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 “slow 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.
Enjoy Baffled! Can you solve the mystery before Leonard?
Originally released in 1988, Pumpkinhead has always struck me as being one of those films that more people remember hearing someone else talk about it than have actually sat down and watched.
I think that’s because it has such a great title. Pumpkinhead! That’s not a title that you’re going to forget and it conjures up all sorts of scary images. If you hear someone mention that title, it stays in your head. It’s an easy title to remember and it’s also an easy title to turn into a macabre joke. If, on Halloween night, you and your friends hear a sound in the house, you can always say, “It must be Pumpkinhead!” Everyone will laugh, regardless of whether they’ve seen the film or not. It’s kind of like how everyone knows what the Great Pumpkin is, even if they’ve never actually watched the old cartoon.
As for the actual film, it’s a mix of monster horror and hick revenge flick. It’s one of those movies where a bunch of dumb city kids do something stupid while driving through the country and, as a result, they end up having to deal with a curse and a monster.
Ed Harley (Lance Henriksen) is a widower who owns a grocery store that is pretty much sitting out in the middle of nowhere. Seriously, you look at his little store sitting off the side of a country road and you wonder how he makes enough money to feed his family. Of course, the store’s location isn’t the only problem. The other problem is that Ed seems to instinctively mistrust the few people who do stop off at the place. Even if I lived near there, I probably wouldn’t want to shop at that store because I know Ed would glare at me and make me feel like I was doing something wrong.
However, a group of dumbass dirt bikers do stop off at the store. And then they decide to drive their dirt bikers around the store while another member of the group takes pictures. Unfortunately, the dirt bikers run over Ed’s son, little Billy. The dirt bikers flee the scene, heading to their cabin. Ed meanwhile goes to the local witch and asks her to summon …. PUMPKINHEAD!
After a lengthy ceremony, Pumpkinhead shows up. Because Pumpkinhead was directed special effects maestro Stan Winston, he’s a very impressive creature. He looks something like this:
You may notice that Pumpkinhead doesn’t actually have a pumpkin for a head but no matter! It’s still a good name and when your monster looks like that, he can call himself whatever he wants.
Anyway, Pumpkinhead tracks down and starts to kill the people responsible for the death of Billy. Unfortunately, it turns out that Ed experiences each murder along with Pumpkinhead and he quickly has a change of heart. The witch tells him it’s too late. Pumpkinhead will not stop until everyone’s dead and if Ed tries to interfere, Ed will die as well.
It’s a clever-enough idea, a filmed version of one of those old legends that you occasionally hear about in the country. It’s a good thing that the monster is really, really scary because his victims are pretty much forgettable. Some of them feel bad about killing Ed’s son and some of them don’t but it’s hard to keep straight which is which. They’re just too bland. As a result, their deaths don’t really generate any sort of emotion, good or bad. They’re just there to be victims. The only person your really care about is Ed but that’s mostly because he’s played by Lance Henriksen and Henriksen is one of those actors who can bring almost any character to life, regardless of how thinly-drawn that character may be. Henriksen has a built-in authenticity. Since he’s clearly not a product of the Hollywood publicity machine but is instead someone who obviously lived an interesting life before he ever auditioned for his first film, you believe in Henriksen’s performance even when the script betrays him. You believe that he owns that store, even though the store seems to be in the worst location ever. When he mourns Billy, you believe it. When he tries to stop Pumpkinhead, you believe that as well. What little humanity that there is to be found in the film is almost totally the result of Henriksen’s performance.
So, give it up for Lance Henriksen and give it up for the scariness of Pumpkinhead and also give it up for director Stan Winston, who came up with enough horrific visuals that it almost made up for his apparent lack of interest in the film’s human characters. Give it up to for a little-known character actress named Florence Schauffer, who is properly creepy as the local witch. Pumpkinhead is a good film to watch with your friends on Halloween, even if the title monster doesn’t really have a pumpkin for a head.
102 years ago today, the great actor Donald Pleasence was born.
Pleasence is, of course, best-known for playing Dr. Loomis in Halloween. He’s so identified with that franchise that it’s always seemed appropriate that he celebrated his birthday in October. And usually, to celebrate his birthday, we would share a scene of Dr. Loomis yelling at or shooting Michael Myers.
