Non-Fiction Review: Disaster Movies by Michael Rose and Glenn Kay


What’s the only thing scarier than being trapped in a real-life disaster?

Being trapped in a disaster movie!

First published in 2006, the full name of this guide to the disaster genre is Disaster Movies: A Loud, Long, Explosive, Star-Studded Guide to Avalanches, Earthquakes, Floods, Meteors, Sinking Ships, Twisters, Viruses, Killer Bees, and Alien Attacks In The Cinema.  That title tells you pretty much everything you need to know about this affectionate but likably snarky look at all the movies that have been made about earthquakes, fires, torandoes, and …. well, basically all the stuff listed in the title.  

On a movie-by-movie basis, this guide reviews disaster movies that are both well-known and obscure.  All of the big ones — Airport, Towering Inferno, Titanic, Independence Day, Poseidon Adventure — are listed here but, even more importantly, so are the obscure ones.  In fact, the book features a lot of films that you might not have heard about but will probably want to track down after you’ve read about them.  The reviews are respectful to the conventions of the genre while also acknowledging the obvious, i.e., a lot of these are not good films.  But the authors understand that sometimes, a bad disaster film can be even more enjoyable than a good one.  The Poseidon Adventure is a classic of sorts but how about Beyond The Poseidon Adventure?  How about Flood!, a film so exciting that it even has an exclamation mark in the name?  How about Avalanche, the best of the snowy disaster films?  What about Meteor?  If love The Swarm but you can’t appreciate Meteor, I don’t know what to tell you.  

Disaster Movies is a well-written guide.  Most readers will discover the existence of at least one film that they previously knew nothing about.  And, hopefully, they’ll be inspired to watch a few of the film reviewed in this book.  In a disaster, it’s always helpful to be prepared.

International Horror Film Review: The Sister of Ursula (dir by Enzo Milioni)


This 1978 Italian giallo tells the story of two sisters.  Ursula (Barbara Magnolfi, who is best-known for playing Olga in Argento’s Suspiria) is high-strung and prone to nightmares.  She claims that she can see people for who they really are.  Dagmar (Stefania D’Amario) is a year or two older.  She looks after her sister and makes sure that Ursula takes her pills.  Still, it’s hard to escape the feeling that Dagmar would like to be free of having worry about Ursula.

After the death of their father, Ursula and Dagmar check into a hotel in an Italian resort town.  Ursula wants to find their mother, a prostitute who left their father shortly after Ursula was born.  Dagmar, for her part, seems to just want to take a vacation and maybe meet a few men.  Ursula gives Dagmar a hard time for being promiscuous.  Dagmar gives Ursula a hard time for being neurotic and not having any fun.  It’s a typical family vacation.

Unfortunately, there’s also a homicidal lunatic on the loose, one that kills the promiscuous.  In typical giallo fashion, he wears black gloves and, often, all we see of him is his madness-filled eyes.  Unlike a lot of other giallo killers, he does not use a knife.  Nor does he strangle his victims.  Instead, he uses a big wooden dildo to beat people to death.  Believe me, I’m probably making it sound more interesting than it actually is.  For a film that wallows in sleaze, The Sister of Ursula doesn’t focus too much on the killer’s use of a dildo as a murder weapon, beyond showing its shadow on a wall at one point.  It’s an odd piece of directorial restraint that feels at odds with the rest of the movie.

Describing The Sister of Ursula as being a sleazy film doesn’t begin to describe just how sleazy this film is.  There’s not a single character to be found in the film who is not, in some way, perverse and the frequent soft-core sex scenes seem to exclusively take place in locations that don’t appear to have been cleaned anytime recently.  (One such scene features a picture of Donald Duck hanging on the wall over the bed.  That’s one of those weird but fun decorating choices that always seems to occur in giallo films.)  There are many films that leave you feeling like you need to take a shower afterwards.  This is one of the few films that I can think of that will leave you feeling like you need to take a shower every fifteen minutes or so.  

As for the film’s mystery, it plays out at a languid pace.  The story gets bogged down with a subplot about drug dealers.  One would be tempted to say that the film cultivates an atmosphere of ennui but I think that’s giving The Sister of Ursula too much credit.  This film was not made by a subversive artist like Jean Rollin or Jess Franco.  Instead, it’s just a poorly directed and paced giallo film.  That said, the Italian scenery is often lovely to look at and Barbara Magnolfi and Stefania D’Amario are believable as sisters.  This is a minor giallo that’s not so much terrible as it’s just forgettable.  

6 Shots From 6 Horror Films: 1994 — 1996


4 Or More Shots From 4 Or More Films is just what it says it is, 4 shots from 4 of our favorite films. As opposed to the reviews and recaps that we usually post, 4 Shots From 4 Films lets the visuals do the talking!

This October, I’m going to be doing something a little bit different with my contribution to 4 (or more) Shots From 4 (or more) Films.  I’m going to be taking a little chronological tour of the history of horror cinema, moving from decade to decade.

