(peacock/Prime/tubi/VOD/Vudu) Apart from CANDYMAN and the short story it’s based on, and HELLRAISER, I’m not much of a Clive Barker fan, so NIGHTBREED is new to me. That said, if someone had told me that David Cronenberg was the goddamn villain of the film, I would have rectified that mistake years ago. (Instead I had to find that out from a recent DOUBLE THREAT podcast episode.)
While Cronenberg is marvelously sinister (and his mask is something special), what really strikes me about the film is that it has a distinct queer/club kid/Tod Browning FREAKS vibe to it, which I should have expected but did not. On top of that, the Nightbreed designs are strikingly unique, the script contains a surprising amount of humor, and Elfman’s score is absurdly lush. Much more delightful than I imagined. Perhaps I’m a Barker fan after all!
(kanopy/tubi/VOD) In-between MCCABE & MRS. MILLER and THE LONG GOODBYE, Robert Altman directed this British psychodrama oddity, loosely based on lead actress Susannah York’s children’s book IN SEARCH OF UNICORNS. I know we always think of Altman as a loosey-goosey director, reveling in overlapping dialogue and aural confusion but, after all, his comeback film was the mannered murder mystery GOSFORD PARK (and, holy moly, what a cast that film had).
This is Altman as European horror art film director, and IMAGES is a genre take on the likes of Bergman’s PERSONA. Altman still can’t resist a bit of messiness, as it’s still a bit difficult to suss out the how’s and why’s and when’s after the credits roll, but it’s a thrillingly performed bit of a mess, and York is perfect in her role(s).
(AMC+/hoopla/SHUDDER/tubi/VOD/Vudu)? I recently watched a short documentary about the NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET franchise and one of the dudes in the doc — because of course they only talked to dudes — panned MASSACRE because the killer lacked character, and wow, way to miss the fucking point of the film.
MASSACRE was penned by Rita Mae Brown, a well-known feminist activist and writer, and Corman picked it up and gave it to Amy Holden Jones to direct, but only if she’d play it straight. It features wall-to-wall women, all more capable and unique than you’d normally see in a slasher film, and the film leans so heavily on the male gaze that it’s intentionally absurd, a sly way of gaining Corman’s approval while hoping others would recognize it as visually subversive.
As I’m sure anyone reading this is aware, sadly, the horror genre has leaned even harder into exploitation and male gaze — not to mention outright misogyny — since ’82, so what at that time was meant to be winking reads as standard fare.
As a slasher film, it holds up — the killer may not have the silhouette of Jason or Michael, but the drill is undeniably iconic, and the film utilizes the full frame in more Hitchcockian ways than you’d expect from an 80s Corman exploitation film.
It excels at satire, though. None of the boys are heroes, the girls spend their time reading PLAYGIRL and trying to figure out the score of a recent baseball game, often while eating pizza over a dead body.
Again, you might want to skip the trailer, as it gives everything away.
(HBO MAX/VOD) Proto-90s post-modern horror. I’d say SCREAM before Wes Craven’s SCREAM, but that infers that it’s a lesser film than SCREAM whereas I think it’s one of the smartest self-reflexive horror films ever made; it’s an author reckoning with the perils of creating a horror film franchise that spirals out of their control, while still being an absurdly entertaining, winking, surreal and horrifying film. Smartly shot and absolutely ruthlessly paced — every scene expertly blends into the next — it’s Wes Craven besting himself.
A brilliant film, even if you haven’t seen prior NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET films, but so much better if you have.
(hoopla/tubi/VOD) A thrillingly convoluted ‘twins tale’ thriller from the director of ROAD HOUSE (1989) that also happens to be a Ripper tale. Despite it taking place in the US, it never forgets the Ripper’s roots, of which the script is -very- smart about handling.
The film’s also a great reminder that anyone could smoke anywhere during the 80s. You’ll even see a huge Marlboro Man fixture during a chase scene.
(Plex/tubi/VOD/Vudu) I skipped THE WOMAN (2011) as I’m not a huge fan of Lucky McKee (although I intend to revisit MAY (2002) soon, and KINDRED SPIRITS (2019) is a quality ‘jealous woman’ film) but I really don’t care for Jack Ketchum. That said, DARLIN’, a sequel to THE WOMAN, is written and directed by Pollyanna McIntosh who played the title role, and reprises it here.
I’m sure I’m missing out on some lore but, despite the cannibalism, the blood and the grime and the stink, DARLIN’ is more of a character study of a -wild child- , complete with an astounding array of idiosyncratic players, some sympathetic and some despicable. It’s sharply shot, features some very sly dialogue but, most importantly, is concerned with calling out exploitative men.