This year, though, I’m going to do something a little different and share a scene from a different type of horror movie, 1971’s Wake in Fright. In this Australian film, Donald Pleasence plays Doc Tydon, an alcoholic doctor who lives in the Australian outback and who befriends John Grant (Gary Bond), a naïve school teacher who has become stranded in a town full of people who don’t have much respect for Grant’s intellectual pursuits. Actually, befriends is perhaps the wrong word. Tydon allows Grant to stay with him but it soon become apparent that Tydon, like almost everyone else in this movie, might have a less-than-friendly agenda of his own.
Wake In Fright features what may be Pleasence’s best performance. In the scene below, Tydon and Grant meet for the first time and Pleasence shows that he was capable of far more than just playing Blofeld and Dr. Loomis.
4 (or more) Shots From 4 (or more) Films is just what it says it is, 4 (or more) shots from 4 (or more) of our favorite films. As opposed to the reviews and recaps that we usually post, 4 (or more) Shots From 4 (or more) Films lets the visuals do the talking.
Today, we wish a happy and nice 69th birthday to writer and occasional director Clive Barker! Barker’s stories have provided the basis for several films and Barker himself attempted to build a career of his own as a filmmaker. Though he pretty much retired from directing after the box office failure of Lord of Illusions, he still has a better directorial track record than Stephen King.
Today, we honor the birthday of Clive Barker with….
4 Shots From 4 Clive Barker Films
Hellraiser (1987, dir by Clive Barker, DP: Robin Vidgeon)
Nightbreed (1990, dir by Clive Barker, DP: Robin Vidgeon)
Candyman (1992, dir by Bernard Rose, DP: Anthony B. Richmond)
Lord of Illusions (1995, dir by Clive Barker, DP: Ronn Schmidt)
For today’s horror on the Lens we have a made-for-TV movie that, like yesterday’s The Norliss Tapes, was produced and directed by Dan Curtis.
Trilogy of Terror, which aired in 1975, is an anthology film, featuring three segments that were each based on a short story from Richard Matheson. What makes this particular film special is that each segment features Karen Black playing a radically different character from the previous segment. The film really is a showcase for this underrated actress, though Black herself later said that the film ruined her career because it typecast her as a horror actress.
The third segment is the one that gets all the attention. That’s the one with the killer doll. I like all of the segments, though. The first one is often considered to be the weakest but anyone who has ever been through a similar situation will appreciate it as tale of revenge. The second segment has a playful vibe that I liked. And yes, the third segment is genuinely frightening.
Every fifty years, the top vampires in the UK gather in one location. They discuss their upcoming plans. They settle old scores. They make peace or declare war. Actually, I’m perhaps giving them a bit too much credit. Judging from the 2017 film, Eat Locals, they spend most of their time being bitchy and plotting against each other. Vampires are apparently not the easiest creatures to get along with.
Their latest meeting is taking place at a farmhouse out in the country. In theory, the farmhouse should be isolated enough for the vampires to meet in peace but it doesn’t turn out that way. First, Vanessa (Eva Myles) shows up with a human hitchhiker named Sebastian (Billy Cook). Sebastian may think he’s going to get laid but it turns out that the vampires are more interested in eating a local. Then, a bunch of British soldiers show up. It turns out that they’re from the special vampire squad and they’re determined to take out all the top vampires all at once. Their leader is also apparently interested in collecting vampire blood, which he can then sell to a cosmetics company. Want to defy aging? Vampire blood’s the answer!
I watched Eat Locals last Halloween. My friends and I had previously watched (at my insistence) Vampire Circus and we decided to follow it up with another British vampire film, this one a more recent one. (Vampire Circus was released in 1972. Eat Locals, on the other hand, was released 45 years later, in 2017.) As an unapologetic horror snob, I was a bit skeptical about Eat Locals and, when the film started, I may have groaned a little because it became obvious that this was going to be one of those films where people spent a lot of time sitting around in an unlit room. But still, I gave it a chance.
