MONSTER MONTH: Is Frankenhooker a ’90s Masterpiece?

Frankenhooker, 1990

After getting good notices for directing several Andy Warhol productions, including ’70s underground classic, Heat, filmmaker Paul Morrissey transitioned into horror by taking on Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. But 1973’s FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN is not your high school teacher’s idea of Frankenstein!

In a lavish country castle in the 1800s, Baron von Frankenstein (Udo Kier) spends most of his time in his secret laboratory stitching together dead body parts – and getting turned on by fondling internal organs – in order to create a master Serbian race that will “take over the world!” With the help of his simpleton assistant, Otto (Arno Juerging), Frankenstein successfully brings to life two of his “human” creations, including a male specimen whose head the Baron took from local aspiring monk, Sacha (Srdjan Zelenovic). When houseboy Nicholas (Joe Dallesandro) recognizes Sacha, he tries to put a stop to Frankenstein’s devious experiments, with dire consequences.

While some might call this a bastardized version of the Frankenstein story, others will delight in its campy excesses and outpouring of cheesy gore and sex. Much like Morrissey’s later Blood for Dracula, Flesh for Frankenstein (filmed in 3-D) is a mix of exploitation and genuine filmmaking: the film works as a tragic fairy tale while also dishing out explicit violence and sexuality. Credit should be given to Morrissey for making Nicholas the sex object over a more traditional woman; Dallesandro spends most of the film completely naked and is continually used by Frankenstein’s wife, Katrin (Monique van Vooren) – who’s also the Baron’s sister – to satisfy her robust sexual appetite. There’s also gay subtext with Sacha, who earlier in the film is smitten with the hunky Nicholas, but converts to religion when he realizes they can never be together.

Funniest line in the film: “Why did you wake me? You know I have insomnia!”

On the same campy, OTT level as Flesh for Frankenstein – and containing just as many, if not more, dismembered body parts – is 1990’s gut-busting classic, FRANKENHOOKER. Professional electrician, and amateur mad scientist, Jeffrey Franken (James Lorinz), goes to desperate measures to attempting bringing his fiancée, Elizabeth (Patty Mullen), back to life after she’s mangled by his homemade lawnmower. After Jeffrey steals pieces of her body, including her head, he decides to create the perfect body for Elizabeth by killing several Times Square prostitutes and using their bodies to make the ultimate woman.

It really shouldn’t, but Frankenhooker works on every level. Shot in the same vibrant manner as director Frank Henenlotter’s classic, Basket Case, Frankenhooker is pure, unadulterated, energetic filmmaking at its creative best. The cast is first-rate (including Mullen, whose comedic timing is pitch-perfect), the dialogue snappy (and often hilarious), and the action almost non-stop and genuinely exciting. The film never takes itself seriously and pumps out the gore-drenched comedy with charming verve.

Unfortunately, Frankenstein’s monster doesn’t get nearly enough screen time in the 1945 monster mash-up, HOUSE OF DRACULA. In the course of one night, famed Dr. Edlemann (Onslow Stevens) is visited by both Count Dracula (John Carradine) and Lawrence Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.), a.k.a. the Wolf Man. Wanting to be cured of their vampirism and lycanthropy, respectfully, Dracula and Talbot take up temporary residency in Edlemann’s cliffside castle, where the doctor plans to give Dracula a blood transfusion. Meanwhile, the full moon approaches and Talbot, unable to wait for Edlemann’s cure, tries to throw himself off the cliff but survives and inadvertently discovers the body of Frankenstein’s monster (Glenn Strange) in a cave (where the creature died at the end of House of Frankenstein).

Dracula eventually falls for the doctor’s assistant, Miliza (Martha O’Driscoll), and bewitches her, an act Edlemann finds dangerous. During their last transfusion, Edlemann tries to destroy Dracula, only to get caught by the Count, who switches the procedure’s blood flow and transforms the doctor not only into a vampire, but a raving mad scientist.

Lacking the excitement of the earlier Frankenstein movies and the chilling atmosphere of the Lugosi Dracula, House of Dracula doesn’t utilize its famous monsters to their full potential. Instead of pitting the creatures against one another, the somewhat lifeless screenplay spends too much time trying to make them appear sympathetic, especially Talbot, who spends most of the film in a wheelchair with a bandage on his head. Carradine is a fine Lugosi replacement, but Frankenstein’s monster is completely wasted in a rushed climax that’s both confusing and frustrating. | Frankenhooker: AFlesh for Frankenstein: B+ House of Dracula: C

MONSTER MONTH: Giant Bugs and Horny Beasties

As the cold weather begins to dissipate and the flowers start to bloom, I’m digging up monster movies for the month of April. What I love about monster flicks is there’s a lot of them and with a wide variety of breeds: werewolves, vampires, mutants, subterranean beings, underwater creatures, and slew of others.

