of time before other beloved monsters would get the same treatment. The audiences by this point were more sophisticated, which meant that filmmakers had a real challenge on their hands. Special effects had become more advanced and moviegoers were more savvy as far the rules of Horror. Some directors, like Joe Dante, picked up on this and applied it to their work. The results are some of the greatest the genre has to offer.
Based on the novel by Gary Bradner, 'The Howling' was Dante's next feature after his cult hit 'Piranha.' The idea was to not only pay tribute to classic werewolf films and lore, but to also poke fun at them. Much as 'Scream' did years later, this film would take some of the myths and turn them on their heads. Horror and humor have to be balanced just right for both of them to work together and Dante and his team did a great job of making that happen. It's one of those films that will at one moment have you giggling and then grabbing onto your seat the next.
After a frightening encounter with a madman, reporter Karen White (Dee Wallace) is ordered by her doctor (Patrick Macnee) to take a vacation. She and her husband (Christopher Stone) join the doctor at a wilderness retreat known as The Colony. Things seems to be innocent enough, but it's not long before Karen begins suspecting something isn't right. Meanwhile, friends of hers are investigating the man who was after Karen and uncover a frightening secret. People start dying and Karen thinks she's falling apart, but she soon will learn the truth herself and be faced with a decision to "beat 'em or join 'em."
Now I've never read the novel on which this is based, so I can't compare, but as a film 'The Howling' works on many levels. It's actually one of three werewolf flicks that were released in 1981, the other two being the fabulous 'An American Werewolf in London' and the little known 'Wolfen.' This was Joe Dante's third feature film and he had proven himself a great talent by this point, so hiring him was a smart move. His cast is also in top form, everyone in the ensemble turning in an excellent performance. Dee Wallace as the lead is supposed to carry the film, which does so very well with her multi-layered performance.
The story is suspenseful and the filmmakers do a really good job of keeping us guessing until the big secret is revealed. Joe Dante, who does add humor to his work, also helps in the suspense department and gives the film a real spooky atmosphere. The score by Pino Donaggio is very effective, especially when an organ is used, and ranges from beautiful to downright eerie at times. Also the film looks gorgeous due to the great cinematography. Much of the film is set in the wilderness and so there are plenty of breathtaking shots of fog-filled woods, dilapidated cabins, and the nearby lake. In fact apart from the scenes in the studio, most of the film seems to be shot on location.
With a film like this involving humans turning into beasts you'd hope the effects would be top notch. Effects wizard Rob Bottin was brought in and what he did here is nothing short of stunning. All of the make-up and special effects are very detailed and have really stood the test of time. This also is a help in the attack sequences, all of which are pretty frightening especially the one involving Belinda Balaski's character. The werewolves themselves actually no longer look human by the end of the transformation and really stand tall over the human victims. The pacing, especially once things really get out of control, moves along nicely and the film never gets bogged down.
The last real asset the film has I'd like to mention is the humor, of which there is just enough. The makers of the film thankfully didn't go for camp, instead going for more sardonic humor. I won't spoil any of it, but the scenes involving the great Dick Miller are among the best funny bits. There are just a few things that mar an otherwise solid genre film, starting with the time it takes for things to really get rolling. The makers of the film I think were really going for suspense rather than throw a lot at us too early on, but maybe the wait is too long. Not that the film is ever boring, but by the halfway point you may be wondering where the big werewolf action is.
Another issue is that some ideas and characters could have used more fleshing out. For instance, Christopher Stone's character Bill White doesn't really get much to do and we don't really get to know him. Also the purpose of Patrick Mcnee's character, which I won't give away for those who have yet to see the film, also could have been delved into a bit more. Perhaps that was a plan for a possible sequel, but it's not really brought up again until part III. Lastly, there are at least a couple of effects that look extremely dated by today. To be fair this was before CGI and the film's budget was pretty small, but these do stand out like a sore thumb.
For the most part time has been kind to this classic. Even if you prefer one of the other two werewolf pictures from the same year, you have to admit this one holds it's own. Not even the many sequels have seemed to tarnish it, and boy are some of them pretty bad. Dracula and Frankenstein had gotten so much of the spotlight and it was time for everyone's favorite hairy man-beast to make a major big screen comeback. Thirty years later people are still talking about it and the people who made it are still in the business, so they must have done something right.
