Review: Bloody Pit of Horror (1965)

Bloody Pit of Horror (1965)

Director: Massimo Pupillo

Writers: Robert Nathan, Robin McLorin, based on the writings of Marquis de Sade

Stars: Mickey Hargitay, Walter Brandt, Louise Barrett

Bloody Pit of Horror (1965) opens with the execution/imprisonment of a mean son-of-a-bitch known as the “Crimson Executioner," who looks more like a professional wrestling parody than deadly executioner.  We don’t know exactly what this guy is being sentenced to death for, but we can make the assumption he’s grown a bit overzealous in his profession.  Sometime later, a crew of models and photographers interested in gothic locale arrive at the castle in which our Crimson Executioner is entombed beneath.  Right away we assume someone will somehow summon the dead man below to rise and kill again.  Which is exactly what happens.  Sort of.

The Crimson Executioner certainly does rise and kill again, only it’s not the real Crimson Executioner.  Once the owner of the castle, an isolated former actor named Travis, recognizes one of the models, he assumes the identity of the Executioner to carry out his legacy, a legacy of violent torture and revenge.  One by one, Travis the new Crimson Executioner, enacts violence on unsuspecting prey.  At the center of this is Edith, Travis’ former fiancé, who reveals Travis’ bizarre past; his obsession with physical perfection and distaste for those inferior, who according to him, “corrupt the harmony of his perfect body.”  So yeah, the guy is a certified wackadoo who minors in over-the-top theatrics.  He’s also the kind of bad guy who wastes most his time rambling on about his master plan instead of just getting to the point and killing his opponent when he has the chance.  In perhaps the most monologues ever given by the killer in a horror movie, the imitation Crimson Executioner running rampant for the majority of this film is nowhere near as compelling as the real Crimson Executioner featured in the first five minutes, swearing his eternal revenge moments before his demise.  I would have preferred this version of the Executioner take center stage, and not Travis the understudy.  While Travis certainly kept me entertained in his oddity, there was never a moment I was actually afraid of him, whereas fear virtually emanated off the guy in the first five minutes.

With a number of elaborate set pieces, complete with iron maiden, giant spider web, and what I assume was a stretching machine, Bloody Pit of Horror is no doubt a fun little movie to watch.  It has a certain goofiness to it, considerably Mickey Hargitay’s over-the-top (but rightfully so) performance, but even the soundtrack has a lightness to it, with the opening credits feeling more like a beach movie than horror film.  Originally released in Italy, most if not all the dialogue is dubbed in English and barely matches the movements of the actor’s mouths, which again adds to the fun. 

- Peter DiGiovanni

Review: The Brain That Wouldn't Die (1962)

The Brain That Wouldn't Die (1962)

Director: Joseph Green

Writers: Rex Carlton (original story), Joseph Green (original story), 1 more credit »

Stars: Jason Evers, Virginia Leith, Anthony La Penna

“Let me die. Let me die!”

Is that the sound of despair from an audience member watching the last Indiana Jones film? Or maybe the plea for mercy you make when you find out your kid likes Justin Bieber? Perhaps it's the catchphrase of that Idols judge everyone loves to hate? Or could it be the wail of a woman – with nothing but a black screen showing- that makes this one of the most effective opening moments of a horror film ever?

Yes, it's all of the above. But that doesn't take away from how creepy that introduction is in this horror film. It works and it's disturbing. It's almost as good as the scream at the start of the original House on Haunted Hill, the first murder in Scream or any of the other best intro teasers out there. Start with a bang, that's always a good lesson with movies.

Of course, then you've got to follow it up with another good hour or two of viewing. This one doesn't. In fact, the intro is the best part of this film – except for when The End flashes on the screen later.

Doctor Bill Cortner is one of those maverick surgeons who breaks all those pesky rules and ethics that hamper medical advancements. You know, like performing experimental surgery on the newly-dead, bringing them back to life and stealing limbs from amputees. His dad doesn't like it, but Bill is a rebel like Victor Frankenstein. He's off to the family summer house/private laboratory with his hot-to-trot fiancée Jan at 10 mph, but she won't stop nagging him. He accelerates wildly on some dangerous curves just to shut her up, and promptly crashes.

He's thrown clear, but she gets decapitated. Let that be a lesson, kids. Speed kills.