2006’s FEAST is a spirited, low budget splatter romp in the vein of From Dusk till Dawn, and like that 1996 classic, Feast features a group of larger-than-life personalities stuck inside a desert bar surrounded by creatures. Instead of vampires, predatory monsters of some kind quickly descend upon the bar, bringing a reign of gory terror and even releasing their young inside the building to cause further havoc.

Shot in a frenzied, fast-paced manner, Feast has a great cast – Henry Rollins, Krista Allen, Judah Friedlander, Clu Gulager – and some terrific moments, including several involving the baby monsters. It’s just a shame that when it ended I was expecting something…better. The harried camera work is fine, but director John Gulager (Clu’s son), doesn’t exactly have an eye for clarity; a lot of the action is lost on the viewer, who’s most likely trying to figure out what is going on. But, the strength of the movie’s vitality is its cast and they give it their all, especially Friedlander, who spends most of the runtime soaked in monster puke and maggots.

Coming off the lackluster reception of Memoirs of an Invisible Man, horror auteur John Carpenter returned to his chiller roots with 1995’s crackerjack IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS, a visually rich horror-fantasy that would make H.P. Lovecraft proud. Sam Neil stars as P.I. John Trent, who’s hired by a big-time publishing company to locate their most precious asset, Sutter Cane, a Stephen King-like horror writer whose novels sell millions and, as of recently, have been having a negative effect on his legions of fans. Trent, along with Cane’s editor, Linda (Julie Carmen), find Cane (Jürgen Prochnow) hiding out in a Byzantine church in Hobb’s End, a dying town where time doesn’t seem to flow in any logical sense, and where the locals are slowly turning into otherworldly creatures.

Trent eventually realizes he’s entered into another dimension, one where Cane’s writing seemingly comes to gruesome life. This doesn’t bode well when Cane’s newest book is released and opens the supernatural floodgates to the entire reading world. Things get even worse when a film adaptation goes into production…

A splendidly energetic film from beginning to end, Madness is Carpenter in top form. Using his expertise with widescreen framing and knowledge of handling complex monsters, Carpenter doesn’t pretend Madness is The Thing by moving the creatures to the front of the line, but wisely places them in the background, where they cast a more effective shadow. Neil is wonderfully cast as the doubting Thomas, and Prochnow is his usually sinister self while Carmen gives good Julia Sugarbaker vibes. Easily Carpenter’s best film after Big Trouble in Little China.

The low-budget but highly inventive TICKS feels just as fresh and fun as it did when it was released in 1993. A weekend retreat into the woods for a group of troubled inner city youths goes haywire when they’re attacked by large ticks, mutated from a liquid concoction made by a hippie pot farmer (Clint Howard). It isn’t long until the teens and their harried camp counselors (Rosalind Allen and Peter Scolari) are up to their eyeballs in aggressive tick attacks while also dealing with a couple of dangerous backwoods rednecks (Michael Medeiros and Barry Lynch) and a forest fire!

A good cast (which also includes Seth Green, Alfonso Ribeiro, and Ami Dolenz) gives it their all, and writer Brent V. Friedman smartly injects the screenplay with both comedy and self-referential humor, poking fun at itself and the overall horror genre. The mechanical visual effects by K.N.B. EFX are terrific and rival those found in many bigger budgeted movies of the era. If you’re a fan of practical FX monster flicks then Ticks is for you.

In the Mouth of Madness and Ticks: B+ Feast: C+

HAUNTED HOUSE MONTH: Week 4

When it comes to slow burns, filmmaker Ti West knows what he’s doing. Following in the same low-key, suspense-building footsteps as his previous film, The House of the Devil, 2011’s THE INNKEEPERS features a young woman, Claire (Sara Paxton), who, along with her coworker, Luke (Pat Healy), are the only remaining employees of the closing, supposedly haunted Yankee Pedlar Inn. Not knowing what to do next with her life, Claire joins Luke in his quest to catch a ghost on camera, specifically the spirit of Madeline O’Malley, a woman who killed herself in the hotel decades earlier.