I’d love to see more writers/directors hand over their characters to the people that gave them life, because this was far better than I ever expected.
(hoopla/kanopy/Plex/tubi/VOD/Vudu) Yes, this is a bit of a cheat, as it is technically part of Showtime’s TV horror anthology series MASTERS OF HORROR (masterminded by Mick Garris, who will pop up later). Yeah, I could mention any of Stuart Gordon or Joe Dante’s contributions, but those feel like -prestige- horror (-especially- Dante’s brilliant version of THE SCREWFLY SOLUTION) but, to me, THE WASHINGTONIANS is a perfect go-for-broke hour long ‘What If?!’ adaptation, which I feel is what short horror stories excel at.
THE WASHINGTONIANS is about the buried history of George Washington, based on Bentley Little’s short story, and it’s batshit crazy in a NATIONAL TREASURE + Joe Dante way. It’s horror via discovery. The stakes are high, but the peril is low. I won’t say it’s family-friendly, because it’s utterly disgusting at times, but it’s mostly non-threatening and a lot of dumb fun in a way that I think has been lacking in the past decade of horror. (It helps that they have Saul Rubinek to sell the lore. Oh, and did I mention that Peter Medak (THE CHANGELING, plenty of TV including two eps of HANNIBAL) directed it?)
(Just to be clear: if you do watch it, I’d like to note that I don’t approve of the epilogue.)
(AMC+/Shudder/VOD) There’s not a lot to BLISS — it’s a horror-fueled drug trip that comes at you like a car crash — but the best moments flash before your eyes right before you’re hit, and I’m not about to spoil ‘em.
Visually compelling (although rarely astounding), Dora Madison (who never quite got to shine on FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS) fuels the film, playing with crazed-but-grounded intensity, and George Wendt inserts himself into the film because he apparently loves horror and throws himself into his role.
(HBO MAX/YouTube) There was a weird time during the late 80s/early 90s in which studios were keen on peculiar supernatural/weird neo-noir films (see: ANGEL HEART (1987), WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT? (1988), DOG CITY (1989), etc.), which apparently resulted in this strange, surprisingly expensive, made-for-HBO TV film that merges the two. It’s an extraordinarily exacting love letter to those who love strange fiction and noir — the lead is named H. Phillip Lovecraft, blood occasionally rains from the skies, TWILIGHT ZONE-ish gremlins clog car engines, and magic is everywhere.
The dialogue is whip-smart, the plotting intersects with all your favourite Chandler and Hammett novels, and the casting is (mostly) perfect, with Fred Ward as a fantastic Marlowe, and Julianne Moore as the quintessential noir woman of interest.
Honestly, I can’t believe I’ve never heard of this film before stumbling upon it while scanning HBO MAX’s recent additions. Speaking as someone who has penned my own Lovecraft/Hammett mashup and has the rejection letters to prove it, this film knocks it out of the park, and the fact that they did so in ’91 is to be applauded. Hell, even without the supernatural hokum, it’d still be an entertaining Chandler fanfic.
As you may expect from a 90’s Lovecraft mashup, it’s a pretty problematic film when it comes to race, but it also features some transphobia that I’m pretty sure writer Joseph Dougherty originally thought was very clever, but has aged very poorly.
Fun Fact: Apparently there’s a 50s-centric sequel, WITCH HUNT (1994) also penned by Joseph Dougherty, but directed by Paul Schrader, and stars Dennis Hopper. I have yet to hunt down a copy, but I’d appreciate it if anyone could lead me to one.
(kanopy/VOD) Well-known for director Nicolas Roeg, but certainly one of the lesser-known Daphne du Maurier (THE BIRDS, JAMAICA INN, MY COUSIN RACHEL, REBECCA, etc.) stories. A haunting thriller about a husband and wife in Venice, coping with possibly being haunted by their drowned daughter.
I initially saw part of it while on-the-job in college — many moons ago — but didn’t fully see it until relatively recently, after reading the original novella, and was glad I did, as I’d recently visited Venice and both the novella and film take place there.
Yes, the film is over forty years old, but it perfectly captures the atmosphere of the city, the verticality, the claustrophobia and overwhelming aging presence of the city’s architecture. Oh, and of course being constantly surrounded by water that threatens to swallow you up.
It’s an absolutely perfect setting for du Maurier — the master of detailing one’s attempts to maintain a relationship amongst metaphorical crumbling buildings — and Roeg captures it perfectly, while amplifying the thriller aspects that are somewhat lacking in the source material. The end may or may not work for you — it’s definitely something you’ll remember — but it’s authentic to the source.
