Today’s horror song of the day comes from Dario Argento’s Deep Red!
Deep Red features the first collaboration between Argento and Goblin and the score remains a classic and one that I listen to every October.
Here’s Goblin performing Profondo Rosso on Italian television in 1975.
This October, I’m going to be doing something a little bit different with my contribution to 4 Shots From 4 Films. I’m going to be taking a little chronological tour of the history of horror cinema, moving from decade to decade.
Today, we start the savage 70s!
4 Shots From 4 Horror Films
The Shiver of the Vampires (1970, dir by Jean Rollin)
The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971, dir by Robert Fuest)
The Last House On The Left (1972, dir by Wes Craven)
The Exorcist (1973, dir by William Friedkin)
“Revenge reveals the darkest reflection we hide within.”
Horror cinema has long functioned as a reflective surface, exposing humanity’s deepest fears, desires, and moral uncertainties. The films I Saw the Devil (2010), Cold Fish (2010), and Revenge (2017) serve as “blood mirrors,” revealing not merely the visceral violence inflicted upon their characters but also the profound psychological and ethical transformations that vengeance ignites. Emerging from South Korean, Japanese, and French cinematic traditions, respectively, these works reconceptualize the trauma of retribution into nuanced explorations of identity, power, justice, and morality. This essay unpacks how such acts of revenge fracture and distort the avengers themselves—blurring the boundary between hunter and hunted—and challenge audiences to consider the complicated ethics of vengeance.
Kim Jee-woon’s I Saw the Devil opens with searing loss. Government agent Kim Soo-hyun’s fiancé is gruesomely murdered by the psychopathic serial killer Jang Kyung-chul. Rather than delivering immediate justice, Kim embarks upon a merciless cycle of capture and release aimed not at ending Kyung-chul’s life but extending his suffering to mirror the anguish Kim feels. This circular vengeance becomes a vehicle for exploring grief’s corrosive power, blurring the avenger’s and victim’s identities.
The film’s structure, with its repetitive cat-and-mouse dynamic, becomes a visual metaphor for obsession and moral degradation. With every brutal encounter, Kim sacrifices more of his humanity, evolving into the very monster he’s vowed to destroy. Lee Mo-gae’s cinematography blends stark clinical detachment with visceral brutality; meticulously framed shots contrast vividly with the film’s emotional chaos, compelling the audience into uncomfortable identification with Kim’s dark crusade. The snowy landscapes and cold colors evoke spiritual desolation, emphasizing the film’s existential chill.
Kim’s work transcends procedural thriller conventions by resisting catharsis—vengeance is portrayed not as liberation but endless torment. Critics laud the film for masterfully challenging traditional revenge narratives by suggesting that acts of retribution can perpetuate cycles of violence, consuming both victim and perpetrator. The tension not only lies in physical danger but in the moral disintegration of a man who becomes what he hates.
Sion Sono’s Cold Fish presents revenge as an eruption of buried rage within the façade of mundane suburban existence. The gentle tropical fish store owner, Nobuyuki Syamoto, leads a restrained, law-abiding life until meeting the domineering and psychopathic Murata. Their relationship becomes a dance of psychological and physical domination, exposing latent violence simmering under cultural conformity.
Unlike the clinical precision of I Saw the Devil, Cold Fish captures chaos and collapse. Syamoto’s eventual violent revolt is neither heroic nor cathartic but an enactment of existential despair born of oppressive social codes emphasizing politeness, hierarchy, and silence. The oppressive suburban setting becomes almost a character itself—sterile, suffocating, and emotionally barren. The circling fish motif highlights the recursive cycles of repression and violence that trap the characters.
Sono’s cinematic approach balances absurdist, at times black humor with grim horror. This tonal dissonance destabilizes viewer complacency, forcing reflections on how individual suffering is structured and concealed by social and cultural norms. Syamoto’s dissolution challenges viewers to reconsider traditional narratives of justice and victimhood, emphasizing the fragility of identity under systemic pressures.
Coralie Fargeat’s Revenge radically revisits the “rape and revenge” genre notorious since 1970s grindhouse cinema. While drawing inspiration from films like I Spit on Your Grave and The Last House on the Left, Revenge rejects those works’ often exploitative male gaze, recasting the survivor’s story through a fully realized lens of autonomy and violent reclamation.
