Tonight, on In Search Of…., Leonard Nimoy guides us through the search for Jack the Ripper!
Tonight’s excursion into televised horror should is based on a Robert Bloch story about Jack the Ripper!
Yours Truly, Jack The Ripper is a classic episode of the 60s anthology series, Thiller. This episode aired on April 11th, 1961 and it was directed by the Oscar-winning actor, Ray Milland. As always, the great Boris Karloff is on hand to serve as our host.
Margot (Emily Bader) was abandoned as a child and wants to learn the truth about her past. When she does a 23andMe test, she discovers that she’s Amish. Samuel (Jaye Ayers-Brown) is a relative who is currently experimenting with Rumspringa. He invites Margot and her cameraman Chris (Roland Buck III) to come to the farm. Yes, Margot has a cameraman because she thinks her journey to find her roots would make for a great documentary. Yes, this movie is supposedly made up of footage that Chris filmed. Samuel and his relatives are smart enough to trick Margot into coming to the farm so that they can give her body to a demon, but they’re not smart enough to do anything about the cameras filming them.
Why is this even a Paranormal Activity film? It has nothing to do with any of the previous Paranormal Activity movies, the majority of which were pretty stupid, but at least tried to maintain a consistent story. This movie is about Amish people sacrificing people to a demon. It’s not even the same demon that previously haunted Katie and Kristi. The only thing this movie has in common with the other films is the found footage gimmick, but even in this case, it screws things up by being too slick. There’s none of the roughness that a found footage movie needs to be credible.
Lisa has a theory that people make movies about the Amish because they know the Amish will never see them. I think this movie proves her right. I would have called it “Paranormal Amish” and gone out of my way to make sure my name didn’t appear in the credits.
Welcome to Retro Television Reviews, a feature where we review some of our favorite and least favorite shows of the past! This Thursday, I will be reviewing Twin Detectives, which was produced for ABC in 1990. The show can be found on YouTube!
Twin Detectives
(Dir by Robert Day, Originally aired on May 1st, 1976)
Tony (Jim Hager) and Shep Thomas (Jon Hager) are identical twins who long ago gave up on other people ever being able to tell them apart. Instead, they just pretend to be one person. They own a detective agency. Their clients think that they’re hiring one detective, but little do they know that they’re actually hiring two detectives who look exactly alike! I’m not sure exactly why the Thomas brothers have decided this is a good idea, other than the fact that I guess they each only have to work half a day. It does lead to some complications, like when one of the brothers gets into debt to some gangsters and the other brother ends up getting beaten up. To be honest, I’m not sure whether Tony was the irresponsible one or if it was Shep. All I know is that both of them spent this entire made-for-TV movie getting into trouble because of the decisions made by the other sibling.
As for why I’m reviewing this in October, there actually is a supernatural angle here. Leonard (Patrick O’Neal) and Sheila Rainier (Barbara Rhoades) are running an institute that claims to study psychic phenomena. The elderly and rich Billy Jo Haskins (Lillian Gish) has been funding the Rainiers and is convinced that they can communicate with her dead husband. Billy Jo’s attorney, Marvin Telford (David White), hires the brothers to investigate the institute. At first, it seems like Leonard’s assistant (Lynda Day George) is on the verge of revealing the truth about the scam, but then she’s murdered. The Thomas brothers have to solve the murder and also resolve the question of whether the Rainiers are truly talking to the dead.
Twin Detectives was obviously meant to be a pilot for a weekly show. The Hager brothers were so bereft of charisma and acting ability that I actually felt the need to do some research to try to discover why they were given a pilot in the first place. Apparently, the Hagers were country music performers who had appeared on several variety shows and had a following in middle America. This pilot was obviously designed to appeal to the older folks in the audience, but it didn’t work because, again, the Hagers weren’t very good actors and the whole idea of them pretending to be one person just didn’t make much sense.
Sadly, the film wastes its guest stars. Lillian Gish was one of the first film stars, but she’s not given much to do as Billy Jo Haskins. Wherever D. W. Griffith may have been, he wasn’t watching.

“I am hungry though. My stomach always feels empty.” — Justine
Leaving home for college is supposed to be the start of figuring yourself out, but Raw asks a nastier question: what happens if you don’t like the person you discover? Julia Ducournau’s 2016 coming-of-age horror film takes the familiar experience of a sheltered young woman entering an intimidating new environment and gives it teeth. Literally. Beneath the flesh-eating and bodily distress is a recognizable story about wanting independence without understanding what to do with it. Its horror comes not simply from discovering an appetite for human flesh, but from realizing that the identity you brought from home might not survive contact with the outside world.