And, ultimately, Eat Locals turned out to be better than I was expecting. The film has its flaws but it was hard not to admire its determination to stay true to its concept, even at the risk of alienating its audience. Eat Locals pretty much takes place in one location. This means that, for all of the build-up, the first big battle between the soldiers and the vampires largely takes place off-screen. That’s the sort of narrative decision that will undoubtedly turn off a lot of viewers but I actually liked the staginess of it all. At a time when other directors would have cut away and wasted a lot of money on an action scene that wouldn’t have added much to the film’s narrative, director Jason Flemyng (who is better known as an actor) sticks with the vampires.
Unfortunately, the vampires aren’t always as interesting as the film seems to think that they are. They’re all very arch and very British but most of them don’t have much personality beyond that. A few of them, however, are memorable as a result of the efforts of the talented cast. Charlie Cox, Freeman Agyeman, Vincent Regan all make a favorable impression with their fanged roles. As for the soldiers, they’re all very British as well. If you’ve ever watched any film about the UK Special Forces, you will immediately recognize every type of character and situation that EatLocals satirizes.
EatLocals is an uneven film and the narrative momentum lags during its final few minutes. In many ways, it feels like a really clever short film that’s been expanded upon. That said, there’s enough vampiric satire and uniquely British humor to make the film an entertaining watch.
In this scene from the 1970 film House of Dark Shadows, young David Collins explores around the old pool on the Collins estate and runs into his cousin, Carolyn. The only problem, of course, is that Carolyn died a few days ago so why is she now wandering around the estate? Could she be a …. VAMPIRE!?
There’s a lot of atmosphere in this scene. That dilapidated pool is frightening on its own. Add a vampire and …. AGCK! In the role of Carolyn, Nancy Barrett does a great job of portraying her new vampiric nature. Run, David, run!
Of course, back in the dining hall, no one believes him. A refusal to believe is a vampire’s best friend. (Personally, I don’t believe in vampires so I’ll probably be in trouble if I ever meet one.)
On Saturday night, I watched Piranha, which featured the great character actor Kevin McCarthy in a supporting role. This led to me remembering McCarthy’s iconic performance in the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers (as well as his cameo in the 70s version). And that led to me remembering a book that I found at Half-Price Books a few years ago.
First published in 1999, They’re Here is a tribute to Invasion of the Body Snatchers, featuring essays about the films and interviews with some of the people involved. For instance, Stephen King and Dean Koontz both write about how seeing the original film influenced their later approach to horror. Jon L. Breen, James Combs, and Fred Blosser write about Jack Finney, the author of the book that served as the basis for the film. Other essays take a look at the remakes that were directed by Philip L. Kaufman and Abel Ferrara. Ferrara is himself interviewed and is as outspoken as ever. Also interviewed is Dana Wynter, who co-starred in the original.
However, the majority of the book is taken up with a terrifically entertaining and informative interview with Kevin McCarthy himself. McCarthy not only talks about filming the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers but also his entire career, his friendship with Montgomery Clift, and his status as pop cultural icon. Sometimes it can be disillusioning to read or listen to an interview in which an icon turns out to be kind of boring (call it the Steven Soderbergh syndrome) but, fortunately, McCarthy comes across as being just as eccentric, intelligent, interesting, and downright lovable as you would hope he would be. Kevin McCarthy, who passed away in 2010 at the age of 96, was one of the great character actors and this interview shows that he was …. wait for it …. quite the character! (Sorry.) The interview is a great tribute not only to McCarthy’s most famous film but also the man himself.
Seriously, if you’re a Body Snatchers fan but just appreciate great character acting, order a copy of this book!
In the small Austrian town of Hoffen, there’s been a murder.
Actually, there’s been more than one murder. Several women have been killed, stabbed to death by what appears to be an ancient dagger. The people of Hoffen are convinced that it’s the result of ancient curse, one that states that every male descendant of the original Baron Von Klaus is destined to become a sadistic murderer. However, there are only two living male descendants. Max Von Klaus (Howard Vernon, at his decadent best) has an alibi. Ludwig (Hugo Blanco) wasn’t even in town. So, if neither Max nor Ludwig committed the murders, then it had to be someone else in town, right?
Or could it be, as the townspeople suspect …. THE ORIGINAL BARON VON KLAUS HAS COME BACK TO LIFE!
