In 1944’s Voodoo Man, Michael Ames stars as Ralph, a screenwriter who has been asked to write a treatment based on the real case of several “girl motorists” who have disappeared in the surrounding area. Ralph turns down the assignment because he’s busy planning his wedding to Betty (Wanda McKay). However, when Betty’s maid of honor, Stella (Louise Currie), vanishes, Ralph and Betty set out to investigate. As Ralph puts it, he’s become a part of the story that he earlier rejected.
What has happened to Stella and all of the other women? They’ve been abducted by Toby (John Carradine) and Grego (Pat McKee), two lunkheads who work for Dr. Marlowe (Bela Lugosi). Dr. Marlowe lives in an isolated mansion where he is cared for by his loyal housekeeper (Mici Goty). Twenty-two years ago, Dr. Marlowe’s wife, Evelyn (Ellen Hall), died but Marlowe has been able to keep her body in a sort of suspended animation ever since. Marlowe is kidnapping women because, through the use of voodoo and mad science, he hopes to take their “will to live” and transfers it into Evelyn. Helping Marlowe out is a voodoo priest named Nicholas (George Zucco).
Lugosi, Carradine, and Zucco! Obviously, the main appeal of Voodoo Man is that it brings together three great names in horror. Even if the story doesn’t really make much sense (and it doesn’t), the film gets a lot of mileage out of the combination of Lugosi, Carradine, and Zucco. While Lugosi does seem to be a bit bored with his role, Carradine and Zucco really throw themselves into their characters. John Carradine, in particular, seems to be having the time of his life as he shuffles around the mansion and replies, “Yes, master,” to every command from Dr. Marlowe. It’s the type of entertaining performance that could only be delivered by a trained Shakespearean slumming in a low-budget, B-grade horror film. As for Zucco, he plays Nicholas with a certain amount of ruthless erudition. Zucco is playing the Boris Karloff role here and he definitely seems to understand what that means.
As for the film itself, it has its moments. Legend has it that director William Beaudine’s nickname was “One Shot” because he was usually only willing to do one take of each scene. As a result, he filmed quickly and he didn’t spend a lot of money and that was probably a good thing for a production like Voodoo Man. It also meant that if someone flubbed a line or bumped into a piece of furniture, that take would still be the one that showed up in the film. My favorite moment of Voodoo Man was when the local sheriff (Henry Hall) referred to Dr. Marlowe as being “Dr. Martin,” and Bela Lugosi, who appeared to be struggling not to laugh, quickly said, “It’s Marlowe.” The sheriff corrected himself. That’s the type of fun you don’t get in movies made by people who do more than one take.
Voodoo Man has a quick 61-minute running time. To enjoy it, it probably helps to already be a fan of low-budget, B-horror films from the 40s. Lugosi, Carradine, and Zucco are combination that deserves to be seen.
As some of our regular readers undoubtedly know, I am involved in hosting a few weekly live tweets on twitter and occasionally Mastodon. I host #FridayNightFlix every Friday, I co-host #ScarySocial on Saturday, and I am one of the five hosts of Mastodon’s #MondayActionMovie! Every week, we get together. We watch a movie. We snark our way through it.
Tonight, for #MondayActionMovie, the film will be 1973’s Satan’s School For Girls!I picked it so you know it’ll be good.
It should make for a night of fun viewing and I invite all of you to join in. If you want to join the live tweets, just hop onto Mastodon, find the movie on YouTube, hit play at 8 pm et, and use the #MondayActionMovie hashtag! The watch party community is a friendly group and welcoming of newcomers so don’t be shy.
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?
There was one film I saw when I was very young that absolutely terrified me, and even now, decades later, it still has the power to unsettle me and rob me of sleep. That film is Horror Express, a 1972 Spanish-British horror/science fiction hybrid directed by Eugenio Martín. It brought together two titans of gothic horror cinema, Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing—icons of the Hammer Films era—while also featuring Telly Savalas in a sadistic, scene-stealing turn as a volatile Cossack captain.
When Horror Express was released, the horror genre was at a fascinating crossroads. The gothic traditions popularized by Hammer Studios throughout the 1960s were beginning to fade, overtaken by the grittier, bloodier styles of filmmakers like Herschell Gordon Lewis and George A. Romero. By 1968, Romero’s Night of the Living Dead had already shifted the genre toward a darker, more nihilistic tone, paving the way for the grislier excesses that would dominate the 1970s. Martín’s film stood out precisely because it clung to the elegance and atmosphere of Hammer’s gothic aesthetic while incorporating moments of shocking violence and morbid detail. It occupied an unusual in-between space: refined in look and tone yet unnerving in its thematic brutality. Its blend of period atmosphere, science fiction paranoia, and restrained gore made it a fascinating transitional work in horror history.