****/*****
With the Horror boom of the 80s some classic monsters and lore were brought up to date. It had been done successfully with vampires, so it was a matter of time before other beloved monsters would get the same treatment. The audiences by this point were more sophisticated, which meant that filmmakers had a real challenge on their hands. Special effects had become more advanced and moviegoers were more savvy as far the rules of Horror. Some directors, like Joe Dante, picked up on this and applied it to their work. The results are some of the greatest the genre has to offer.
Based on the novel by Gary Bradner, 'The Howling' was Dante's next feature after his cult hit 'Piranha.' The idea was to not only pay tribute to classic werewolf films and lore, but to also poke fun at them. Much as 'Scream' did years later, this film would take some of the myths and turn them on their heads. Horror and humor have to be balanced just right for both of them to work together and Dante and his team did a great job of making that happen. It's one of those films that will at one moment have you giggling and then grabbing onto your seat the next.
After a frightening encounter with a madman, reporter Karen White (Dee Wallace) is ordered by her doctor (Patrick Macnee) to take a vacation. She and her husband (Christopher Stone) join the doctor at a wilderness retreat known as The Colony. Things seems to be innocent enough, but it's not long before Karen begins suspecting something isn't right. Meanwhile, friends of hers are investigating the man who was after Karen and uncover a frightening secret. People start dying and Karen thinks she's falling apart, but she soon will learn the truth herself and be faced with a decision to "beat 'em or join 'em."
Now I've never read the novel on which this is based, so I can't compare, but as a film 'The Howling' works on many levels. It's actually one of three werewolf flicks that were released in 1981, the other two being the fabulous 'An American Werewolf in London' and the little known 'Wolfen.' This was Joe Dante's third feature film and he had proven himself a great talent by this point, so hiring him was a smart move. His cast is also in top form, everyone in the ensemble turning in an excellent performance. Dee Wallace as the lead is supposed to carry the film, which does so very well with her multi-layered performance.
The story is suspenseful and the filmmakers do a really good job of keeping us guessing until the big secret is revealed. Joe Dante, who does add humor to his work, also helps in the suspense department and gives the film a real spooky atmosphere. The score by Pino Donaggio is very effective, especially when an organ is used, and ranges from beautiful to downright eerie at times. Also the film looks gorgeous due to the great cinematography. Much of the film is set in the wilderness and so there are plenty of breathtaking shots of fog-filled woods, dilapidated cabins, and the nearby lake. In fact apart from the scenes in the studio, most of the film seems to be shot on location.
With a film like this involving humans turning into beasts you'd hope the effects would be top notch. Effects wizard Rob Bottin was brought in and what he did here is nothing short of stunning. All of the make-up and special effects are very detailed and have really stood the test of time. This also is a help in the attack sequences, all of which are pretty frightening especially the one involving Belinda Balaski's character. The werewolves themselves actually no longer look human by the end of the transformation and really stand tall over the human victims. The pacing, especially once things really get out of control, moves along nicely and the film never gets bogged down.
The last real asset the film has I'd like to mention is the humor, of which there is just enough. The makers of the film thankfully didn't go for camp, instead going for more sardonic humor. I won't spoil any of it, but the scenes involving the great Dick Miller are among the best funny bits. There are just a few things that mar an otherwise solid genre film, starting with the time it takes for things to really get rolling. The makers of the film I think were really going for suspense rather than throw a lot at us too early on, but maybe the wait is too long. Not that the film is ever boring, but by the halfway point you may be wondering where the big werewolf action is.
Another issue is that some ideas and characters could have used more fleshing out. For instance, Christopher Stone's character Bill White doesn't really get much to do and we don't really get to know him. Also the purpose of Patrick Mcnee's character, which I won't give away for those who have yet to see the film, also could have been delved into a bit more. Perhaps that was a plan for a possible sequel, but it's not really brought up again until part III. Lastly, there are at least a couple of effects that look extremely dated by today. To be fair this was before CGI and the film's budget was pretty small, but these do stand out like a sore thumb.
For the most part time has been kind to this classic. Even if you prefer one of the other two werewolf pictures from the same year, you have to admit this one holds it's own. Not even the many sequels have seemed to tarnish it, and boy are some of them pretty bad. Dracula and Frankenstein had gotten so much of the spotlight and it was time for everyone's favorite hairy man-beast to make a major big screen comeback. Thirty years later people are still talking about it and the people who made it are still in the business, so they must have done something right.