As with House of the Devil, The Innkeepers focuses most of its attention on the characters, especially Claire who’s very relatable and someone we want to see succeed and not be harmed. Claire is also a great juxtaposition to Luke, who’s very somber and cranky. At one point, Claire is more excited about her ghostly recordings than Luke, whose ghost-hunting website she’s volunteering her time to. Claire is the bright spot in a film filled with negative people and manipulative spirits. Her pleasant, somewhat naive personality is what ultimately victimizes her. A good film with terrific characters and a chilling finale.

The 2018 French NIGHT SHOT offers up found footage thrills. Nathalie (Nathalie Couturier), the host of a YouTube-type series of urban exploration videos, along with her cameraman (director Hugo König), hike to an abandoned hospital in the middle of the forest to film a new episode. Once inside the massive dwelling Nathalie tells of the place’s unsavory history, particularly the story of a certain doctor who performed fiendish experiments on pregnant women. It isn’t long until she and the cameraman are trapping inside the building’s sinister walls while being pursued by unseen supernatural forces.

Much like The Blair Witch Project, Night Shot uses its claustrophobic environment to disorient its characters and trap them in an unexplained time loop. The “gimmick” of the film is that it’s shot in one, unedited take. It’s also filmed in B&W, which adds to the creepiness of the atmosphere. As with many FF flicks, the story unfolds as a slow burn but it’s never uninteresting; quite the contrary, with the labyrinthine, decaying hospital being a character itself. It builds to a lurid, genuinely unsettling conclusion.

Believe it or not, at one point in time the Amityville story was taken seriously. But, as with most successful horror movies, the story became sequelized to death and the franchise eventually lost the plot completely. In the last few decades, the films have essentially become a marketing gimmick for any kind of low-budget haunted house flick – look at the 2011 Amityville Haunting, which is nothing more than a lifeless Paranormal Activity rip-off that has nothing to do with the original Amityville story at all. (And let’s not even get into Amityville in Space.)

Exception should be given to 1996’s overtly silly but undeniably entertaining AMITYVILLE: DOLLHOUSE. After a divorced father, Bill (Robin Thomas), and his new wife, Claire (Starr Andreeff), move their family – comprised of his and her kids from previous marriages – into a newly-built house, they begin to experience bizarre mood swings and supernatural occurrences. Bill has dreams of a demonic-like figure, Claire begins lusting after hunky teen stepson, Todd (Allen Cutler), and Claire’s young son, Jimmy (Jarrett Lennon), begins talking to the decaying, manipulative ghost of his deceased dad. Does all this have something to do with the weird dollhouse found in the backyard shed, one that is modeled after the infamous Long Island dwelling?

The foolish tie-in with the Amityville universe aside, Dollhouse is a surprisingly inventive little movie that’s much better made than you’d think. The plot is beyond ludicrous and the characters don’t seem to live in a reality where logic exists, yet the family is likable enough that you end up caring about their plight, even when they do incredibly stupid things – Todd’s sound system mysteriously cranks to top volume yet instead of simply removing his headphones from his head he fumbles with the wires while making a panicky face. In the end, the movie is so inherently dumb and giddy in its campy excesses it becomes a sight to see, especially during its batshit crazy climax. The Innkeepers: B+ Night Shot and Amityville: B

HAUNTED HOUSE MONTH: Week 3

When it comes to remakes 1999’s cheesy HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL ranks as one of the more entertaining ones. Giving his best Vincent Price, distinguished actor Geoffrey Rush stars as theme park king, Stephen Price (get it?), who invites five guests to the abandoned cliff-side Vannacutt Institute for the Criminally Insane for his venomous wife’s (Famke Janssen) birthday party. Price offers the guests $1 million if they can survive the night inside the maze-like structure and retrofits the place with tricks and pranks, unaware that the place is actually haunted by the demented Dr. Vannacutt (Jeffrey Combs) and his patients who died from his hideous experiments.

Director William Malone (Feardotcom) doesn’t shy away from the ghosts and ghouls that William Castle hinted at in the 1959 original, with the film offering up several creep monster FX, including one of the first of the fast-moving, head-shaking ghost that has become almost a staple in most of today’s haunted house flicks. The plot is complete hokum but the cast has fun with the material, especially Janssen and Rush who seem to relish going at each other’s throats.