Being an upstanding guy, he doesn't bother waiting for the authorities but rather grabs her severed head and takes it to the summer house. Like any good doctor would, he clamps her head in a vice, pops it in a pan of magical medical goop and brings it back to life. Since he still wants to get busy with Jan, he figures all he has to do is transplant her head on another woman's body. It means the other woman will die, but that's the price of progress.

While he sets out on the dreary task of attending burlesque bars, beauty pageants and bikini photo sessions looking for the perfect woman, Jan's severed head is doing what she does best: nag. She nags at Cortner's assistant, and then at one of his earlier test subjects who remains locked away. She's also telepathic now and uses that skill to nag even more. All she wants to do is die, but revenge is an equally acceptable alternative.

I'd tell you the ending, but I won't. Not because I disapprove of spoilers, but because there isn't much of an ending to speak of. It's there, but if you blink, you'll miss it. It scores for revealing what the test subject monster looks like but fails because it looks like the lovechild of Sloth and Tor Johnson.

One of the biggest problems with this film is that there are no actual heroes; Jan is a pain, and you wish that she would die just so she'd stop complaining, while Dr. Cortner has all the appeal of a block of wood and half the charisma. The film feels soulless. It's a cheap exploitation film that doesn't even pretend to be anything more, with no actual horror and drawn-out shots of pointless eye candy.

Oh, and there's the problem that it was made at all. But then if it weren't then we wouldn't have anything to laugh at, right? So, I guess we owe it something for that.

Thankfully, there's that great introduction to hang on to. And the words, The End, which can't seem to arrive fast enough. The rest is filling, bland and leaving a bad taste behind. Spit it out after consumption. 

- Rick Austin

Follow Rick on Twitter

Original Vs. Remake: Night of the Living Dead

Night of the Living Dead (1968)

Vs. 

Night of the living dead (1990)

By Jasmine Casimir

“They’re coming for you Barbara.”

George A Romero dazzled audience and future filmmakers with his classic Night of the Living Dead in 1968, birthing a new genre of horror, soon to create and maintain a solid cult following. As you all may know, it was then remade in 1990, directed by Tom Savini. The following is a comparative look at both films.

We begin with the classic and familiar storyline of siblings visiting a graveyard. Soon after the quick introduction to our first characters, seemingly queued onto screen by Johnny with the infamous tagline, the two are greeted by a man who appears to have just risen from the grave. Johnny is killed instantly, and Barbara flees to a nearby house where she meets Ben, and eventually two couples: one with a “sickly” little girl.

Taking a break however from my synopsis, which I am sure you can make up from there without continuation, I do want to point out the main merit of the original. Although pretty much only a technicality by way of “they didn’t have the technology yet” was, for starters, the black and white film and the lack of noise-assault. This did two things: it choked down much of the aural and visual horror in a way that made these aspects less cheap and obvious, and it did not force one to be on edge, by way of scary sounds the whole time. The horror was in the actors and situations as is arguably the way it ought to be. It was genuine, organic, and in that sense, much more “spooky” than overtly visually terrifying.

Back to the plot and characters.  It’s possible that this is all due to my post-second-wave feminist upbringing, but the fact that the entirety of Barbara’s personality was boiled down to constant, irrational, screaming, whimpering, sad-sack in the corner was so irritating that I spent equal amounts of brain power trying to ignore her as I did watch the rest of the film. Granted, this was just a reflection of the times, it was a distraction, as that character archetype always is. 

I do also want to point out that the little girl character, once transformed into the living dead, was much more jarring and creepier due to lack of over-done gore, the film quality, and the lack of brain-punching sounds. I don’t think many film “monsters” have left as big of an impression on me as that little girl, with the subtle, dark, sunken-in eyes, appearing from dead silence with that iconic facial expression as she ceases munching on her father’s dead corpse to kill her mother with a trowel.

Taking a gander at the 1990 remake now, we are greeted with the familiar scene of siblings, brother killed instantly, pretty much follows the original plot pretty damn well, including the line, “They’re coming for you Barbara,” in the same oh-so-spooky, foreshadowing manner. Barbara wasn’t so much of a waste of sobbing, hysterical oxygen, taking on an equal lead to Ben. Which, although a fundamental device to the original, it was not uncomfortably irritating for me to watch. This film, apart from a few other very minor adjustments, such as divulgence of clarification, was pretty much the same. Per usual, I will not give away any endings. I did have moral obligation to stand and applaud to the switching up of the ending, which gave one hell of a nod to the original but also to the character-facelift of our leading lady.