****/*****
Sunday, May 15, 2011
House IV (1992)
The 1990s was a different time for Horror, not so prolific as it had been in the 80s for instance. All of the major franchises seemed to have been worn out, but that didn't stop the studios from having one final go at it. Bottom line is that studios want to make money and when a title that was so lucrative in the past started drying up they want to move on. They say evil never dies, but one way they can is when they stop making a nice chunk of money at the Box Office. Freddy, Jason, Michael Myers and all the rest were becoming too familiar and it was time to lay them to rest...at least for a while.
New Line Cinema planned to end both the 'Friday the 13th' and 'Nightmare on Elm Street' franchises and at the time seemed to do it effectively. The same probably could have been said for the 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' series, which didn't see another sequel for nearly a decade. New World Pictures had gone under by this point and some of their most popular titles went elsewhere so they wouldn't die, including 'House.' Why New Line decided to pick up the rights and distribute the next installment is anyone's guess, but it happened. Since 'The Horror Show' was not really intended to be part III, it would be the first sequel to the series in five years.
Sean Cunningham, producer of the previous installments, would be on board for this one as well. Question was, would it continue what II started and involve a whole new set of people in a new house? Since it had worked out so well the first time that's exactly what went down with this installment. Now some would say that this one came too late, and the fact that none were made after means that's probably true. Plus the film was panned by critics and fans of the first two films, but is it really as bad as all that? Call me crazy, but all things considered I don't think this film is bad at all.
After losing her husband (William Katt) in a tragic car accident, Kelly Cobb (Terri Treas) moves into his family's old summer home with their now wheelchair bound daughter (Melissa Clayton). She believes it's the best thing for them and that her husband would approve, but everyone else tries to talk her out of it. The house is believed by some to be special and not just in terms of sentimentality. In fact it's not long before Kelly starts seeing and experiencing strange things. To make things worse her brother-in-law (Scott Burkholder), who is actually her husband's step brother, wants the house and will do whatever it takes to get his hands on it. Is Kelly just imagining things? Or is someone, perhaps her husband Roger, trying to contact and warn her from beyond the grave?
Out of the three official 'House' films this one is liked the least by fans and I never quite understood why. As a Horror film it may not be very scary, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a good jolt or two. Actually it's very much in the spirit of the first film and like both of it's predecessors doesn't succumb to too many haunted house cliches. One thing that is really confusing though is the fact that William Katt is back and playing a character named Roger Cobb. Thing is though that he has a knew wife and teenage daughter, plus no mention of his being married before or having a son. The likely explanation is that his appearance in the film and having the same name are probably just homages to the first film.
Apart from William Katt and Denny Dillon, the rest of the cast here was mostly unknown at the time. The performances are excellent all across the board and you really do get to care about Roger and his family. First time director Lewis Abernathy more than holds his own here, which makes on wonder why he never did it again. In lesser hands this could have looked like a made for TV movie, but he gets some really great shots and infuses the film with some style. Once again Harry Manfredini was brought in to do the score and he knocks it out of the park, composing one that in some ways echoes the ones from I and II, but is still all it's own.
One thing that so many sequels lack is a good strong story, which is not the case here. This one's story is actually pretty good and does a decent job of holding interest. Also the film moves at a good pace and though it may not be one of the most thrilling movies you'll ever see it never gets dull. Once again humor is brought to the mix, though not spread on as thick as in II, and for the most part it works. The whole "Pizza Man" sequence is especially out there and hilarious. And though the film is never truly terrifying, there are a few good shocks throughout that you may not see coming.
The last really good thing I can say about this movie is that there are some genuinely touching moments. The best has got to the scene in which the projector turns on by itself and plays home movies for Kelly, who up to that point had really been feeling down. There are a few things in the film that bring it down a few notches, starting with the special effects. The first two films have some really cool effects that have aged really well, but the ones in 'House IV' are actually pretty mediocre. Plus never is film actually scary and it's not likely you'll have any sleepless nights after seeing it. Plus there's not much in the way of suspense and you'll see a lot of the plot turns coming from a mile away.