The premise is simple but chilling. Aboard the Trans-Siberian Express, a British anthropologist (Christopher Lee’s Professor Saxton) transports a recently unearthed specimen—an ape-like, fossilized creature. His colleague, Peter Cushing’s Dr. Wells, becomes reluctantly entangled in the unfolding mystery. Predictably, the specimen is not what it seems; it revives and begins unleashing a series of violent attacks on the passengers. Soon it is revealed to harbor a far more terrifying, alien intelligence capable of killing and inhabiting its victims. This leads to one of the film’s most haunting sequences: the white-eyed, zombie-like corpses, drained of memories and humanity, shambling through the train corridors under the entity’s control. At eight years old, these images struck me as some of the most horrifying I had ever seen, and even today their uncanny blend of gothic atmosphere and science fiction body horror still lingers.
Viewed in retrospect, Horror Express bears a striking resemblance to John W. Campbell’s novella Who Goes There?—the basis for Howard Hawks’ The Thing from Another World and John Carpenter’s The Thing in 1982. Like those stories, it is steeped in paranoia, playing with the idea of an alien intelligence that can absorb knowledge and animate the dead. While it never attains the precision of Carpenter’s later masterpiece, it foreshadows that same blend of claustrophobia, distrust, and escalating dread.
What makes Horror Express unforgettable is its restraint. Rather than leaning on gore, it generates fear through suggestion, atmosphere, and disturbing imagery. The snowy isolation of the Trans-Siberian route reinforces the cold sterility of its alien invader, while the confined train cars become a claustrophobic prison of escalating terror. Over time, the film has slipped into the public domain, making it widely available on streaming platforms and budget DVDs. Though often overlooked in surveys of 1970s horror, it deserves recognition as one of the last great gothic horror films before the torch passed to Craven, Carpenter, and Hooper.
For me, Horror Express remains not just a childhood scare but a cinematic touchstone: a rare piece of science fiction horror bridging two eras, one that manages to terrify without relying on excess gore. It disturbed me at age eight, and even now, watching the blank-eyed corpses lurch through the dim train cars still triggers that same visceral shiver.
This is an example of a perfect short film! Sometimes life is just awful and you find that Hell has sub-basements. I am currently in the next to last sub-basement; yes, it really is that bad. At times like that, Richard Morgan, the author of Altered Carbon wrote “You take what’s offered….sometimes you just need to get to the next screen.” Working with Jigsaw was one of those moments for me. It was funny enough to make my brain take a brief break and allow me to laugh. Trust me, if a film is funny enough to make me laugh at this time in my life, you might literally pee your pants or poo or pee/poo them. What I am trying say is that you should wear your peeing yourself pants while watching this and then shower- Don’t be gross!
Thanks Al
The plot is right in the title and you get what you were promised. You know you have something special when the writer and director know that 3 minutes and 43 seconds is actually longer that you think. Why is that important? It is critical to have the time awareness because it frees the short film director to use silence to set up a reaction. In this film, the silences set up the punchlines, but it a straight horror short it allows for suspense, payoff, and even to have a moment to care about the characters. Most of the shorts I watch are either pitches in disguise or worse they don’t use their time wisely to make you care that the characters are in peril.
Working with Jigsaw pulls together the concept of a malevolent force being awful at work. Jigsaw is constantly interfering with people’s work to make them play his non-lethal but horribly annoying games. The HR scene at the end is film gold!
I really can’t say enough nice things about this short. Both writers got jobs working for Jimmy Kimmel after this short, which fills with rare joy! I hope they continue to make short films and feature length comedies- they are truly gifted artists!
There are actually two versions of this video. Both of them feature model Rana Kennedy as the mysterious woman looking over Alice Cooper. One version features shots where the woman is meant to be topless. (A body double was used in those shots). The MTV-friendly version excises the toplessness and is less focused on torture than the first version.
Director Nigel Dick was one of the big music video directors of the MTV era. He worked with everyone who was anybody. Alice Cooper definitely was and still is somebody. It’s funny how he went from being the rocker that parents feared to being a beloved cultural institution and he did it while, for the most part, still remaining true to his original act and persona. All the kids who used to get yelled at for listening to Cooper grew up and kept listening to him and Alice turned out to be a pretty smart guy.
With apologies to Brad Crain, I’ve never been a basketball fan.
I’m not really a team sports fan in general but basketball truly gets on my nerves. My main issue, of course, is that all the squeaky shoes make it difficult for me to watch a game. The constant squeaking is headache-inducing. My other problem with basketball is that people who like basketball tend to really, really, really like it, to the extent that they can’t handle the fact that some of us don’t really care. Finally, I get tired of being expected to pay attention to whatever it is the coaches say after the game. How many times have I come online to see breathless stories about a basketball coach giving his thoughts on current events? Like seriously, who cares? Why would I care what a coach thinks about tariffs? Why are we even asking basketball coaches for their opinions? Aren’t basketball coaches just supposed to yell at people until they get kicked out of the game? I’ve seen Hoosiers, which I will acknowledge is a very good movie despite my feelings about the game. Gene Hackman was constantly getting kicked off the court and everyone loved him for it. Temper tantrums, that’s what we need from basketball coaches. We don’t need to know your thoughts on the cost of bread.