At first sight, 2009’s handsomely photographed THE UNINVITED sounds like a retelling of the classic Ray Milland film of the same title from 1944, but is in fact a remake of an overrated 2003 South Korean movie called A Tale of Two Sisters. After being institutionalized for a suicide attempt, teenager Anna (Emily Browning) goes back home to find her father (David Strathairn) has become romantically involved with her deceased mother’s nurse, Rachel (Elizabeth Banks). While Anna and her sister, Alex (Arielle Kebbel), try to figure out the mysterious fire that killed their sick mother, Anna begins seeing ghostly visions and questioning not only Rachel’s true motivations but also her own sanity.

While the film looks great and its beautiful Maine setting could be a character itself, the screenplay is littered with too many red herrings and relies too heavily on Anna’s “is it real?” psychosis. The film also builds up a false narrative and presents a twist ending that is neither convincing nor credible. Banks gives a cold, tense performance as the “wicked stepmother” but Browning, whose shoulders the entire story rests on, is vacant and unsympathetic.

A superior ghost tale is the 2000 Robert Zemeckis-helmed WHAT LIES BENEATH. Michelle Pfeiffer is perfectly cast as Claire, a mother who a year after surviving a car accident comes to believe her newly renovated lake-side home is haunted. At first she thinks it might be the ghost of the missing wife of her brutish new neighbor (James Remar), but when things intensify Claire realizes her husband, Norman (Harrison Ford), may be connected.

While not perfect, What Lies Beneath is a terrific example of visual storytelling. The plot isn’t anything we haven’t seen before, but Zemeckis wisely presents it with an obvious love and understand of classic filmmaking, especially in the tradition of Hitchcock. The film unfolds as a mystery and slowly builds the tension, keeping you on your toes almost the whole time. Pfeiffer is extremely likable and warm, and her scenes with best friend Diana Scarwid are some of the strongest in the movie. And unlike a lesser movie like The Uninvited, What Lies Beneath doesn’t rely on a wobbly narrative that barely supports a “shock” ending, but instead cares more about strong characters and a simple but effective premise. House on Haunted Hill: B The Uninvited: CWhat Lies Beneath: B+

HAUNTED HOUSE MONTH: Week 2

Sort of the Blumhouse of the early ’00s, Dark Castle was a well known but short-lived production company that specialized in cheesy but entertaining horror. One of their offerings was 2002’s GHOST SHIP, a visually impressive haunted house variant about a ship salvage crew who stumble upon a luxury cruise liner that disappeared in 1962. Once aboard, they find a cargo full of gold, as well as the vengeful spirits of the ship’s previous passengers, all of whom died horrible deaths and are mad as hell.

Shot in the same frenzied vein as the House on Haunted Hill remake, Death Ship looks great, but its plot is paper-thin and relies too much on a rather uninteresting subplot that tries to function as a mystery. That aside, the cast is good – Julianna Margulies, Gabriel Byrne, and Karl Urban! – and the action moves at a brisk pace. The bloodthirsty ghosts are essentially the same breed as the murderous spirits from House on Haunted Hill and Thirteen Ghosts, offering up nothing new or exciting.

Considered a modern horror classic, Hideo Nakata’s bleak 1998 chiller, RING, is a ghost story for the digital age. While investigating the mysterious deaths of her niece and two other high schoolers, reporter Reiko (Nanako Matsushima) discovers a silly urban legend might be all too real: a cursed videotape that will kill anyone a week after they’ve watched it. Based on a popular novel, the brilliance of the story is its use of technology as a weapon. The curse of the vengeful spirit being transmitted through a VHS tape might seem dated, but the release of the film corresponded perfectly with the rise of the internet and the digital revolution. How can you stop a supernatural virus that’s spread through wires?

A masterwork in minimalist horror, Ring was massively influential – the 2002 remake unleashed a wave of Asian horror revamps in Hollywood – and a clear inspiration for the Ju-on series and a host of similar “long hair ghost” movies. While the J-horror subgenre has plenty of fun titles (2003’s One Missed Call is an effective Ring rip-off), those movies don’t have the elegant subtlety of Nakata’s film, which relies mostly on atmosphere and suggestion rather than visceral scares, except, of course, for the famous twist ending.

Speaking of Japanese films, 2005’s DARK WATER was one of many remakes that came in the wake of the American The Ring. Recently divorced, fragile Dahlia (Jennifer Connelly) and her young daughter, Ceci (Ariel Gabe), move into a dank, leaking apartment on New York’s Roosevelt Island. Soon after, the daughter begins talking to an imaginary friend, and strange noises are heard from an unoccupied apartment upstairs where something sinister happened to the previous tenants. When Dahlia’s mental health unravels she must try to solve the mystery before Ceci is taken away from her.

