4 Shots From 4 Films: Dellamorte Dellamore, Nadja, The Stand, Wes Craven’s New Nightmare

Posted on October 15, 2019 by Lisa Marie Bowman

4 Shots From 4 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, we’re using 4 Shots From 4 Films to look at some of the best years that horror has to offer!

4 Shots From 4 1994 Horror Films

Dellamorte Dellamore (1994, dir by Michele Soavi)

Nadja (1994, dir by Michael Almereyda)

The Stand (1994, dir by Mick Garris)

Wes Craven’s New Nightmare (1994, dir by Wes Craven)

Horror Film Review: Psycho II (dir by Richard Franklin)

Posted on October 15, 2019 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Norman Bates is back!

No, I don’t mean Freddie Highmore from Bates Motel or Vince Vaughn from the odd Psycho remake that I keep seeing on Showtime. No, I’m talking about the original Norman Bates, Anthony Perkins!

First released in 1983, Psycho II is a direct sequel to the classic shocker from Alfred Hitchcock. The film opens with a replay of the original film’s famous shower scene and then immediately jumps forward 22 years. Having been found not guilty by reason of insanity, Norman Bates has been in a mental institution ever since he was arrested for the murders of Marion Crane and Milton Arborgast. However, Norman’s psychiatrist, Dr. Raymond (Robert Loggia, who was considered for the role of Sam Loomis in the original film), now feels that Norman has been cured and is no longer a danger to himself or others. A judge agrees. Marion Crane’s sister, Lila Loomis (Vera Miles, reprising her role from the original) does not. She presents the judge with a petition demanding that Norman not be released. When the judge ignores her, Lila yells that Norman will murder again!

Now free, Norman returns to the Bates Motel and discovers that it’s now being run by the sleazy Warren Toomey (Dennis Franz). When Norman finds various party favors in the motel rooms and asks Warren what they are, Warren laughs and says, “They’re drugs, Norman.” Norman’s not too happy about that. As Dr. Raymond tells him, the world has changed considerably over the past two decades.

However, Norman has other issues to deal with. For the most part, most of the people in town are not happy that their most famous resident has returned. Emma Spool (Claudia Bryar) gets Norman a job at a local diner because, in her words, she believes in forgiveness and second chances. Norman gets to know the new waitress, Mary Samuels (Meg Tilly) and, when Mary tells him that she’s had a fight with her boyfriend, he invites her to stay at the hotel until she can get things together.

From the minute that he returns home, Norman is struggling to keep it together. When he first reenters his former house, he hears his mother’s voice but he tells himself that she’s not really there. But if his mother isn’t there, then who keeps calling him on the phone and yelling at him about the state of the motel? Who keeps taunting him about his awkward (yet rather sweet) relationship with Mary? And when two teenagers are attacked after breaking into the house, who else could it possibly be but Norman’s mother?

I was really surprised by Psycho II, which turned out to be a really entertaining little movie, an effective thriller with a healthy dash of dark humor. It’s a very plot-heavy film, with almost every scene introducing a new twist to the story. With the exception of the sleazy Warren Toomey, no one in this film turns out to be who you initially expected them to be, including Norman. Meg Tilly does a good job in the somewhat oddly written role of Mary Samuels and even manages to make an awkward line like “Norman, you’re as mad as a hatter” sound natural. Not surprisingly, the film is dominated by Perkins’s performance as Norman Bates and what a great performance it is. The best moments are the ones where Norman awkwardly tries to fit back in with society, nervously laughing at his own jokes and struggling to maintain eye contact with whoever he’s talking to. You really can’t help but feel sorry for him, especially as the film progresses.

Wisely, Psycho II set out to establish it own identity as a film, as opposed to just trying to duplicate the shocks of Psycho. (There is a shower scene that’s filmed similarly to the one from the first scene, with a key difference that I won’t spoil.) It’s what a sequel should be, not a remake but a continuation of the original’s story. This is definitely a film that’s far better than you may expect.

Horror On The Lens: The Phantom of the Opera (dir by Rupert Julian)

Posted on October 15, 2019 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Today’s horror movie on the Shattered Lens is both a classic of silent era and one of the most influential horror films ever made. It’s one that I previously shared in 2013, 2015, 2016, and 2108 but it’s such a classic that I feel that it is worth sharing a second (or fifth) time.

First released in 1925, The Phantom of the Opera is today best known for both Lon Chaney’s theatrical but empathetic performance as the Phantom and the iconic scene where Mary Philbin unmasks him. However, the film is also a perfect example of early screen spectacle. The Phantom of the Opera was released during that period of time, between Birth of the Nation and the introduction of sound, when audiences expected films to provide a visual feast and Phantom of the Opera certainly accomplishes that. Indeed, after watching this film and reading Gaston Leroux’s original novel, it’s obvious that the musical was inspired more by the opulence of this film than by the book.