The humor doesn't always hit the mark and can be rather lame at times, which was a problem the second film had as well. This is a much maligned film, but really it's nowhere near as bad as it's reputation would suggest. Sure it's no genre classic, but it works in much of the same ways that the first two films do. There's heart in the story, direction, and performances and that's more than can be said for a lot of sequels, especially unnecessary ones. If the series had to end at number 4 then it didn't end with a whimper and a film that was an embarrassment to itself and the series as a whole.
***1/2/*****
New Line Cinema planned to end both the 'Friday the 13th' and 'Nightmare on Elm Street' franchises and at the time seemed to do it effectively. The same probably could have been said for the 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' series, which didn't see another sequel for nearly a decade. New World Pictures had gone under by this point and some of their most popular titles went elsewhere so they wouldn't die, including 'House.' Why New Line decided to pick up the rights and distribute the next installment is anyone's guess, but it happened. Since 'The Horror Show' was not really intended to be part III, it would be the first sequel to the series in five years.
Sean Cunningham, producer of the previous installments, would be on board for this one as well. Question was, would it continue what II started and involve a whole new set of people in a new house? Since it had worked out so well the first time that's exactly what went down with this installment. Now some would say that this one came too late, and the fact that none were made after means that's probably true. Plus the film was panned by critics and fans of the first two films, but is it really as bad as all that? Call me crazy, but all things considered I don't think this film is bad at all.
After losing her husband (William Katt) in a tragic car accident, Kelly Cobb (Terri Treas) moves into his family's old summer home with their now wheelchair bound daughter (Melissa Clayton). She believes it's the best thing for them and that her husband would approve, but everyone else tries to talk her out of it. The house is believed by some to be special and not just in terms of sentimentality. In fact it's not long before Kelly starts seeing and experiencing strange things. To make things worse her brother-in-law (Scott Burkholder), who is actually her husband's step brother, wants the house and will do whatever it takes to get his hands on it. Is Kelly just imagining things? Or is someone, perhaps her husband Roger, trying to contact and warn her from beyond the grave?
Out of the three official 'House' films this one is liked the least by fans and I never quite understood why. As a Horror film it may not be very scary, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a good jolt or two. Actually it's very much in the spirit of the first film and like both of it's predecessors doesn't succumb to too many haunted house cliches. One thing that is really confusing though is the fact that William Katt is back and playing a character named Roger Cobb. Thing is though that he has a knew wife and teenage daughter, plus no mention of his being married before or having a son. The likely explanation is that his appearance in the film and having the same name are probably just homages to the first film.
Apart from William Katt and Denny Dillon, the rest of the cast here was mostly unknown at the time. The performances are excellent all across the board and you really do get to care about Roger and his family. First time director Lewis Abernathy more than holds his own here, which makes on wonder why he never did it again. In lesser hands this could have looked like a made for TV movie, but he gets some really great shots and infuses the film with some style. Once again Harry Manfredini was brought in to do the score and he knocks it out of the park, composing one that in some ways echoes the ones from I and II, but is still all it's own.
One thing that so many sequels lack is a good strong story, which is not the case here. This one's story is actually pretty good and does a decent job of holding interest. Also the film moves at a good pace and though it may not be one of the most thrilling movies you'll ever see it never gets dull. Once again humor is brought to the mix, though not spread on as thick as in II, and for the most part it works. The whole "Pizza Man" sequence is especially out there and hilarious. And though the film is never truly terrifying, there are a few good shocks throughout that you may not see coming.
The last really good thing I can say about this movie is that there are some genuinely touching moments. The best has got to the scene in which the projector turns on by itself and plays home movies for Kelly, who up to that point had really been feeling down. There are a few things in the film that bring it down a few notches, starting with the special effects. The first two films have some really cool effects that have aged really well, but the ones in 'House IV' are actually pretty mediocre. Plus never is film actually scary and it's not likely you'll have any sleepless nights after seeing it. Plus there's not much in the way of suspense and you'll see a lot of the plot turns coming from a mile away.
The humor doesn't always hit the mark and can be rather lame at times, which was a problem the second film had as well. This is a much maligned film, but really it's nowhere near as bad as it's reputation would suggest. Sure it's no genre classic, but it works in much of the same ways that the first two films do. There's heart in the story, direction, and performances and that's more than can be said for a lot of sequels, especially unnecessary ones. If the series had to end at number 4 then it didn't end with a whimper and a film that was an embarrassment to itself and the series as a whole.