A moody ghost story with good characters, a terrific cast, Dark Water is handsomely directed by Brazilian filmmaker Walter Salles (The Motorcycle Diaries), but those expecting a traditional scare show like The Grudge might be disappointed with the movie’s slow pace and lack of showy special effects. That aside, this is a solid film with strong performances and a gripping mother-daughter relationship. Ring: ADark Water: B Ghost Ship: C+

HAUNTED HOUSE MONTH: Week 1

This month I’ve decided to dive into haunted house/supernatural invasion movies, and to kick things off I watched the 1980 classic, THE CHANGELING. An old-fashioned ghost story, The Changeling stars the always good George C. Scott as a music professor who, after the death of his wife and child in a car accident, seeks a change of scenery by moving into a large house in Seattle. It isn’t long until he begins hearing strange noises coming from the attic, and eventually uncovers a murder mystery and decades-old secret.

The Changeling is an interesting film because it’s not your typical modern haunted house flick. Sandwiched between the visceral FX of Amityville Horror and Poltergeist, The Changeling seems like an idea that came from the 1940s, when ghost stories were more subtle and less about the “boo” moments. 

The screenplay (written by William Gray and Diana Maddox) flows as more of a mystery, and director Peter Medak keeps the attention on character development and story structure over visual supernatural activity. That’s not to say the movie doesn’t have its share of creepy moments – its rich atmosphere could be a character itself, with shadows playing a big part in the narrative’s otherworldly reality. 

On the complete opposite end of the cinematic spectrum is Lucio Fulci’s gory answer to Amityville, 1981’s THE HOUSE BY THE CEMETERY. Set in the same altered reality as Fulci’s gruesome twosome, City of the Living Dead and The Beyond, House features a small family who leave New York and move into dusty old “Oak Mansion” outside Boston. There, the dad (Paolo Malco) plans to continue the research his ex-colleague was performing before he committed suicide. Along with his wife (Catriona MacColl), who’s in a constant state of upset, and flop-top son (Giovanni Frezza), Dad discovers their new house harbors a deadly secret: the zombified Dr. Freudstein, a madman who performed diabolical experiments in the house 100 years earlier – and who needs fresh body parts to remain reanimated.

An example of excessive Italian horror at its hysterical best, House by the Cemetery is Fulci firing on all cylinders. The movie might appear to be just another run-of-the-mill Amityville/Shining wannabe – there’s a subplot involving the son’s (unexplained) psychic link with the spirit of Freudstein’s young daughter (Silvia Collatina) – yet Fulci’s unique style and eye for detail makes the movie work wonderfully. Fulci’s hallmarks are all over this, including extreme close-ups of maggot-infested body parts, a beautiful but nonsensical narrative, heavy atmosphere, and the always hilariously bad dubbing. Where else will you see a blood-drenched, two-minute bat attack?

Plugging into the then-popularity of Nightmare on Elm Street, the THE HORROR SHOW is a 1989 entry in the “Is it a dream?” sub-subgenre. Detective McCarthy (Lance Henriksen) is haunted by dreams of deranged serial killer, Max Jenke (Brion James), who he helped capture and witnessed executed in the electric chair. But Jenke, whose spirit has invaded McCarthy’s home through some form of electric phenomena, won’t stay dead and terrorizes the family by slashing up their friends and framing McCarthy for the murders. 

Originally planned (and released overseas) as House III, this seems to have been an attempt at creating another Freddy Krueger, but it takes itself way too seriously and just comes off just a dumb rip-off. Henriksen gives the film more credit than it deserves and James is pure ham, but this does predate the similarly themed Shocker by several months. The Changeling and House by the Cemetery: B+ Horror Show: C  

VERSUS – Black Christmas ’74

Welcome to a new feature on Matt’s Horror Addiction: VERSUS. Versus takes one film and presents two opposing opinions in head-to-head reviews with my friend and horror movie aficionado, Frank Pittarese. We’ll explain why we loved and hated the same movie, and you can decide who’s right!

Plot

As Christmas break gets underway, a mysterious someone stalks the women of a sorority house, secretly killing them one by one. At the center of the storm is the troubled Jess, who might be closer to the killer than she even suspects. While her friends vanish (and the body count rises), Jess begins to feel more and more targeted. Can she survive the night, even as the police try to protect her?  