Jen’s transformation—from a sexualized object within a hyper-saturated, colorful visual palette to a mythic force of nature marked by the symbolic phoenix brand—signifies death and rebirth. Fargeat’s use of chiaroscuro lighting, surreal settings, and visceral violence elevates physical trauma to the level of mythic metamorphosis.
This film subverts traditional victim and villain binaries. Jen’s ascent dismantles deeply embedded patriarchal structures, underscoring a reclamation of body, gaze, and power. The climactic chase, drenched in blood and primal energy, becomes a ritualistic unshackling rather than mere revenge. Through this revival of grindhouse aesthetics, Fargeat forges a new grammar of feminist survival and cinematic empowerment.
These films foreground power dynamics traditionally gendered but reinterpreted here in ways promoting gender-neutral critique. In Cold Fish, toxic masculinity manifests as violent domination versus passivity within strict social codes, both Syamoto’s submission and Murata’s cruelty reinforcing systemic violence.
I Saw the Devil portrays injured masculine pride and control as drivers of vengeance. Kim’s obsession symbolizes fragile protector ideals collapsing into moral ruin. Female characters often exist as symbolic voids, underscoring systemic gender violence and erasure.
Revenge, by contrast, deconstructs these codes. Jen transcends rigid gender norms and victimhood, suggesting power as a fluid, elemental force beyond biology. The film’s desert setting serves as a symbolic womb of transformation, projecting possibilities of autonomy and sovereignty through defiance of hierarchical structures.
Each film emerges from distinct cultural anxieties and historical trajectories. I Saw the Devil reflects South Korean skepticism about institutional justice amid rapid modernization and lingering traditionalism. Private vengeance becomes a desperate, isolating reaction to systemic failure.
Cold Fish critiques a Japanese culture steeped in social conformity and emotional repression, revealing the violent potential beneath controlled civility. The film reflects post-war tensions and growing awareness of societal alienation.
France’s Revenge draws from the New Extremity movement, blending philosophical and visceral approaches to suffering, reflecting intellectual and artistic responses to modern oppression. Fargeat’s fusion of grindhouse with feminist critique signals contemporary cultural struggle for voices outside dominant systems.
The narrative architectures differ but complement one another. I Saw the Devil’s repetitive structure illustrates cyclical moral decay; Cold Fish depicts downward spiral into absurd chaos; Revenge follows mythic death-and-rebirth arc.
Their visual languages communicate complex ethical positions: Kim’s symmetrical, controlled shots reflect calculated cruelty; Sono’s frenetic, disorienting camera work conveys mental disintegration; Fargeat’s vivid, stylized imagery channels surreal transcendence.
Each film implicates the viewer uniquely. I Saw the Devil seduces with calculated violence; Cold Fish overwhelms with chaotic brutality; Revenge reorients the gaze empathetically to survivor experience. Together, they articulate a profound inquiry into horror spectatorship and ethical engagement.
These films manifest collective crises of modernity—gendered hierarchies, failed justice, fractured communities—within intimate personal revenge stories. They diagnose alienation and fragmentation, transforming revenge into language for voicing trauma and injustice. This intersection exposes how power, violence, and identity intertwine in contemporary cultural narratives.
Ultimately, I Saw the Devil, Cold Fish, and Revenge frame horror as a meditation on transformation rather than pure evil. Vengeance reshapes the self, often toward destruction. Kim becomes the hunted devil; Syamoto lives his oppressor’s violence; Jen transcends human limits through fiery renewal.
Together, they depict revenge as curse, collapse, and painful rebirth—a global meditation on violence and selfhood. Their shared revelation: revenge unmasks the darkness dwelling quietly within us all, proving that horror’s deepest mirror reflects ourselves.
For today’s horror on the lens, we have 1958’s The Brain Eaters!
In this noir-influenced tale of science fiction horror, a con-shaped ship crashes near a small town. Soon, the residents of the town are vanishing, just to return as mind-controlled zombies! This one clocks in at 61 minutes and it’s an enjoyable little B-movie. Like many films from the 50s, the main message seems to be that you should never totally trust anyone. They could be a communist. They could be an alien. They could be a Brain Eater!