***1/2/*****
The Horror Show (1989)
Back in the day Slasher movies were all the rage, but eventually they wore out their welcome. You can only make so many films in which a masked psychopath hacks up teenagers before people get bored. It was time to add something fresh to the sub-genre if it were to stay alive. Enter Wes Craven's 'A Nightmare on Elm Street,' a film that added a while new dimension to this type of film and it was about time. One thing that was missing from these movies was the villain messing with his victims psychologically. Wes Craven knew how to tap into our worst fears and gave us more than just another routine hack 'em up.
Of course other studios and filmmakers wanted to make their own version of this story, but no one has ever matched the first 'Nightmare.' The problem with most imitations is that they copy what worked so well the first time, but much less effectively and with less of a plot. This explains the existence of 'The Horror Show,' which ultimately is a second rate 'Nightmare on Elm Street.' Even without the dream killing element it treads familiar ground and doesn't try to stand on it's own otherwise. However, that doesn't keep the film from being entertaining in it's own special way. In fact it's probably one of the cheesiest American Horror films of the 80s.
After years of chasing killer Max Jenke (Brion James), Detective Lucas McCarthy (Lance Henriksen) finally captures him. His wife and therapist try to discourage him from watching the execution, but he believes it's the only way he can get true closure. Afterward he goes back to his life, even quitting therapy and believes he can put it all behind him. However, his nightmares and hallucinations continue and get ever worse. His family thinks he's going out of his mind and when people start dying all arrows point to him. Has Jenke returned from the dead to get revenge? Or has Lucas snapped and only thinks the supposed to be dead killer is responsible?
For some reason before this film was released overseas it was decided it should be called 'House III.' Sure some of the same people are involved and there are a few scenes that you may expect to see in a 'House' movies, but this really isn't one of them. Truth is that this one has too much of a mean streak to really fit into the series, so it's best to view it on it's own. If it really were part III it would be the weakest of the set because as a whole it really doesn't work. The fact that one of the writer's wanted their name replaced with the Alan Smithee pseudonym should give you some indication of the films' quality.
One area where this film doesn't falter is in the performances, especially those of Henriksen and James. They each seem to be really into their roles despite the silly material, plus the rest of the cast does fine too. Harry Manfredini is one of the few people from the earlier 'House' films to be involved and his score is good, though very different. The effects on display here are really well done, and in some cases pretty out there. The Thanksgiving dinner scene, which I won't spoil, is a particularly bizarre part of the film. This leads to another one of the film's high points, which is that there actually are a few inspired moments throughout.
Some of the subject matter is pretty heavy and the film has a real dark and dirty feel to it. But no matter how serious this film tries to be, it can't chance the fact that it's quite cheesy at times. As I said some scenes are really out there and too silly to be scary, but they're at least fun to watch. The finale is especially interesting and where the film really delves into 'Nightmare on Elm Street ' territory. As a matter of fact most of it takes place in a boiler room kind of a place with plenty of steam and rusted metal. The negatives I'm afraid outweigh the positives, which is what makes the film no better than average.
The plot is thin as tissue paper and the film is mostly a series of set pieces loosely held together. Plus the script is a mess and filled with scenes that really add nothing important. Not that you can't make everything out, but most of the film is really badly lit. The lights in the McCarthy home alone are super dim and make it look so dreary. Director Jim Isaac, who would later do 'Jason X,' didn't exactly make a great impression with this film. For the most part it looks really bland and more suited for a made for TV movie of the week.
The film is never dull, but the pacing is still very uneven and especially in the first two thirds. Finally, things really do pick up for the finale, which really is the best section of the film. Also uneven is the tone of the film, which is a poor balance of humor and horror. The mix of both if one of things it has in common with the first two 'House' movies, but they did it more successfully. Most of the time the film is deadly serious and brings up some hard issues, but then it switches to absolute absurdity. And if it's one thing that'll bring a film down it's being derivative of better ones, in this case 'Nightmare on Elm Street' and especially Craven's 'Shocker' released the same year as this one!