This film is also historically significant in that it was one of the first films to be massively reworked as the result of a poor test screening. The film’s ending was originally faithful to the end of the novel. However, audiences demanded something a little more dramatic and that’s what they got.

Horror Scenes That I Love: The Gas Station Attack From The Birds

Posted on October 14, 2019 by Lisa Marie Bowman

This scene, of course, is from Alfred Hitchcock’s 1963 revenge of nature film, The Birds.

Seriously, what type of idiot smokes a cigar near a gas station? It kind of makes you think that maybe the birds had a point.

What Lisa Watched Last Night #200: The College Admissions Scandal (dir by Adam Salky)

Posted on October 14, 2019 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Last night, like all good Americans, I watched The College Admissions Scandal on Lifetime!

Why Was I Watching It?

How could I not watch it!?

Seriously, Lifetime has been advertising the Hell out of this thing for the past few months. I haven’t been able to turn on the channel without seeing a few hundred commercials for The College Admissions Scandal.

Add to that, I have to admit that this is the rare national scandal that I’ve actually been following. When the news first broke that certain rich people had cheated and broken the rules to get their child into a good college, my initial reaction was, “Well, isn’t that what a parent’s supposed to do?” Of course, I made the mistake of saying that on twitter and I immediately ended up with a bunch of finger-wagging nags screaming at me about how it wasn’t something to make a joke about and how it wasn’t fair and blah blah blah. They sure told me! Of course, it didn’t really change my mind or anything but at least everyone else got to feel like they had stuck up for truth and justice. That said, I think my point remains valid. Don’t get mad at the parents for taking advantage of the system. They’re just trying to look after their kids. Instead, get mad at the colleges that were willing to be bribed. Get mad at a system that’s been specifically set up to be corrupted. The solution is reform, not necessarily imprisonment.

Perhaps not surprisingly, I kinda love the fact that, while Felicity Huffman basically begged everyone to forgive her, Lori Loughlin pretty much said, “Fuck you, I’m not apologizing for anything.” That’s the spirit!

What Was It About?

Penelope Ann Miller plays a character who is definitely not Felicity Huffman, just as Mia Kirshner is playing someone who is definitely not Lori Loughlin. That said, like Miller and Loughlin, they’re two wealthy mothers who are concerned about getting their children into the right school. Fortunately, Rick Singer (Michael Shanks) is willing to sell his services as an admissions consultant. Pay him enough money and he’ll fix your child’s grades, improve their test scores, and even make them look like athletes!

It sounds like a great plan! Of course, it’s also illegal and, even as the parents are looking forward to sending their kids to Stanford and Harvard, the FBI is looking forward to sending the parents to prison!

What Worked?

Miller and Kirshner were both well-cast and Kirshner was especially good as the mother who definitely was not Lori Loughlin. Michael Shanks was also wonderfully repellent in the role of Rick Singer.

It was fascinating to watch the lengths that Singer and the families went to remaking their children. My main memory of this film will probably always be Sarah Dugdale standing in front of a blue screen and kicking a soccer ball so that she can later be photoshopped into a picture of an actual soccer game.

What Did Not Work?

Where were the real people!? Yes, Rick Singer is a real person but why were all the parents fictional? I assume for legal reasons. For instance, Lori Loughlin has yet to be convicted of anything and I imagine that Lifetime didn’t want to get on the bad side of either Felicity Huffman or William H. Macy by portraying them in the movie. But seriously, it was hard not to be disappointed by the lack of real world gossip.

“Oh my God! Just like me!” Moments

Hmmmm …. I got into college legally but then again, I also didn’t go to an Ivy League school, nor did I ever particularly want to. To be honest, it didn’t really occur to me that college was actually that important until my senior year. That’s when I was like, “Oh, I’m actually supposed to do something with this art history degree….”

Lessons Learned

If you want to send your child to a good college, get them interested in soccer early.

4 Shots From 4 Films: Army Darkness, Candyman, Bram Stoker’s Dracula, Dust Devil

Posted on October 14, 2019 by Lisa Marie Bowman

This October, we’re using 4 Shots From 4 Films to look at some of the best years that horror has to offer!

