Graphic Novel Review: X-Men: God Loves, Man Kills by Chris Claremont and Brent Eric Anderson


X-Men: God Loves, Man Kills was the fifth Marvel Graphic Novel. It was first published in 1982. It’s 44 years old, and it still makes an impression. When I was a kid, there was a copy of it hidden among the periodicals and magazines at Waldenbooks. When I was in the store, I’d find it, open it, and pick up where I had left off. I knew there was no way I could get away with buying something called God Loves, Man Kills, but that’s because the story wasn’t for kids.

Two children are shot and killed in a playground and left hanging from a swing set. Why? Because they were mutants. Magneto, who until that point had been presented as a villain, is the one who gives them a proper burial. From the beginning, X-Men was a comic book that was actually about prejudice and racism, but God Loves, Man Kills made the message clear. The opening of the story wasn’t something you’d find in a normal monthly Marvel comic.

The villain is a white-haired televangelist named William Stryker. He preaches against mutants. He secretly leads the Purifiers. He kidnaps Professor X and attempts to use his powers to destroy the X-Men. The X-Men and Magneto team up and face an enemy so obsessed with their destruction that, for once, Magneto no longer seems like the fanatic. Even Professor X is tempted to give up his dream of coexistence.

Stryker appears to die, shot by a human security guard who fired to keep Stryker from killing a mutant. It’s a powerful ending. In typical Marvel fashion, the ending was ruined when they decided to bring Stryker back. Stryker died multiple times and somehow came back to life repeatedly. Eventually, he went from being a televangelist to being a Satanist. Marvel never knew how to leave well enough alone.

God Loves, Man Kills remains powerful, though. It was a true graphic novel, with a plot and themes worthy of a novel and graphics that were far more mature than anything to be found in the comics. I read it at Waldenbooks, and I’ve never forgotten it.

October True Crime: The Demon Murder Case (dir by William Hale)


In Brookfield, Connecticut, a 20-something man named Kenny Miller (played by a young Kevin Bacon) is on trial for murder. He stands accused of killing his landlord for no clear reason. While the media (represented by Cloris Leachman and Ken Kercheval) watch, Kenny’s attorney (Richard Masur) announces that Kenny did not actually commit the murder of his own free will. Instead, Kenny was possessed by a demon. The judge (Jack Davidson) is not impressed by the argument.

The film flashes back to the previous year. The family of Kenny’s girlfriend, Nancy Frazier (Liane Langland), has moved into a new house. Kenny notices that Nancy’s younger brother, Brian (Charles Fields), seems to spend a lot of time talking to himself. This concerns Kenny. What if Brian is talking to a demon that’s trying to possess him? It turns out that the Fraziers should have listened to Kenny because soon the house is shaking, the lights are blinking, and Brian is speaking in the voice of Harvey Fierstein.

The family gets in contact with occult investigators Guy (Andy Griffith) and Charlotte Harris (Beverlee McKinsey). Guy and Charlotte arrange for an exorcism. Actually, they arrange for several exorcisms. A total of six priests (one of whom is played by Eddie Albert) attempt to get the demon out of Brian. At one point, Kenny dares the demon to take him on personally. “Never do that!” Guy says before explaining that daring a demon to fight you is a great way to get possessed yourself. Kenny doesn’t seem to believe Guy, and I can kind of understand why. Watching this film, it was obvious that Andy Griffith was not actually Catholic, even if he did play a priest in Go Ask Alice. You can always tell these fake Catholics because they never make the sign of the cross correctly. They either use the wrong hand, or they start at the chest, or they confuse which shoulder to go to.

