Review: Horror Express (1972)

Horror Express (1972)

Director: Eugenio Martín (as Gene Martin)

Writers: Arnaud d'Usseau (screenplay), Julian Zimet (screenplay)

Stars: Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, Telly Savalas

         

I love John Carpenter's The Thing. Who doesn't? I love the more recent prequel film too, also called The Thing. Who does? Before those, there was the classic The Thing From Another World, and before that, there was the original 1938 novella they were based on. And here we've got... uh... none of those.

We've got 1972's Horror Express, but the plot may sound familiar.

An ancient figure is found frozen in ice. Scientists remove it and it thaws out. The next thing you know, people are getting killed and the creature begins to adapt, absorbing their memories, their personalities, and it can look like anyone. It's an alien creature from the dawn of time, and the only way to tell who's now real and who isn't is to medically check everyone. As paranoia begins to grow amongst the poorly-armed survivors, things are looking bleak as the creature attempts to escape...

Wait, run that by me again?

Yes, the story is almost identical, even if the surroundings are different. Here our alien popsicle is brought aboard a train in 1906, the Trans-Siberian Express. Professor Saxton is proud of his find, boxing it and wrapping up the crate with chains. His rival, Doctor Wells, is keen to sneak a peek and pays someone to drill a hole in the crate and have a good look at what's inside. Naturally, someone gets killed and the body goes missing.

Inspector Mirov then orders the crate opened and the dead man is discovered inside, although the frozen body isn't. Before long, the body count rises and the autopsies are confirming that their knowledge is being drained out of them through their eyes. The prehistoric being is shot and killed, but that's when Saxton and Wells learn that it's only a host body and the creature can become anyone. It's an alien being, and the only way to detect it is for Saxton and Wells to study everybody's eyes. Well, you can probably figure out the rest.

But is Horror Express actually any good? Sadly, you'll also either love this or hate this, depending on what you're after.

If you want an action-packed horror film, this isn't it. If you want nail-biting suspense and jangling paranoia, you'll be disappointed. It's a cheaply-made film with music that sounds more like it belongs in a Western at times, and the story seems to get away from itself. Oh, and the ending is a little disappointing. So knowing that, what are its good points?

First of all, it has two heroes who don't get along with each other. They may be colleagues, but they're competitive, and while it may not be used to its full advantage, it still makes a nice change. Also they're played by Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing, which boosts the quality of this production and makes it feel like a Hammer horror film. It even has Telly Savalas in it for the last half an hour or so, for good measure. And he's not in Kojak mode, but Maggott from The Dirty Dozen mode.

Some of the moments and images on display are the fuel of classic nightmares too, including the white-eyed stares of every victim as blood pours down their faces. It has a wry sense of humour at times too, in particular when Dr. Wells tries to charm a gorgeous redhead who's too young for him. The train setting may not have the Arctic ambiance of The Thing, but it's a confined space and that means a claustrophobic atmosphere.

Also, remember that means that the creature is constantly drawing nearer... and before long it'll escape into society.

It's a smart take on it. Except the unhurried pace of the film turns what should have been a frantic race against time into a slow ride on a slow train. I know, that was the style of horror movies back then and it does work as a film, but it just feels like a missed opportunity to turn those tension screws a few more times. That being said,  I liked this movie, even if the story is familiar. Lee and Cushing are always a joy to watch

Horror Express isn't an express ride. But it has horror, and the journey is smooth and steady with lots to see. It's worth the price of the ticket, so climb aboard.

- Rick Austin

Review: Alice Sweet Alice (1976)

Alice Sweet Alice (1976)

Director: Alfred Sole

If you survive this night…Nothing will scare you again.

Set in the 1960s (which, due to lack of budget, was lost among more contemporary details) and heavy on anti-Catholic rhetoric, Alice Sweet Alice is definitely the odd one out of its time. It stars a young Brooke Shields as Karen, the first victim and younger sister of our deeply unnerving yet oddly likable antagonist, Alice. Between the constant whining and carrying on of Karen and the overt favoritism of children by the mother, it’s easy to sympathize with poor Alice.  Although the film starts right off with all kinds of emotional tension, the first death definitely sets the mood for the rest of the film.

Alice becomes main suspect in murder of sister. I mean, she did just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, have the same creepy smiling mask and yellow raincoat as the murderer, and have more than enough motive. Throughout the film, it becomes more and more apparent that Alice is less than innocent, but her involvement in the terrors to unfold would remain to be seen. However, there was much hinting at the idea that the ghost of Karen, back for revenge may be to blame.

One character, which we are introduced to briefly after the death of Karen, was the creepy apartment manager with all of the kittens. I feel he could have been explained or integrated into the plot a little more. He seemed to both hate and take a “liking” to Alice and reminded me a bit of a John Waters character. Alice seemed to return the favor, somehow possibly liking his creepy, pedophilic attention, adding to the Alice character as deeply troubled and demented. Indeed, a disturbing but weirdly compelling relationship.