Keep an eye out for Leonard Nimoy in an early role. Or actually, it might be better to keep an ear open. Nimoy isn’t easy to spot but you’ll recognize his voice towards the end of the film.
Can AI be used to make an entertaining horror short?
We have a parking garage security guard searching the property because he hears a noise. He finds his coworker slain. A zombie starts rewiring the fuse box and turns off the lights in the garage. The zombie is smart
He encounters the zombie and starts shooting and shooting, killing more and more zombies to heavy metal and that is the whole film.
I enjoyed it. So, AI can make a fun horror short and actors will become a thing of the past.
If you have 2.6 minutes to spare, check it out.
As some of our regular readers undoubtedly know, I am involved in a few weekly live tweets on twitter. I host #FridayNightFlix every Friday, I co-host #ScarySocial on Saturday, and I am one of the five hosts of #MondayActionMovie! Every week, we get together. We watch a movie. We tweet our way through it.
Tonight, at 9 pm et, Deanna Dawn will be hosting #ScarySocial! The movie? In Fear!
If you want to join us this Saturday, just hop onto twitter, start the movie at 9 pm et, and use the #ScarySocial hashtag! It’s a friendly group and welcoming of newcomers so don’t be shy.
The film is available on Tubi!
First released in 2009, Come What May tells the story of the Hogan family.
Judith Hogan (Karen Kelly) is an attorney at a prestigious law firm and has become so devoted to her work and her politics that her husband, a pro-life biologist named Don (Kenneth Jezek), is feeling left out in the cold. Don has written a book that argues that life starts at conception but he’s struggling to get it published and he knows that, even if he does find a publisher, he’ll probably lose his job as a result.
Meanwhile, their son Caleb (Austin Kearney) wants to transfer to Patrick Henry College so that he can join their championship moot court competition team. Judith agrees to pay for one year at PHC, on the condition that Caleb win the Moot Court Championship. If he doesn’t, she won’t pay for a second year and I guess …. well, I don’t know what will happen. I guess Caleb will have to go back to his old college. To be honest, it seems kind of petty on Judith’s part.
Judith has a lot on her mind because she’s going to be arguing an abortion case in front of the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Caleb and his moot court partner, Rachel (Victoria Emmons), are going to be arguing for the repeal of Roe v Wade during their competition, despite Caleb’s fear that the moot court might not be willing to accept their arguments. Sitting on the moot court is the retired Supreme Court justice who wrote Roe v Wade. That would seem like a conflict of interest to me but what do I know? I went to a party school.
Come What May is a low-budget film, one that is made with more ambition than skill. It’s not the type of movie that’s going to change anyone’s mind about abortion and, if you’re pro-choice, you’ll probably be even more pro-choice after seeing this film. The film works best as a 90-minute commercial for Patrick Henry College. Seriously, the campus looks lovely! Watching this movie, I found myself missing college. There’s no better feeling that having your future ahead of you and also feeling like you know better than everyone else in the world. As for the acting, the cast was often amateurish, with the exception of Victoria Emmons, who gave a very earnest and likable performance as Rachel and who, at the end of the film, got to wear this floral dress that was just to die for.
Watching the film today, what’s interesting is how dated it seems. It’s 16 years old but, with its debate over whether or not Roe v Wade can be overturned, it feels like it might as well have been written and filmed a hundred years ago. We now all know that Roe v Wade not only can be overturned but, in fact, it would be overturned 13 years after this film came out. (Of course, the arguments that led to the overturning of Roe v Wade were a far cry from the largely emotional argument that Caleb and Rachel make in this film.) Seen today, Come What May feels like a time capsule.
In 1958’s Giant From The Unknown, something strange is happening in a California mountain town. Animals are being killed. Property is being destroyed. People are being murdered.