Justine, played by Garance Marillier, arrives at veterinary school with a clearly established identity. She is academically gifted, inexperienced, and a committed vegetarian, following the professional path already taken by her parents and older sister, Alexia. Everything about her suggests someone whose life has been mapped out before she has had much opportunity to question it. Then a hazing ritual forces her to eat a raw rabbit kidney, awakening a hunger that develops into cannibalistic desire. It is an outrageous premise, but Ducournau grounds it in an ordinary anxiety: being pressured into doing something uncomfortable because refusing would mean making yourself an outsider.
The college setting is essential because it makes that pressure feel inescapable. Justine hasn’t simply left her parents; she has entered another institution with its own rules about obedience and belonging. The older students humiliate newcomers while presenting participation as a necessary introduction to campus life. From Justine’s perspective, becoming independent initially seems to mean accepting whatever this new crowd demands. There is a nasty contradiction here: she is supposedly learning to become her own person by surrendering control over her body. Raw makes that contradiction central to its version of growing up, where the invitation to loosen up carries an uncomfortable threat.
Cannibalism becomes such an effective metaphor because it turns the vague instruction to discover yourself into something physical and frightening. Justine’s appetite belongs to her, yet it feels alien. She cannot simply decide not to experience it, and recognizing it doesn’t tell her how to live with it. That captures something unsettling about adolescence and early adulthood: your body, desires, and emotions can move ahead of your understanding. Leaving childhood behind means confronting changes you didn’t necessarily ask for and cannot easily reverse. Here, that process isn’t a graceful unveiling of an authentic self. It is messy, embarrassing, and potentially destructive.
What keeps the metaphor interesting is that eating flesh never stands for just one thing. It suggests sexual awakening, rebellion, aggression, intimacy, and the desire to experience something forbidden. Those meanings overlap without settling into a tidy explanation. Justine wants closeness, but her hunger threatens to turn closeness into consumption. She wants freedom, but acting on every impulse would make her dangerous rather than liberated. The film finds its emotional complexity in the uncomfortable space between having a desire and deciding whether to satisfy it. Growing up means encountering impulses that don’t arrive neatly labeled as healthy, shameful, loving, or cruel.
The treatment of female sexuality is particularly strong because Justine isn’t reduced to either an innocent victim or a newly empowered seductress. Her awakening is awkward and contradictory. Wanting something doesn’t automatically make her confident about it, and discovering desire doesn’t mean she understands its consequences. The film allows a young woman to be hungry, confused, physically uncomfortable, and occasionally frightening without treating those qualities as mutually exclusive. Rather than presenting sexual experience itself as a threat, it explores how difficult desire can be to navigate when you barely understand yourself. The problem isn’t that Justine has desires; it is that she must decide how to act on them.
Marillier gives that struggle a vulnerable center. Justine needs to remain someone we recognize even as her behavior becomes harder to watch, and the performance holds those extremes together. Her uncertainty matters as much as her hunger. She often seems to be studying the people around her for instructions on how to behave, only to discover that their confidence isn’t evidence of wisdom. That makes the transformation affecting rather than merely grotesque. We aren’t watching an ordinary girl disappear beneath a monster. We are watching someone struggle to incorporate a frightening discovery into her understanding of herself.
Alexia makes that process even more complicated. Played by Ella Rumpf, she offers the apparent reassurance of a familiar face, but being someone’s older sister doesn’t necessarily make you a safe guide. She understands the environment Justine has entered while also participating in its cruelty. Their relationship mixes affection with competition and the uncomfortable business of establishing separate identities. Alexia also embodies one possible response to their shared appetite: surrendering to it. That makes their bond more than a contrast between innocence and experience. She represents a future Justine has to consider—and potentially reject—even while craving her sister’s acceptance.
The veterinary-school setting sharpens all of this. These students are training to care for animals while inhabiting an environment where bodies are routinely handled and examined. The idea that humans are somehow above animals starts to look less convincing when the distinction between them becomes a matter of appetite and restraint. The setting keeps that uneasy relationship visible without requiring constant explanation. Justine’s education therefore operates on two levels: she is learning about animal bodies while confronting the animal impulses within her own. The question isn’t whether she can eliminate those impulses, but whether she can acknowledge them without allowing them to dictate everything she does.