Throughout the film, Mom refused to listen to anything and anyone, ready to fight everyone about her children, and was always hysterical and uncooperative. She was also kind of an enabling pushover. There was also the aunt. She seemed to always know what was up, but no one listened and came off as overzealous at times. Between the two of them, there was quite a lot of tension and screaming, especially in regard to the guilt of Alice, who later may or may not have stabbed her aunt several times. As you can imagine, the following scenes would be littered with yelling, denial, and hysteria. The estranged father played the role as the voice of reason, although he started off by being uncooperative and silly about everything. However, he begins to pull himself together and actively aid in solving the mystery of who attacked the aunt in the stairwell.

I do believe that had the film followed along the “disturbed little girl dodging everyone’s radar on a killing spree” path that it would have been more compelling. The final murder and the reveal of the real killer at the end were a bit of a letdown (although it didn’t not make sense). However, the notion of the idea that Alice could very well be capable of murder and was not completely innocent was compelling and would have made for a fine storyline in of itself. The fact that the ending seemed kind of thrown into place, for the sake of the element of surprise, was more frustrating than anything. Despite the fact that the plot was a little bit all over the place, I would say that this film is deserving of a gander for any horror buff.

- Jasmine Casimir

Review: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) 
Director: Tobe Hooper     
Writers: Tobe Hooper, Kim Henkel   

Stars: Marilyn Burns, Edwin Neal, Jim Siedow, Gunnar Hansen

Cliff’s Notes: Narrator: "The film which you are about to see is an account of the tragedy which befell a group of five youths, in particular Sally Hardesty and her invalid brother, Franklin. It is all the more tragic in that they were young. But, had they lived very, very long lives, they could not have expected nor would they have wished to see as much of the mad and macabre as they were to see that day. For them an idyllic summer afternoon drive became a nightmare. The events of that day were to lead to..." First lines of the film spoken by Emmy Award-Winning actor John Larroquette

Lecture: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (TCM) is, without a doubt, one of the best horror films ever made. Technically speaking, the composition and direction of this flick is nearly perfect. Each of the early strokes beautifully crafts the image of a carefree summer drive. The documentary-like first act is tempered with only a vague air of threat, as if this is the beginning of a cosmically bad day. Our group of friends is sketched with the broadest of strokes, but the quality actors bring it up a level. The meeting with this hitchhiker, the exploring of the family home, and the walks through the Texas countryside each build to a single explosion of violence.

And from that moment on, TCM is like watching a nightmare. Danger is always no more than a few feet away. The reality of the film seems to collapse in upon itself, keeping the viewer trapped in a holocaust of violence and degradation. There is no reprieve, no release from the horrors that surround the characters. As it builds, TCM becomes a horror powerhouse. And then the dinner scene starts.

Filmed over 26 straight hours in the Texas heat, the dinner scene is pure anarchy. It is a decent into madness driven by violence, some of it real, and rage. It’s like watching the end of the world. That’s not a complaint. This is a horror movie lover’s dream. This scene, as well as the third act, are so emotionally draining that, by the time the film has let up, any of the film;s last images – characters run over by trucks, escaping into madness, or pure unadulterated rage- are apt metaphors for the viewer’s mental state.

Acting: Marilyn Burns, who sadly just passed, R.I.P., is fantastic in this flick. I’m not sure how much counseling she had afterwards, but the terror she puts out on screen is incredible. The rest of the disposable teens hold their own and read as real people, which makes the docu-feel of the flick hit harder.

Special props go to the chainsaw family. Edwin Neal and Jim Siedow are fantastic as the crazies. Siedow especially brings a moral schizophrenia to the film. He is both drawn to the violence that his family is dishing out, but also somehow terrified of the possible results. Hansen also brings a powerhouse performance. Without a single word, he commands the screen like a champ.

Directing: Tobe Hooper underplays most of his choices. TCM, at least for the first half or so, reads almost like a documentary. The angles are simple, the pace effortless, and the tension slowly rising. Hooper pays strict attention to Hitchcock’s bomb under the table theory. We know this is going to end horribly, so the lead up is laced with tension. Halfway through, Hooper opens the floodgates. There are crazy dolly shots, wild angles, and extreme close-ups galore. Every movement of the camera, every shot of not seeing something terrible build the film to a level of terror that has rarely been seen.

Script: Despite being rewritten extensively during the production, the script is a perfect microcosm of the movie. It’s distressing, technically solid, and matches the horror happening on screen. Grade A!

Effects: The film itself is nearly bloodless. While other, lesser films would have collapsed under this stress, it actually makes TCM more unsettling. By seeing less, the viewer’s brain makes up for what they think they’re seeing. And what they think they’re seeing is horrible. Also, special note for the production design of the Chainsaw house. You want “arm” chairs? Awesome bone sculptures? Distinct and terrifying masks? You get it all and more!

Highlights: Um… the whole thing? Actually, the one thing that I have found, after multiple viewings, is the humor of the piece. I know, it doesn’t sound like this is a funny flick, but TCM is masterful in its use of dark humor.