Sheriff Parker (Bob Steele) suspects that the murderer might be Dr. Frederick Cleveland (Morris Ankrum), mostly because Dr. Cleveland spends a lot of time in the mountains looking at fossils with his daughter, Janet (Sally Fraser). When a younger scientist named Wayne (Ed Kemmer) shows up to help Dr. Cleveland out with his research, Sheriff Parker is even more suspicious. Meanwhile, the local citizenry suspects that it might be a member of the local Native American community.
It turns out that everyone’s wrong!
The murderer is a formerly dead conquistador (Buddy Baer), who was brought back to life by a bolt of lightning and who is now wandering around the mountains and killing people. The conquistador walks around in his full conquistador uniform, which is in pretty good shape when you consider the fact that he’s been dead for over two hundred years, maybe longer.
The odd thing about the conquistador is that he’s regularly described as being a giant, even though he’s clearly not. I mean, he’s tall. He appears like he might be 6’5. That makes him taller than the average person but shorter than the average professional basketball player. The filmmakers regularly attempt to shoot him from a lower angle in order to make him look taller but there’s nothing that can be done to disguise the fact that he’s just a 6’5 guy wearing what appears to be a fake beard and mustache. If anything, he looks like the frozen-faced Burger KIng mascot. Maybe he would stop killing people if the sheriff would just order a cheeseburger and fries. I mean, seriously, his whole rampage could have been avoided.
The title is also incorrect about the giant being from the unknown. He’s very obviously from Spain. All one has to do is look at his uniform. I think the unknown element of this film is how the conquistador has spent centuries underground without losing any skin. For someone who has been dead for as long as this conquistador was, his hair is very clean and well-groomed. Watching this film, it’s hard not to feel that Dr. Cleveland should have spent some time researching conquistador embalming techniques because whoever preserved the “giant” did a very good job! Everyone should be so lucky to look that good for being dead for that long.
Giant From The Unknown attempts to do the usual thing where the monster falls for the only woman in the entire film. (Indeed, it was hard not to notice that town’s population seemed to be 99% male.) Unfortunately, the giant was a pretty silly monster so it was difficult to get wrapped up in his emotional journey. There are some monsters that you feel sorry for and there are other monsters that you just wish would go away. The giant is a monster who probably had a lot of good haircare tips and who could have probably helped out the entire town …. if only they had been willing to listen!
Every so often in life something incredible happens when you least expect it. First, a little background… back in 2021, Charles Bronson celebrated his 100th birthday in heaven. At that point in my life, I had mostly celebrated my love of Bronson movies by myself. But back in 2021, I saw a news article that stated that Bronson fans around the world were celebrating his 100th birthday on social media using the hashtag #Bronson100. Following the hashtag on Twitter, I discovered a group of people who were doing a “live tweet” of the Bronson classic DEATH WISH 3! That night I met Doug Dietz, Chris Rauch, Lisa Marie Bowman, and many others who just wanted to celebrate Bronson like I did. These folks have become so important in my life! As I continued to search the world of social media for all things Charles Bronson, this time on Facebook, I came across the THIS WEEK IN CHARLES BRONSON PODCAST, run by a man from the Philadelphia area named Eric Todd. I made my request to join the page and was happy when they let me in. Soon I was sharing my love of Bronson, and they even asked me to be part of the podcast!! I guess they thought it would be nice to have someone on the podcast who sounded like the biggest hick in America. After all these years, I had found my people!! Eric and my friends in the THIS WEEK IN CHARLES BRONSON PODCAST Facebook group have become some of my very best friends. We would talk about Bronson and his movies on the show, but we thought it would always just be a bunch of Bronson geeks talking shop. And then another strange thing happened, we started reaching out to actors and actresses who had worked with Bronson and asked if they would come on the show. Lo and behold, many of them started saying YES! Soon Juan Fernandez (KINJITE: FORBIDDEN SUBJECTS), Jordan Rhodes (MR. MAJESTYK, THE INDIAN RUNNER), and Jan Gan Boyd (ASSASSINATION) had joined us for an episode!! It was so fun hearing their firsthand stories of working with Bronson. Which brings us back to Robert F. Lyons…