'The Horror Show' is one strange little movie that just doesn't work. It gives off the feeling that it was intended to be better, but became a mess as production went along. What keeps it from being simply junk is both the cast and that it's just so entertaining for the wrong reasons. You can't have some really intense and gruesome moments like the execution and things like a laughing furnace and expect us to take the film seriously or be scared. However, that is what makes it enjoyable in a so-bad-it's-good sort of a way and that's better than nothing I guess.
**1/2/*****
Of course other studios and filmmakers wanted to make their own version of this story, but no one has ever matched the first 'Nightmare.' The problem with most imitations is that they copy what worked so well the first time, but much less effectively and with less of a plot. This explains the existence of 'The Horror Show,' which ultimately is a second rate 'Nightmare on Elm Street.' Even without the dream killing element it treads familiar ground and doesn't try to stand on it's own otherwise. However, that doesn't keep the film from being entertaining in it's own special way. In fact it's probably one of the cheesiest American Horror films of the 80s.
After years of chasing killer Max Jenke (Brion James), Detective Lucas McCarthy (Lance Henriksen) finally captures him. His wife and therapist try to discourage him from watching the execution, but he believes it's the only way he can get true closure. Afterward he goes back to his life, even quitting therapy and believes he can put it all behind him. However, his nightmares and hallucinations continue and get ever worse. His family thinks he's going out of his mind and when people start dying all arrows point to him. Has Jenke returned from the dead to get revenge? Or has Lucas snapped and only thinks the supposed to be dead killer is responsible?
For some reason before this film was released overseas it was decided it should be called 'House III.' Sure some of the same people are involved and there are a few scenes that you may expect to see in a 'House' movies, but this really isn't one of them. Truth is that this one has too much of a mean streak to really fit into the series, so it's best to view it on it's own. If it really were part III it would be the weakest of the set because as a whole it really doesn't work. The fact that one of the writer's wanted their name replaced with the Alan Smithee pseudonym should give you some indication of the films' quality.
One area where this film doesn't falter is in the performances, especially those of Henriksen and James. They each seem to be really into their roles despite the silly material, plus the rest of the cast does fine too. Harry Manfredini is one of the few people from the earlier 'House' films to be involved and his score is good, though very different. The effects on display here are really well done, and in some cases pretty out there. The Thanksgiving dinner scene, which I won't spoil, is a particularly bizarre part of the film. This leads to another one of the film's high points, which is that there actually are a few inspired moments throughout.
Some of the subject matter is pretty heavy and the film has a real dark and dirty feel to it. But no matter how serious this film tries to be, it can't chance the fact that it's quite cheesy at times. As I said some scenes are really out there and too silly to be scary, but they're at least fun to watch. The finale is especially interesting and where the film really delves into 'Nightmare on Elm Street ' territory. As a matter of fact most of it takes place in a boiler room kind of a place with plenty of steam and rusted metal. The negatives I'm afraid outweigh the positives, which is what makes the film no better than average.
The plot is thin as tissue paper and the film is mostly a series of set pieces loosely held together. Plus the script is a mess and filled with scenes that really add nothing important. Not that you can't make everything out, but most of the film is really badly lit. The lights in the McCarthy home alone are super dim and make it look so dreary. Director Jim Isaac, who would later do 'Jason X,' didn't exactly make a great impression with this film. For the most part it looks really bland and more suited for a made for TV movie of the week.
The film is never dull, but the pacing is still very uneven and especially in the first two thirds. Finally, things really do pick up for the finale, which really is the best section of the film. Also uneven is the tone of the film, which is a poor balance of humor and horror. The mix of both if one of things it has in common with the first two 'House' movies, but they did it more successfully. Most of the time the film is deadly serious and brings up some hard issues, but then it switches to absolute absurdity. And if it's one thing that'll bring a film down it's being derivative of better ones, in this case 'Nightmare on Elm Street' and especially Craven's 'Shocker' released the same year as this one!
'The Horror Show' is one strange little movie that just doesn't work. It gives off the feeling that it was intended to be better, but became a mess as production went along. What keeps it from being simply junk is both the cast and that it's just so entertaining for the wrong reasons. You can't have some really intense and gruesome moments like the execution and things like a laughing furnace and expect us to take the film seriously or be scared. However, that is what makes it enjoyable in a so-bad-it's-good sort of a way and that's better than nothing I guess.
**1/2/*****
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