What’s the point of all this? Before I talk about 2022’s Nothing Is Impossible, I thought you deserved to know my own bias against the game. Nothing is Impossible is a movie that loves basketball.
Nothing is impossible? Try telling that to former basketball-star-turned-high-school-janitor Scott Beck (David A.R. White). Scott, we’re told, could have been a star in the NBA but it didn’t pan out. Instead, Scott works as a janitor and volunteers as an assistant high school coach. While NBA players and their coaches are answering questions about who they voted for in the last election, Scott is looking after his alcoholic father and regretting the fact that he left Ryan Aikins (Nadja Bjorlin) at the altar.
Ryan is now the owner of a basketball team and, when the team announces that it will be holding live tryouts for anyone who wants to try to make the team, Scott finds himself tempted to try to achieve his dream of playing in the NBA. Can Scott do it? Can he still compete at a competitive level? Actually, could he ever compete at a competitive level? Listen, I know this is a PureFlix film and David A.R. White can probably appear in any one of their films that he wants to because he’s one of the founders of the company but White is never particularly convincing as someone who could make a professional basketball team. He’s not particularly tall. He doesn’t come across as being particularly athletic. He’s middle-aged. Nothing is impossible the title tells us but the idea of an unathletic, middle-aged, 5’10 white guy dunking on a bunch of NBA superstars truly tests that claim.
The important thing, of course, is that Scott and Ryan discover that they’re still in love and White and Bjorlin manage to generate enough romantic chemistry to make a believable couple. The other important thing is that Steven Bauer shows up as a heartless executive. It’s always nice to see Bauer destroying dreams. Otherwise, the film did not change my opinion about basketball.
Seriously, those shoes are just too damn squeaky….
Welcome to Late Night Retro Television Reviews, a feature where we review some of our favorite and least favorite shows of the past! On Sunday, I will be reviewing the Canadian series, Degrassi: The Next Generation, which aired from 2001 to 2015! The series can be streamed on YouTube and Tubi.
This week, Ashley learns her father’s secret.
Episode 1.8 “Secrets & Lies”
(Dir by Bruce McDonald, originally aired on May 6th, 2002)
This is a landmark episode of Degrassi: The Next Generation for two reasons.
First off, it’s the first episode to establish that Liberty has a crush on J.T. Liberty’s unrequited crush was one of the show’s early storyline and, to be honest, it was frequently one of the more annoying storylines. Liberty was always a rather flat character and she and J.T. never really made much sense as a couple. (Yes, they did eventually become a couple.) Of course, watching this episode today, all I can think about is the fact that, in the far future, J.T. is going to die in Liberty’s arms after being stabbed in the back by a student from a rival high school. Much as with Degrassi High, knowing what the future holds adds a layer of poignance to these early episodes that they otherwise wouldn’t have.
As for this episode, J.T. tries to get Liberty to leave him alone by pretending to be gay. He gets this idea after Toby informs him that Ashley’s father, the dashing Robert Kerwin (Andrew Gillies), has come out of the closet.
The majority of this episode deals with Ashley struggling to accept that her father is gay. Again, this is another storyline that becomes far more poignant if you already know that Robert is eventually going to marry his partner Christopher and Ashley’s boyfriend is going to have a mental breakdown at the wedding.
This episode actually did a very good job of realistically portraying Ashley’s initial reaction to learning that her father’s gay. Ashley is confused and, as she was still hoping that her parents would eventually get back together, she feels betrayed. It’s an honest reaction and probably not the sort of thing you would ever see on television today, where our idealized protagonists almost always have the right response from the start. The fact that the show deals honestly with Ashley’s emotions makes her eventual acceptance of her father’s sexuality all the more poignant.
This episode deals very sensitively deals with Robert’s coming out and Andrew Gillies and Melissa McIntyre both deserve a lot of credit for their performances. (Remember, this episode aired in 2002, at a time when gay characters were almost always portrayed as either being comedy relief or helpless victims.) I do have to admit that there is one rather clunky line in this episode. It comes when Ashley asks Robert if he has a boyfriend and Robert tells her about his partner, Christopher. Ashley’s next line (and Melissa McIntyre’s overdramatic delivery of it) always makes me laugh despite myself:
Aside from that line and all of the cringey stuff involving J.T. and Liberty (and, admittedly, that is a lot to overlook), this was a sensitive and well-handled episode.