All in all, despite the fact that the Night of the Living Dead remake was basically just the original with minor alterations, it was not, in my opinion, the abomination that some people feel that it was. I will admit, I am a bit of a purist and generally lean much more heavily to the original. That being said, the remake did not reek of over-cautiousness (despite the strong similarity to its predecessor) or do that hideous, terrible, hateful thing where they leave out really important stuff and invent new scenarios that just screw the original story line. Both films are worth merit in my book and take up equal playing time in my VCR, and maybe you’ll think so too.

- Jasmine Casimir

Review: The Last Man on Earth (1964)

The Last Man on Earth (1964)

Directors: Ubaldo Ragona (as Ubaldo B. Ragona), Sidney Salkow (uncredited)

“Do you dare imagine what it would be like to be the last man on Earth... or the last woman? Alive among the lifeless... alone among the crawling creatures of evil that make the night hideous with their inhuman craving?!” That's what the poster for this film wanted to know. Do we dare?

Sure, why not?

Before Will Smith made it clear that he was Legend and Charlton Heston was the Omega Man, Vincent Price told us that he was The Last Man on Earth. And with good reason, too. In a world populated with vampires, who better to represent the human race than that silvery-voiced master of suspense and horror?

If you saw either of those later filmed versions of Richard Matheson's tale, you'll know what the score is:

Four years in the future, a plague wipes out society, except those infected don't stay dead for long. They return as creatures of the night, ready to feast on any remaining survivors – which will then infect those they attack and increase their numbers. The last survivor of mankind, Dr. Robert Morgan, spends his nights locked up in his home, sleeping in fear that he'll be discovered. By day he collects supplies vital to his survival, killing any weakened vampires he finds and searching for a cure to the plague.

Of course, since he's immune, he has somewhere to start regarding his research. That isn't the problem; the real issue is if he can survive against overwhelming odds and keep his sanity long enough to get the job done. He gets a dog as a companion, which goes tragically wrong, and then finds another survivor. Or is she? She's showing some of the symptoms of being a vampire but doesn't attack him.

As the mystery deepens for Doctor Morgan, he discovers that he isn't as alone as he first thought, but the alternative to being a vampire may not be all that he'd hoped. What remains of the human race and the dark side of survival is revealed. It's a gloomy future ahead...

There are some flaws with this film, one of the biggest being the vampires. They may be everywhere, but they don't seem that threatening. They're slow, sluggish and despite all the clichés (sharp teeth, problems with garlic and mirrors and being killed by a stake through the heart) they act more like zombies. Old movie zombies. Which means they just groan and wander around banging on doors in a futile manner, as opposed to chasing Brad Pitt at a breakneck speed.

It gets off to a slow start too, with a drawn-out backstory. Just when you think it's about to pick up it slows down again, before racing to a panic-stricken final act which needed just a little more explanation. Then there's the original idea of our hero becoming a legend of this post-apocalyptic world... but doesn't.

Those faults aside, it's still a good film. It may lack the high-budget gloss and depth of the later versions, but it's a fantastic early model of the survival horror genre that inspired others. The deck is stacked against Morgan right from the start, and it's easy to understand why he's become unraveled. The solitude is impossible to deal with, a cure seems hopeless, and even a simple trip to the shops or getting petrol for his car is a mission.

Vincent Price is in top form, giving a great performance and seemingly becoming more unhinged as it goes. The ending is as dark and disturbing as the beginning and shows a more realistic portrayal of the end of the world than many in this genre. There's something more psychologically disturbing about being slowly stalked than being over-run by racing hordes, and on that level this film delivers. A slightly quicker pace would have been good, but it works regardless.

Of course, it's a classic. But why? It may not be the best and it certainly isn't the oldest. Yet the impact and influence of it make it a film that can't be denied. It's one of those that set the standard, and while the bar may have been surpassed by others, it's still a benchmark that most struggle to achieve. 

- Rick Austin