Lowlights: I really can’t complain about the film itself. The only thing I can mention is that the making of the film was incredibly, legendarily difficult. The horror stories from the TCM set are well known and universally painful. Not only was Marilyn Burns actually cut and beaten, several of the cast complained of the difficult conditions. Edwin Neal compared the filming to his time is Vietnam and Gunnar Hansen’s thoughts on filming are well documented in the excellent Chainsaw Confidential. (BTW, pick up Chainsaw Confidential. It’s a great look at the creation of this film.) I’m all for suffering for art, but this was a little ridiculous.

Final Thoughts: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is an excellent film. It routinely ends up on just about everyone’s top horror film list. The awards are well deserved. There is no film that matches the intensity and destruction that this movie lets loose upon the viewer.

- J.W. Brewer

Follow JW on Twitter

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

Review: The Brood (1979)

THE BROOD (1979)
Director: David Cronenberg

From the first scene in David Cronenberg’s ’79 effort The Brood, the viewer is made uncomfortable. We watch in horrified anger, much as the film's protagonist Frank Carveth does, while the process of a new psychiatric procedure called psychoplasmics is exhibited for an audience. A grown man whimpers in front of the audience as the bizarre and explosive Dr. Raglan verbally abuses him and likens him to a little girl, while play-acting as the man’s father. Once he hits the breaking point, the patient rips off his shirt and reveals several red welts and growths have formed through his therapy, like his insecurities and instabilities have started to fight their way out of his body.

Exposition goes as such, Frank Carveth is in the middle of a custody battle for his daughter. Carveth’s wife Nola is in intensive therapy with Dr. Raglan, using the dangerous new method of psychoplasmics, after abusing her daughter, when strange murders start to occur. Child-sized creatures start killing various people that might keep Nola away from her daughter. Frank is forced to investigate and fight, at first for his marriage, then for the custody of his child, and then for the lives of his family.

The Brood shares a few tonal similarities with the last hour or so of The Shining (released a year later). Every part of it feels very cold, rooms are sparse and all very similar, and often in the windows you see a snowy Canadian background reflecting a pale light into the rooms. This could be due to the low budget the film had, but it feels very deliberate. And much like the Shining, the uncomfortable and eerie feel of the movie comes just as much from the subject matter as it does its spooks and ghouls. At its heart, the movie is about divorce, a gory Kramer vs Kramer of sorts, and the slow realization that the person you loved isn’t REALLY that person anymore at all. While The Shining focused on a husband’s decent into madness, The Brood focuses on the discovery that everything in the husband’s life has gone out of his control. It seems like our protagonist blinked and his whole world turned upside down. It’s pretty obvious that Cronenberg was going through some shit when he wrote this.

A quick bit of internet creeping shows he was in fact getting divorced from his wife the same year the movie was released. “He first married Margaret Hindson in 1972: then his seven-year marriage ended in 1979 amidst personal and professional differences. They had one daughter, Cassandra Cronenberg. Now he is married to Carolyn Zeifman, production assistant on Rabid. They have two children, Caitlin and Brandon.[24] In the 1992 book Cronenberg on Cronenberg, he revealed that The Brood was inspired by events that occurred during the unraveling of his first marriage, which caused both Cronenberg and his daughter Cassandra a great deal of turmoil. The character Nola Carveth, mother of the brood, is based on Cassandra's mother. Cronenberg said that he found the shooting of the climactic scene, in which Nola was strangled by her husband, to be "very satisfying."—Wikipedia, David Cronenburg

It's amazing that a movie can start as a very well-done drama/thriller about divorce, loss, and madness and then slowly twist into the body terror Cronenberg is so well known for. The Brood has everything from midget monsters pummeling pretty schoolteachers, to death in front of children, to a woman licking the afterbirth from her a-sexually produced spawn, to oddly disturbing shots of milk and orange Juice mixing together on the floor, and that’s still only part of what’s so scary. You’d think the evil doctor was the big bad from the beginning. While yes, he’s totally evil; he’s also not the most evil or even most dangerous monster of the film.

The make-up effects are terrific, even if they are hidden for the most part. The film slowly shows more and more of its monsters as it goes on. First, you’d only get the hands of the child-like brood, then you see only glimpses of them running and attacking. It builds and builds until you see everything. You know how they die, how they look, and in the film’s most famous and harrowing sequence, you see how they are birthed and just what the biggest side effect of psychoplasmics is.

Warning: side effects include constipation, nausea, a brood of asexually produced demon children, and dryness of the eyes.

Overall, The Brood is a terrific mix of gore and psychological horror and one of Cronenberg’s best films, right up there with The Fly, Videodrome, and even his more ‘serious’ dramatic efforts like History of Violence and Eastern Promises. All the actors bring in great performances, the story eases you in with relatable and real drama and adds some honest, touching, human moments before letting the monster movie madness go insane. The imagery is gruesome enough to stay with you long after you stop watching. Just the over-the-top and wild-eyed performance from Oliver Reed, as Dr. Hal Raglan, is worth the price of admission, but The Brood keeps giving you more.

- Will Woolery

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