Robert F. Lyons was a hot young actor in the late 60’s and early 70’s. He was incredible in his debut film PENDULUM (1969) as the psychopath Paul Martin Anderson opposite George Peppard. Soon he was stealing scenes in movies like GETTING STRAIGHT (1970) with Elliot Gould and SHOOT OUT (1971) with Gregory Peck. Before long he was headlining his own films like the creepy THE TODD KILLINGS (1971) and the oddly titled DEALING: OR THE BERKELEY-TO-BOSTON FORTY-BRICK LOST-BAG BLUES (1972). As great as Robert F. Lyons is in these roles, his career as a leading man didn’t take off and he was soon back to character parts on movies and TV. He continued to play some really interesting parts along the way, like the awful Harrison Hancock in the Jesse Vint redneck action film BLACK OAK CONSPIRACY (1977) and the doomed vigilante Skeeter Norris in the TV horror film DARK NIGHT OF THE SCARECROW (1981). It was in the early 80’s when Robert F. Lyons, his friends call him Bobby, began working with Charles Bronson. It was also in the early 80’s when I discovered Charles Bronson. From 1982 to 1986, Bobby worked with Bronson in three of his classic Cannon films, first in DEATH WISH II (1982), followed by TEN TO MIDNIGHT (1983), and finally in MURPHY’S LAW (1986). I truly became Bronson’s biggest fan around the same time DEATH WISH 3 and MURPHY’S LAW were hitting home video. Lyons plays Bronson’s trusted partner Art Penney in MURPHY’S LAW, and I’ve watched the film at least 100 times in my life. Over the years, 10 TO MIDNIGHT has developed into my personal favorite Bronson / Cannon Films movie. If you’ve seen the film, Bobby’s in the interrogation scene where Bronson confronts the killer with his masturbation device and he’s also in the courtroom scene (spoiler alert!) where Bronson has to admit he planted the evidence against the killer. These are very memorable scenes in Bronson’s “slasher” film. Bobby, Charlie, and Jill Ireland got along great during these years, the same years I was becoming obsessed with my lifelong movie hero. In some ways, he was part of that obsession!
Later in his career, Bobby appeared on top notch TV shows like COLD CASE and CRIMINAL MINDS. He’s had a phenomenal, five-decade career as a working actor and teacher. Well, in 2024, Bobby agreed to join Eric Todd and me for an episode of the THIS WEEK IN CHARLES BRONSON PODCAST. Knowing how much I love Robert F. Lyons, Eric, who’s the host of the show, let me introduce him at the beginning. Introducing Bobby Lyons and being part of an interview with him is one of those incredible and unexpected things that have happened in my life. He’s the nicest guy, and he spent a couple of hours with us discussing Bronson, his movies, and everything else that came up. It’s one of the greatest nights of my life, and I’m sharing that podcast episode below! Please forgive me for totally fanboying out, but that’s just how it is. Happy Birthday Bobby Lyons! You’re in my film-watching Hall of Fame!
Claire (Michelle Pfeiffer) is a former cellist who is still struggling to recover from a serious car accident and who has been at loose ends ever since her daughter left for college. Claire’s husband, Norman (Harrison Ford), is a scientist and a college lecturer. After their neighbor, Mary (Miranda Otto), disappears, Claire becomes convinced that Mary’s husband (James Remar) did something to her. Claire also becomes convinced that Mary’s ghost is trying to contact her, by appearing in the lake and filling the bathtub up with water whenever Claire isn’t looking. Norman tells Claire that she’s imagining things and pushes her to see a therapist. As Claire investigates, she discovers that Norman knows more than he’s letting on.
What Lies Beneath is a long and drawn-out ghost story that Robert Zemeckis made because he had time to kill while the filming of Cast Away was on hiatus so Tom Hanks could lose weight and grow a beard. That this movie was not a personal project for Zemeckis is reflected in his direction, which is surprisingly impersonal for a Zemeckis film. The film is a showcase for Michelle Pfeiffer, who gives a good performance as the emotionally fragile Claire and holds the film’s many disparate elements together. Harrison Ford sometimes seems disinterested but his casting still pays off when Norman gets to say and do some things that you normally would never expect Harrison Ford to do.
I remember seeing this in a theater in 2000 and being surprised by the ending. Looking back on it today, I just can’t believe that I sat through the entire movie.
Through the Shattered Lens 