Today, we take a look at 1994, 1995, and 1996!

6 Shots From 6 Horror Films: 1994 — 1996

Dellamorte Dellamore (1994, dir by Michele Soavi, DP: Mauro Marchetti)

In The Mouth of Madness (1994, dir by John Carpenter, DP: Gary B. Kibbe)

New Nightmare (1994, dir by Wes Craven, DP: Mark Irwin)

Lord of Illusions (1995, dir by Clive Barker, DP: Ronn Schmidt)

The Stendhal Syndrome (1996, dir by Dario Argento, DP: Giuseppe Rotunno)

Scream (1996, dir by Wes Craven, DP: Mark Irwin)

Horror Film Review: Halloween Ends (dir by David Gordon Green)


Halloween Ends?  Not likely.

It is true that, with this movie, David Gordon Green does close out his version of the Halloween trilogy and, for that, we should all be thankful.  For all the critical acclaim that the film received, none of Green’s Halloween films seem destined to stand the test of time.  I like almost all of David Gordon Green’s work except for his Halloween films and, unfortunately, I find his version of Halloween to be so self-important and annoying that it overshadows what I previously liked about his other movies.  (Don’t even get me started on the news that he will next be rebooting The Exorcist.)  Watching the Green Halloween trilogy, you find yourself wondering why Green made the films at all since he seems to consider the whole slasher genre to be beneath him.  Say what you will about Rob Zombie’s Halloween films, Zombie at least loves the horror genre.  Green, like so many Blumhouse filmmakers, only seems to make horror films so that he can remind us that he’s better than them.

But I doubt that this will be the final Halloween film.  It will be the last Halloween film produced under Blumhouse, as the rights to the story and the characters now revert back to Malek Akkad.  And, as long as there is money to be made off of the franchise, there will be new Halloween films.  Someone else will come along and reboot the franchise and hopefully wipe out the Green continuity just as ruthlessly as Green wiped out the previous franchise’s continuity.  In an age of franchises and prequels and cinematic universes, the Halloween franchise is proud to say, “Ha!  You mean you actually kept track of what happened in all the other movies!?  Sucks to be you, dumbass.”

But let’s talk about Halloween Ends.

As you may remember, Halloween Kills ended with Michael killing Laurie Strode’s daughter and Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) grabbing a shotgun and heading out to get  revenge.  Well …. ha ha, joke’s on you.  Laurie never got her revenge.  Michael vanished.  Four years later, Laurie has gone from being a badass survivalist to being a cheerful, cookie-baking grandma because she had to let go of the anger.  Laurie spent forty years preparing for Michael to return and then, when Michael does return and brutally murders her daughter, Laurie decides that she has to let go of her anger.  Laurie’s main concern is that the town of Haddonfield is now a traumatized and angry place.  Maybe she can spread positivity by writing a memoir about her life.  Sadly, this means that we also have to listen to passages from Laurie’s memoirs.  Laurie Strode is good at fighting psychotic killers but she sucks as a writer.

Unfortunately, whenever Laurie leaves the house that she shares with her granddaughter, Allyson (Andi Matichak), she runs the risk of being accosted by all of the angry people who all lost a relative or a friend to Michael Myers.  All of them view Laurie as being a reminder of the pain caused by Michael.  They actually do have a point and you have to wonder about Laurie’s claim that she’s staying in Haddonfield to help the town heal.  First off, I don’t know why Laurie would have so much loyalty to what appears to be a fairly generic suburb.  Secondly, the townspeople are so traumatized that is actually seems a bit a selfish for Laurie to remain in Haddonfield and to continually remind everyone of the worst night of their lives.  I mean, Laurie could move.  You know who can’t leave?  The wheelchair-bound woman who was paralyzed while Michael was killing everyone in town because he wanted to find Laurie.

Michael disappeared after killing Laurie’s daughter.  No one knows where Michael is.  Michael is a big and fearsome serial killer who nearly wiped out an entire town and he’s out there somewhere and apparently, no one is looking for him.  That’s what one has to assume because, according to the film, he’s spent the last four years living underneath a bridge.  He’s still wearing his mask.  He looks and acts exactly the same way as he did previously.  He’s still killing people.  He’s just doing it under a bridge.  How, in four yeas time, has it not occurred to anyone in law enforcement to not check under the bridge?  It’s the most obvious hiding spot in town but no one looked under the bridge.  And why, if Michael is obsessed with killing Laurie, has he spent four years under a bridge as opposed to going to Laurie’s house?

Michael is pretty much treated as a supporting character in Halloween Ends.  For that matter, so is Laurie.  The majority of the film centers around a new character named Corey (Rohan Campbell).  Corey was a college student with a bright future until a terrible babysitting accident led to the death of a boy named Jeremy.  Corey was blamed for the death, even though it really wasn’t his fault.  (The scenes with Corey and Jeremy open the film and are so well-handled that it leaves little doubt that Green was far more emotionally invested in Corey’s storyline than he was in any of the Michael/Laurie nonsense.)  Even though Corey was acquitted of manslaughter, he is now the town pariah.  Corey meets and falls in love with Allyson but, unfortunately, the town’s constant taunting and suspicion causes him to snap.  He becomes a disciple and then a rival of Michael’s.