Wait …. what? How stupid are these people? I mean, I know that small villages are supposed to be a breeding ground of superstition but it seems kind of obvious that it’s probably just some random human serial killer. Then again, if you believe in a centuries old curse, I guess it’s not that difficult to accept the idea of the dead coming back to life. I mean, it seems pretty stupid to me but what do I know?
While a police detective and a reporter investigate the crimes, Ludwig is shocked to discover that there’s a torture dungeon in the basement of the Von Klaus castle. Ludwig is encouraged to be the first member of the Von Klaus family to find the courage the destroy the dungeon and abandon the castle. Instead, Ludwig finds himself drawn to the dungeon. Will he be able to resist its musty charms or is he destined to become yet another sadistic Baron von Klaus?
Hmmmm …. a violent and loosely-plotted movie that’s set in a small Austrian village, one that opens with a close-up of two hands playing the piano and which features Howard Vernon as a decadent aristocrat. Even if you hadn’t already read the title of the review, the plot description alone should be all you would need to hear to know that The Sadistic Baron Von Klaus was a Jess Franco film.
Before he died in 2013, Spanish director Jess Franco was famous for being one of the most prolific directors around. He’s officially credited with directing 203 films but most sources agree that he was responsible for a lot more. Franco remains something of a controversial figure. Many of his films were bad. Quite a few of them were surprisingly good and atmospheric. Christopher Lee did several films with him and consistently defended Franco as being an intelligent artist who was often forced to work under less-than-perfect conditions. Franco was also a member of Orson Welles’s European entourage, with Franco even doing some second unit work on the sublime Chimes at Midnight. Speaking for myself, I’ve seen plenty of boring Jess Franco films. But I’ve also seen some surprisingly good ones. Female Vampire, Faceless, The Awful Dr. Orloff, Nightmares Come At Night, A Virgin Among the Living Dead, all of them are atmospheric, dream-like exercises in cinematic style.
The Sadistic Baron Von Klaus is middle-of-the road Franco. Despite plot similarities and the presence of Howard Vernon, it’s not as memorable as The Awful Dr. Orloff (which came out the same year) but it’s also clearly put together with more care than some of Franco’s later films. The plot really doesn’t hang together but that’s to be expected from a Franco film. For that matter, way too much time is spent with the police inspector and the journalist. But, visually, the black-and-white cinematography is gorgeous and, as he often did for Franco, Howard Vernon does a great job of epitomizing the decaying aristocracy of Europe. The film is deliberately paced but Franco does do a good job of creating an feeling of impending doom. Each scene seems to be leading towards the discovery of a terrible secret, with Hoffen coming to life as a town fueled by superstition and repressed desires. The scene in which the Von Klaus torture chamber is used is shockingly violent (the film’s title is not kidding about the sadism) but it also highlights the film’s theme about the impossibility of escaping the sins of the past. Considering that this film was made while Europe was still struggling to rebuild after World War II and when General Franco was still in control of Jess Franco’s native Spain, that was probably intentional on the director’s part. The Von Klaus curse stands in for the fear that fascism, dictatorship, and war was always destined to rise again.
The Sadistic Baron Von Klaus is not one of Franco’s better-known films but it is one that shows that Franco could make an effective film when he had the time, the money, and the motivation.
4 (or more) Shots From 4 (or more) Films is just what it says it is, 4 (or more) shots from 4 (or more) of our favorite films. As opposed to the reviews and recaps that we usually post, 4 (or more) Shots From 4 (or more) Films lets the visuals do the talking.
Since today’s Horror on the Lens was a Dan Curtis film, it only seems appropriate that today’s edition of 4 Shots from 4 Films should be dedicated to one of the most underrated horror directors around, Dan Curtis!
It’s time for….
4 Shots From 4 Dan Curtis Films
House of Dark Shadows (1970, dir by Dan Curtis, DP: Arthur Ornitz)
Night of Dark Shadows (1971, dir by Dan Curtis, DP: Richard Shore)
Trilogy of Terror (1975, dir by Dan Curtis. DP: Paul Lohmann)
Burnt Offerings (1976, dir by Dan Curtis, DP: Jacques R. Marquette)
Through the Shattered Lens 