4 Shots From 4 1992 Horror Films

Army of Darkness (1992, dir by Sam Raimi)

Candyman (1992, dir by Bernard Rose)

Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992, dir by Francis Ford Coppola)

Dust Devil (1992, dir by Richard Stanley)

Horror on the Lens: Hotline (dir by Jerry Jameson)

Posted on October 14, 2019 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Yay! Brianne O’Neill (Lynda Carter) has a got a new job, working at a crisis hotline!

Boooo! The serial called known as the Barber is now obsessed with calling her!

The Barber is known as the Barber because he cuts his victims’s hair before killing them, which as far as I’m concerned, make him even worse than a normal serial killer. You have to wonder if he resents being known as the Barber as opposed to The Stylist.

Anyway, it’s up to Brianne to figure out why The Barber keeps calling her and to hopefully discover his identity. For whatever reason, no one else seems to be that concerned about it.

That’s the plot of Hotline, a 1982 made-for-TV movie that is today’s horror on the lens. It’s not a bad film, though it does inspire a certain amount of snarkiness while you’re watching it. For the most part, though, it’s well-acted and effectively directed. If you’ve got 95 minutes to kill, why not kill them with Lynda Carter, The Barber, and Frank Stallone?

Horror Scenes That I Love: That Line From Troll 2

Posted on October 13, 2019 by Lisa Marie Bowman

From 1990’s Troll 2.

No further description is necessary.

International Horror Film Review: Nosferatu in Venice (dir by Augusto Caminito, Klaus Kinski, Luigi Cozzi, Mario Ciaino, and possibly others)

Posted on October 13, 2019 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Nosferatu the vampyre is back! Well, maybe. It’s complicated,

This Italian production from 1988 was originally envisioned as being a semi-official sequel to Werner Herzog’s Nosferatu, which was itself a remake of F.W. Murnau’s silent classic. The idea was that Klaus Kinski would reprise his role and this time, his feral version of Dracula would haunt Venice. Kinski agreed, initially, to reprise his role. However, after arriving on the set, Kinski lived up to his infamous reputation for being difficult. He announced that he would, under no circumstances, don the famous make-up that he wore in Nosferatu. And while Kinski was undoubtedly a good actor who was capable of giving performances that kept him employed despite reportedly being insane, Nosferatu without the makeup is not really Nosferatu. He’s just another vampire.

Still, Kinski was a big enough star that he got his way about the makeup. He also attempted to get his way during the first day of filming, when he refused to take any direction from director Mario Ciaino. When Ciaino attempted to figure out why Kinski was being so difficult, Kinski declared that he had been promised, by producer Augusto Caminito, that he would be allowed to direct the film. This led to Mario Ciaino quitting during the first day of production. Producer Caminito took over as a director, though apparently Kinski did end up directing several of his own scenes. Reportedly, other scenes were directed by Luigi Cozzi.

However, Kinski didn’t stop with getting the director replaced. He also demanded that nearly the entire cast be replaced as well. Kinski, in fact, was such a terror on the set that it was common for members of the crew to refuse to work with him, which perhaps explains why Kinski seems to spend so much of this film wandering around Venice by himself.

As for the film itself — well, yes, it’s exactly as big of a mess as it sounds like it would be. Kinski plays a vampire who may or may not be Dracula. Actually, very few of the traditional vampire rules seem to apply to him. He wanders around in the daylight. He looks at his reflection in a mirror. He does, however, drink a lot of blood so I guess some things never change. Because he refused to wear the vampire makeup or shave his head, Kinski spends the entire film looking like the aging lead singer of a 70s prog rock band. At the same time, it must be said that Kinski actually does give a fairly good performance. He’s a vampire who is desperate to find someone pure of heart who can end his ennui-stricken life. Kinski’s screen presence is undeniably powerful and he looks appropriately miserable.

Christopher Plummer has the Van Helsing role and Donald Pleasence plays a priest who always seems to be somewhat nervous. (In other words, a typical role for Donald Pleasence.) Plummer is in Venice because, back in the 18th century, it was the last place that Kinski’s vampire was seen. This leads to several confusing flashbacks, all of which are somewhat randomly sprinkled throughout the film.

There’s not really any story beyond Kinski walking around with a stricken-look on his face but, oddly, the film kind of works. Despite all of the directors who worked on it, the film is often visually stunning. I think it’s the power of Venice. No other city has quite the same atmosphere as Venice and it turns out to be the perfect location for a film about an ennui-stricken vampire.

(I know that when I visited Venice the summer after I graduated high school, I often found myself thinking about vampires. That’s just the type of city it is.)

Anyway, the film will be best appreciated by Italian horror enthusiasts and Kinski completists. Others will probably be bored out of their mind. If you just want to see a good horror film set in Venice, I recommend Don’t Look Now.