If there is a limitation to Raw, it is that the extremity of its premise can briefly overwhelm the quieter emotional story. Some viewers will understandably spend more time bracing for the next bodily violation than considering Justine’s loneliness. Still, the excess has a purpose. Raw is another great example of the boundary-pushing spirit of New French Extremity, using graphic bodily horror and taboo subject matter to explore experiences that a more conventional coming-of-age film might soften or avoid. Its willingness to get under your skin matters because the ugliness never feels disconnected from Justine’s struggle.
At its heart, Raw works so well because its cannibalism makes the confusion of growing up feel frighteningly tangible. Leaving home, finding your place, and discovering desire become parts of the same uncomfortable process: realizing that neither your family nor your new surroundings can tell you exactly who to be. Ducournau refuses to confuse adulthood with either perfect self-control or unrestricted freedom, and she doesn’t pretend that independence arrives without consequences. Justine’s real education is learning that discovering what she wants is only the beginning. Cannibalism becomes a disturbing metaphor for her coming-of-age, turning the transition from a sheltered child into a young woman facing the unknowns of the outside world into something painfully physical.

When I was growing up in the 80s and early 90s, a lot of people called me a gym rat. My dad was a high school basketball coach by profession, so most of those years you could find me hanging out in the gym practicing basketball, watching basketball, just doing anything I could related to the game. I guess you could also have called me a video store rat, because if I wasn’t at the gym, I wanted to be browsing the inventory of our local video stores looking for that perfect movie to rent and take home. I remember often seeing the VHS box for MONKEY SHINES: An Experiment in Fear on those shelves, but I never had the nerve to rent it. You see, I wasn’t big on horror movies back in those days so a movie might intrigue me, but if it looked kind of scary I’d usually pass. This year’s Horror-Thon has been all about watching horror movies and thrillers for the first time. When I recently saw the title MONKEY SHINES on one of my streaming services, I knew it was finally the right time to check it out!
The film stars Jason Beghe as Allan Mann, a young man who’s hit by a truck while he’s out jogging one morning. This accident leaves him paralyzed from the neck down, and he finds himself having to depend on other people for just about everything. Understandably, he doesn’t handle this new life very well emotionally, even going so far as trying to kill himself. Enter Ella, a cute little monkey trained to assist people with disabilities. At first, Ella is a tremendous help with Allan’s attitude improving as she helps him gain a little independence. But unknown to Allan, Ella has been the subject of experiments involving human brain tissue, and their connection becomes something more than anyone could have anticipated. Soon, when Allan has bad thoughts about someone, something bad happens to them. When Allan gets too close to someone, something bad happens to them. With this, the little monkey who was making Allan’s life so much better begins turning it into a living hell.
MONKEY SHINES was written and directed by George A. Romero. Considering his place in horror history, I was certainly interested in seeing what he had come up with here. I do have to admit though, that I haven’t watched much of his work before. Looking at his filmography, I think I’ve only seen NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, CREEPSHOW, and THE DARK HALF, which I saw at the theater and didn’t even like. But still, the man is a legend, and I knew this would be another good chance to appreciate his work while expanding my own vast film watching history.
One of the things I appreciated about the film is that Romero really takes his time establishing the characters and situation before jumping into the horror elements. Allan seems like a good guy with such a promising future, only to have it all changed so suddenly. We understand why he’s struggling so much, and we’re also happy for him as we see his spirits lifted through Ella, as well as her beautiful trainer Melanie Parker (Kate McNeil).
We get to see how Allan’s accident affects the people that knew him before the accident, like his best friend Geoffrey (John Pankow) and girlfriend Linda (Janine Turner). We also meet the brand new people in his life, like Melanie and his live-in nurse, Maryanne (Christine Forrest). In essence the film has taken its time establishing the people who have treated Allan well, and those who haven’t, which adds to the emotional stakes once the horror finally starts kicking in. It might be fair to criticize Romero for taking too long to get to the action, but for me, a little patience pays off with this one.