Matt’s Opinion

From the opening shot of the colorful light-strewn sorority house accompanied by a quiet rendition of “Silent Night”, to the surprisingly bleak ending, Bob Clark’s Black Christmas is one of those movies that always casts a spell whenever I watch it. It’s a special kind of horror film. It can appeal to the traditionally non-horror viewer with its murder mystery angle, but it also appeals to the horror fan because it’s clever and scary and knows how to get under your skin. It successfully takes the bright and cheery feel of the holiday season and turns it on its head.

Right after the opening scene, establishing the looming sorority house as the center of the impending doom, we get a startling POV shot of the killer. Although Silent Night, Bloody Night used a similar POV gimmick two years earlier, here it feels more embedded into the plot: the identity of the killer is of no importance to the story and the less we see of the character (and through his eyes) and creepier the set-up. What is important, and what Clark wisely sets up quickly, is the cast of characters, all of whom are smart, likable, and have vastly different personalities, something later slasher flicks would ignore. The characters include Barb (Margot Kidder), the sexually empowered loudmouth, Phyl (Andrea Martin), the mousy best friend, Mrs. Mac (Marian Waldman), the house mother and functioning alcoholic, Peter (Keir Dullea), the high-strung boyfriend, and Jess (Olivia Hussey), the headstrong (and non-virginal) final girl. As with the best of horror, we sympathize and relate to these characters and want to see them survive.

What screenwriter Roy Moore understood (and what many later horror movies never grasped) is that it’s well-written, sympathetic characters that fuels the suspense. Sure, it’s fun to watch dumb teens and hunky frat guys getting their throats ripped to shreds. What makes it scary is when we don’t want to see them get hurt. While thrilling, and often funny, the script also deals with heavy issues not usually found in horror movies during its time of release. And, although not the first movie to feature the “killer is in the house” urban legend, it is the first to utilize the scenario to its fullest effect. Grade: A

Frank’s Opinion

Okay, I know I’m supposed to love this movie. EVERYONE loves this movie. It ticks all the right boxes: It’s a slasher film! It inspired Halloween! It’s Christmas horror! It’s directed by Bob Children Shouldn’t Play with Dead Things Clark! But I just don’t love it. To be fair, I don’t hate it — it’s just that too many things keep me from connecting with it.

The spine of of the film is solid. There IS a good story there. It’s shocking, at times, and the last ten minutes are exciting. The cast is (mostly) terrific. Marian Waldman as housemother Mrs. Mac steals every scene she’s in, Margot Kidder stands out as the brash Barb, and Andrea Martin’s Phyl is just plain endearing. But…BUT…then there’s Olivia Hussey.

The whole movie rests on Hussey’s shoulders. Her character, Jess, is the one around which all the action flows, but she’s distractingly bad in this (full disclosure: I think she’s distractingly bad in everything). Her performance creates a blockade between me and the enjoyment of this film. It’s compounded by the character having legit, dramatic scenes where Hussey’s flaws are even more pronounced. I can’t worry about Jess if what I really want is for her to be killed off so other characters can shine.

Cutaways to the police investigation stall every hint of suspense and drag out the film’s already slow-moving pace. The prolonged tracing of obscene/threatening phone calls is a torturous interruption, as we shift focus away from the house — and the danger — time and time again. Too much footage is devoted to the development of a red herring, one which might make sense for the characters, but which is implausible for the audience, all for the sake of a final act shocker. These things drain the film’s energy. I get impatient.

This was my third viewing in six years’ time. I keep hoping it’ll click, but it doesn’t. Again, there IS a good story in there, somewhere — but the execution leaves me wanting more. Grade: C

Versus will return in 2022!

Frank Pittarese is a Brooklyn comic book editor and horror movie buff. You can follow him on Instagram and Twitter.

VERSUS – Wrong Turn (2021)

Welcome to a new feature on Matt’s Horror Addiction: VERSUS. Versus takes one film and presents two opposing opinions in head-to-head reviews with my friend and horror movie aficionado, Frank Pittarese. We’ll explain why we loved and hated the same movie, and you can decide who’s right!

Plot

Six friends drive to a small town in Virginia to hike the nearby Appalachian Trail, but when they detour off their path, they encounter a nightmare world of torture and death. Live or die, their fates lie in the secluded mountains — while the town below keeps its secrets.