Corey is the type of damaged character who has been at the center of many of David Gordon Green’s non-Halloween films.  One gets the feeling that Green wanted to make a movie about Corey but, since he’s abandoned indie films in order to spend his time screwing up venerable horror franchises, Green and co-writer Danny McBride instead jammed Corey’s story into a Halloween film.  While Corey has the potential to be an interesting character, he doesn’t belong here.  Making Corey into a killer means reducing Michael’s powers.  Michael goes from being a fearsome symbol of pure evil to being some guy in the sewers who gets beaten up and mugged by a nerdy guy who previously couldn’t even stand up to the members of the school band.  It not only goes against the spirit of the original Halloween films but also against everything that was previously established in the Green Halloween films.  I mean, Corey beats up Michael after Corey gets beaten up by a bunch of band kids.  Maybe if the posse in Halloween Kills had been made up of the high school marching band, Laurie’s daughter would still be alive.

It all gets to be a bit annoying.  There are so many little things that don’t make any sense.  My favorite is that the family of that hired Corey to babysit moves out of their house after the death of their son.  Corey continues to break into the now abandoned house, which has sat empty for four years.  And yet, the abandoned house is remarkably well taken care of.  For some reason, the family took all of their furniture but left behind a grand piano.  Why wouldn’t they take the piano with them?  In the drawing room, there’s a book shelf that is empty except for three books.  Why would the family leave those three books behind?  When Green rebooted the Halloween franchise, he ignored all of the sequels because, according to him, the sequels weren’t any good and didn’t make sense.  But Halloween Ends feels as rushed and nonsensical as any of the films that featured Danielle Harris as Laurie’s daughter.

The film ends with the community of Haddonfield coming together once again.  It’s a scene that I wish I could describe but to do so would mean spoiling the end of the movie.  Let’s just say that it’s incredibly dumb and it almost feels like a parody of the previous Green films.  One of the worst thing about the Green films is the insistence of presenting Haddonfield as being some sort of iconic location as opposed to just being a generic anytown USA.  The whole reason why the original Halloween films were so effective was because Haddonfield could have been anywhere.  Green tries to turn Haddonfield into another Twin Peaks and it’s another sign that he never really understood what made John Carpenter’s original film work in the first place.  Ironically, a lot of what happens during the final moments of Halloween Ends would make more sense if Michael was Laurie’s brother but, again, the Green films did away with all that.

Halloween Ends is not necessarily the worst film of 2022.  As a director, Green is still capable of coming up with an effective shot or two.  But, considering the hype that accompanied it, it is one of the most disappointing.  And it also has the most unintentionally funny ending of any film you’re likely to see in 2022.  Whenever I feel down, I just think about that solemn procession to the auto yard and it cheers me right up.

As I said at the start of this review, Halloween will never end as long as there is money to be made.  So, in another few years, we’ll get another reboot and, once again, we’ll discover with Laurie, Tommy Doyle, Linsdey, and Sheriff Brackett have been doing since the night Michael came home.  My idea for a reboot is that they should make Michael and Laurie into siblings.  That would be interesting.

Horror on the Lens: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (dir by John S. Robertson)


394px-Dr_Jekyll_and_Mr_Hyde_1920_poster

Ever since the birth of film, Robert Louis Stevenson’s Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde has been a popular subject for adaptation.  Not only does the classic story of a good doctor who unleashes his evil instinct via potion serve as a potent metaphor for everything from sexual repression to drug addiction, but the dual role of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde has provides an excellent opportunity for an actor to show off.

The first film adaptation of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is believed to have been made in 1908.  Two more version followed in 1912 and 1913 and then, suddenly, 1920 saw three different film versions.

The best known of the 1920 version is our film for today.  This version is best remembered for John Barrymore’s powerful performance in the title role but it also holds up remarkably well as a work of cinematic horror.

Music Video of the Day: The Writing On The Wall by Iron Maiden (2021, directed by Nicos Livesey)


According to Iron Maiden lead singer Bruce Dickinson, this song and video are “all wrapped up in a lot of messages about greed and the destruction of the planet, with the top one-percenters sitting in their shiny castles, leaving everyone else outside to rot on a dying planet. It’s meant to be pretty on the nose about the current planetary situation”.

Taking place in a dystopian future in which the British slavishly follow behind the Americans while other world leaders ride atop nuclear missiles that are pulled by their slaves, it is fair to say that this video is “on the nose.”  Fortunately, Eddie and the Four Bikers of the Apocalypse aren’t going to step to the side, especially not when there are people in ragged Iron Maiden shirts dying in the desert.

Enjoy!