I think Jason Beghe does a good job as Allan. His character has a lot of highs and lows throughout the film, and he seems to navigate the emotions well enough that I was still pulling for him, even if he did act like a jerk at times. I don’t watch a lot of TV, but Beghe’s career is still going strong to this day as he plays the lead in the hit series CHICAGO PD. And then there’s Ella, the cute little capuchin monkey played by Boo, who gets an “introducing” credit in the film. I laughed and smiled with Allan as she came into his life and made things so much better at first. One of the more effective things about the movie is the sense of dread that comes from knowing that joy cannot last.
As far as the supporting cast, I think I most appreciated John Pankow’s performance as the best friend. He’s one of those guys who loves his buddy, but he’s morally compromised and has so many self-medicating vices that he ends up screwing up other people’s lives while taking himself down. One of the things I love about watching 80s movies is seeing who pops up in the more minor roles. Here we get Stanley Tucci as a sleazily arrogant doctor and Stephen Root as the cruel head of an animal research lab.
I’d say if the movie does falter, it would be in its ending. Rather than following through on the more grounded, psychological story it had been telling, it seems to push things in a direction that’s pretty far over-the-top. I wanted the ending to feel like a natural progression of everything that had come before, but instead, it felt like the movie was going for more crowd-pleasing theatrics. With that said, it was still very effective when Allan, with all his physical limitations and vulnerability, was truly forced to defend himself. I’ve read that the studio got involved with the ending, interfering with Romero’s original vision, but I can only judge the finished product. It didn’t ruin the film by any stretch, but the change in tone is very noticeable.
My final verdict on MONKEY SHINES is that it’s an effectively dramatic horror film with an interesting premise, a good central performance, and a talented director who knows how to tell a story while building up a sense of dread, even if its ending didn’t land perfectly. Looking back now, I’m glad this video store rat finally took that box off the shelf.
Born in Colombia, Gabriel Mayorga came to America at the age of 15, following the death of his father. The Mayorgas settled in New York City, where Gabriel studied at both the Art Students League and the Grand Central School of Art. Gabriel found success as both a cover artist for the Spanish magazine Estrellas and several sci-fi pulp magazines. Gabriel Mayorga became an American citizen in 1943 and, in 1950, moved to Greenwich Village and made a name for himself as both a painter and a teacher.
Here is a small sampling of the pulp work of Gabriel Mayorga.

Ok, sometimes shorts are dull, great, or a downer. Monitor is a downer. Don’t watch it. It’s terrible. It’s not bad in a good bad way. It’s just a bummer.
Two tired parents watching a baby and an evil spirit takes and kills the parents. I told you so. Monitor is a downer.
Sidenote: anyone who says the greatest words are “I love you” has never felt the unadulterated rush of justifiably saying “I told you so”.
The 1973 made-for-TV movie, The Horror at 37,000 Feet, starts off like a typical disaster film, with a collection of familiar celebrities catching a flight from Heathrow Airport. What they don’t know is that celebrity is not the only thing flying across the ocean! There’s a sacrificial altar sitting in the baggage hold and soon, all sorts of strange things are happening! Truly, it’s a horror at 37,000 feet!
This film is silly and perhaps even a little bit dumb but it’s also definitely a lot of fun. To be honest, when you’ve got William Shatner playing an ex-priest who is wondering what happened to his faith, how can you go wrong? Along with Shatner, keep an eye out for Chuck Conners, Buddy Ebsen, Roy Thinnes, Paul Winfield, Tammy Grimes, and France Nuyen. Basically, every TV actor who needed a job in 1973 boarded The Horror at 37,000 Feet.
And we’re all the better for it!
This is a film that I share every year for Horrorthon and can you blame me? Check out this pitch: Leonard Nimoy is a race car driver who can see into the future and who uses his powers to solve crimes!
Seriously, if that’s not enough to get you to watch the 1973 made-for-TV movie Baffled!, then I don’t know what is. In the film, Nimoy takes a break from racing so that he and a parapsychologist (played by Susan Hampshire) can solve the mystery of the visions that Nimoy is having of a woman in a mansion. This movie was meant to serve as a pilot and I guess if the series had been picked up, Nimoy would have had weekly visions. Of course, the movie didn’t lead to a series but Baffled! is still fun in a 70s television sort of way. Thanks to use of what I like to call “slo mo of doom,” a few of Nimoy’s visions are creepy and the whole thing ends with the promise of future adventures that were sadly never to be. And it’s a shame because I’ve always wondered what was going on with that couple at the airport!
Enjoy Baffled! Can you solve the mystery before Leonard?