Matt’s Opinion

Those expecting to see something similar to the 2003 cult fav Wrong Turn when they sit down to watch this reboot will be sorely disappointed. Despite having been written by the original Wrong Turn‘s Alan McElroy, the new movie offers up a completely different tale, one that feels inspired more by Midsommar than any of the previous six Wrong Turn films. I’m even going to guess this film was written as an “original” story and at the last minute was slapped with the Wrong Turn label at the hands of worried investors.

The only similarity between this new WT and the first movie is the trapped-in-the-woods plot, but unlike the original film none of the characters in this new one at any point take a wrong turn, making the title even more pointless. This new group of aggressively annoying Gen Z hipsters run afoul a violent backwoods community in the wilds of West Virginia, a community of dirty rednecks who dress in animal furs and speak in a Danish dialect. Deformed, ax-wielding hillbillies are out; suave, handsome woodsman are in.

The biggest sin the new WT makes is its overly complicated mythology surrounding the woodsy society known as The Foundation: these characters are not as interesting as the filmmakers think and their history and politics for why they do what they do are unconvincing and hollow. They live in the woods and preach to outsiders and burn their eyes out of their heads because on paper it probably sounded really cool. What us WT fans want is simple stalk-and-hack splatter fun and not a film, as well made as it is, that’s trying to be something it’s not. Grade: D

Frank’s Opinion

The original, 2003 mutant-cannibal horror film is a low-key classic that somehow brought fresh energy to a familiar story. That successful film spawned five sequels with ever-diminishing returns. Faced with lower budgets and weaker scripts, the series wasn’t just tired — it was exhausted. So this remake/reboot takes a smarter route: it does something completely different. There are no inbred freaks to be found here. The threat that lurks in the forest is entirely human — but the film takes awhile before revealing the exact nature of its antagonists. That reveal is, admittedly, out there. It’s WAY out there. But as outrageous as it is, it’s presented with a twisted confidence, leading to one bizarre turn after the next. Every twenty minutes or so, the movie levels up in engaging, not always predictable ways. The main characters aren’t necessarily presented in the best light (okay, they’re a bunch of privileged jerks), but I found myself riveted just to see what would happen next.

While there’s a bit of gore to be found as various folks are dispatched, I have a hard time qualifying this as a horror movie. In some ways, it’s more of a survival/cult thriller, which totally works for me. A framing sequence with Matthew Modine (as the father of the film’s protagonist) might feel pointless in the beginning, but everything ties up neatly in the film’s final act (or, rather, ACTS). If you’re looking for a new version of what you’ve seen before, you might be disappointed — but if you want something unique, this iteration of Wrong Turn is definitely worth checking out. If I have any gripes its that the movie could afford to have gone darker in tone. Had they given us more likable characters and cranked up the brutality — something tonally closer to The Hills Have Eyes, since they do borrow a particular theme from that film — this could have been outstanding. Still, it gets a thumbs up from me. Grade: B+

VERSUS – Paranormal Activity: Next of Kin

Welcome to a new feature on Matt’s Horror Addiction: Versus. Versus takes one film and presents two opposing opinions in head-to-head reviews with my friend and horror movie aficionado, Frank Pittarese. We’ll explain why we loved and hated the same movie, and you can decide who’s right!

Plot

Next of Kin focuses on a young woman (Emily Bader) whose quest to discover her roots brings her to a mysterious, isolated Amish-like farm community. With the help of her boyfriend and a cameraman, the team documents the strange new world, unwittingly exposing themselves to a series of supernatural events.

Frank’s Opinion

This seventh installment in the Paranormal Activity series is either a reboot or a spinoff. It’s unclear which, but there’s no connection to anything that’s come before — which makes this easily disposable because it stinks. I like found footage movies, and I’ve really enjoyed most of the PA films; even the “worst” of them is perfectly viewable. This one suffers from poor storytelling (things happen that just don’t make sense), and truly terrible cinematography, even for the sub-genre. For the bulk of the film, it seems there’s a filter over the lens, added to make things darker and more shadowed — but the vast majority of this movie takes place either by candlelight or at night. That, combined with some of the shakiest camera movements I’ve seen in one of these films creates no end of visual frustration.

Director William Eubank also can’t make up his mind about whether this even IS a found footage movie. Objective camera shots — as you would see in any normal film — are inserted from start to finish. It’s distracting and pulled me right out of the action. The script feels uninspired and lazy (and ripping off REC didn’t help). I was eager for this to end even as the finale unfolded.

On the plus side, the characters are decent. Dan Lippert as Dale, the sound guy, has a few funny moments. The setting is interesting and somewhat atmospheric. But everyone is written to be inherently stupid for the sake of advancing the plot (or serving the format). Even with low expectations, I was disappointed. It felt like a cheap, direct-to-video attempt at folk horror. The biggest letdown is that Christopher Landon wrote this. He scripted Paranormal Activity 2-4, directed both Happy Death Day movies (and wrote the second), and directed and co-wrote the delightful slasher-comedy Freaky. Everyone stumbles, sometimes, I guess. It’s time to bring back Toby. Grade: D

Matt’s Opinion

The Paranormal Activity series has seen its share of makeovers twice before. The fifth entry, The Marked Ones, brilliantly spun off from the franchise’s main plot by focusing the action on a group of inner-city Latinx teenagers as they discover their neighbor is part of a coven known as The Midwives. The Marked Ones both added to and respected the overall mythology of the series, creating a movie that felt fresh while giving fans what they expected from a PA film. The next entry, The Ghost Dimension, also tried to put a twist on a somewhat tiresome formula by showing audiences the demonic activity that has been plaguing the families in PA 1-4, the invisible Toby. Injecting energy into the action sequences surrounding Toby was the use of 3-D, and while that gimmick works it couldn’t hide the fact the PA films were starting to wear thin.

While Next of Kin isn’t exactly a return to form – I’m not sure I can use that phrase since it doesn’t have anything to do with the other films – it is, I think, I step in the right direction. The new characters are likable and there’s even a touch of Tucker from Insidious in Lippert’s smart alecky Dale. One of my biggest pet peeves in horror movies is unsympathetic characters, and luckily so far in the PA universe we haven’t seen any yet. While Next of Kin‘s characters aren’t as memorable as Katie (Katie Featherston), or the child versions of Katie and her sister, Kirsti, from PA 3, they carry the film smoothly.

The plot doesn’t always make perfect sense, but that doesn’t deter from the main objective of the story, which is to disorient the viewer. Just like the characters, the audience gets a sense of doom and nightmarish qualities in the creepy, atmosphere-heavy farm environment. And although the movie never achieves the intensity of the first movie in the series it does deliver some good scares, especially during the last 20 minutes. Plus, unlike the previous entries, Next of Kin does deliver a flesh and blood creature, and while it might not be what you expect it is far and away from anything the other PA have manifested. On that alone I commend Next of Kin for going a different route, even though the pathway leading to it feels somewhat similar, and welcoming. Grade: B

Stay tuned for another Versus comin’ at ya soon!

Frank Pittarese is a Brooklyn native. You can follow him on Twitter and Instagram.

Mini-Reviews: BLACULA, DARKNESS FALLS, NIGHTMARES, and THE TOWN THAT DREADED SUNDOWN

Blacula (1972) Classic ’70s exploitation flick starring the great William Marshall as Prince Mamuwalde who is turned into a vampire by Count Dracula and, centuries later, rises from his tomb in modern day L.A. Director William Crain focuses more on well-written characters and suspense than cheap shocks and in doing so creates a movie that’s much better than its schlocky title would suggest. B+

Darkness Falls (2003) Thinly plotted ghost story about a small sea-side town terrorized by a vengeful spirit, whose attached itself to a man (Chaney Kley) who witnessed his mother’s murder at the hands of the malevolent entity years earlier. Stiff acting – Buffy‘s Emma Caulfield Ford is wasted in a one-dimensional role – and transparent plot devices harm the already mundane story, and even at just 85 minutes this feels way too long. D+

Nightmares (1983) Light but fun Twilight Zone-like anthology of four stories centered around urban legends. The first (and best) features Cristina Raines as a mother who, along with the rest of the town, is living in terror after a madman escapes from a nearby sanitarium. The second has Emilio Estevez as an arrogant teenager whose obsession with a video game leads to dire consequences. Third has Lance Henriksen as a disillusioned priest who finds road rage with a demonic pick-up truck. The last chapter pits Veronica Cartwright against a giant rat that has invaded her suburban home. Definitely worth a look for the anthology fan. B

The Town That Dreaded Sundown (1976) Before Michael or Jason there was this influential slasher based on a real case about a hooded killer terrorizing a small Texas town in 1946. A surprisingly taut film, director Charles B. Pierce smartly injects moments of humor in between scenes of brutal, and intense, violence, creating a terrific pace and solid storytelling. Only a needless voiceover narration hurts an otherwise good little movie. B+