The Demon Murder Case was made for television in 1983 and, if the plot sounds familiar, that’s because it’s based on the same case that was dramatized in The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It. Only the names have been changed. Ed and Lorraine Warren become Guy and Charlotte Harris and, needless to say, they’re a bit less glamorous in the made-for-television version. Surprisingly enough, the television version actually works pretty well. The low budget forces director William Hale to concentrate on atmosphere as opposed to special effects, and the cast is full of talented actors. Even though Griffith is not a convincing Catholic, he’s still likable in the role of the no-nonsense Guy, and Kevin Bacon does a pretty good job as the well-meaning but ultimately confused Kenny Miller. Earlier today, I complained that Bacon seemed miscast in Hollow Man. This film, however, makes good use of his down-to-earth persona. You watch this film and you think that, if Kevin Bacon could get possessed, it could happen to anyone.

As for the actual case, Arne Cheyenne Johnson (who was renamed Kenny Miller in this film) was convicted of manslaughter despite his defense that he had no control over his actions. He served five months in prison and married his girlfriend after he was released. He continues to insist that he was possessed.

Horror Film Review: Poppers (dir by José María Castellví)


“If you look for me, you will find me,” announces a billboard outside the apartment inhabited by a young man named Santos (Miguel Ortiz). The billboard also features a picture of a woman who appears to be beckoning whoever is viewing her. When Santos steps out of his apartment, he stares at the billboard. Later, under far different circumstances, he asks, “What was I supposed to find?”

Santos is an aspiring musician who lives in post-Franco Spain. At a performance, he sees another man flirting with his girlfriend. Suddenly, Santos finds himself standing in front of the man with blood on his hands. The man has been stabbed. There’s never any doubt that Santos killed the man, but the film leaves it ambiguous as to whether the murder was an act of impulse or calculation.

Santos spends two years in prison before he’s paroled. On his first night out, he meets a prostitute named Lola (Giannina Facio) and goes to a mansion with her. The next morning, he has breakfast with four old, rich men who tell Santos that they want to hunt him. If he can escape the grounds of the mansion, he will have a million dollars’ worth of gems to start a new life with. When Santos says that he’s not interested in being hunted, the men reply that he doesn’t really have a choice.

The thing that one notices is that Santos rarely shows any emotion. Whether he’s just killed a man or been informed that he’s going to be hunted, Santos is pretty much a blank. Even when he learns that one of the men who will be hunting him is also the father of the person he killed, Santos seems to shrug it off. Some of that was undoubtedly due to the acting limitations of Miguel Ortiz. But as the film progresses, it becomes obvious that Santos is as much of a hollow shell as the decadent men who are hunting him. If Santos seems empty, that’s because he is empty. The hunters, who obviously expected him to be easy prey, instead find themselves up against a sociopath who is just as determined as they are to get revenge. What began as just another rip-off of The Most Dangerous Game instead becomes a look into the world of absolute zero. There is no empathy, guilt, warmth, or mercy. The billboard invites the viewer to “find me,” but there is nothing to find.

Released in 1984, Poppers is a Spanish film and, to understand it, it helps to know a little about Spanish history. General Francisco Franco was the head of the Spanish government from 1936 to 1975. (My grandmother was born in Spain and came to the United States shortly after World War II. Growing up, I was usually the only kid in class to have encyclopedic knowledge of General Franco.) Franco died in 1975, nine years before Poppers was released. After being ruled for nearly forty years by one man, Spain’s transition from Franco’s regime to a more democratic system was not always an easy or smooth one, especially with Franco himself having been such a controversial figure. In Poppers, the hunters are the type of older rich men who presumably did what they had to do to thrive under Franco’s regime. (At least two of the hunters are gay, which was illegal in Francoist Spain, leaving one to wonder what they did to remain free and rich while so many others were being imprisoned or exiled.) Santos and Lola represent the next generation, the one that grew up largely without Franco. When they go after the hunters, they can be seen to represent the youth sweeping away the remains of Franco’s Spain. However, since neither Santos nor Lola are motivated by any ideology beyond their own self-preservation, the message seems to be that the more things change, the more they remain the same. Santos and Lola are not class warriors and they’re not political dissidents. They’re two people who are as empty as the people they’re replacing.

Poppers is an interesting and always watchable film. At times, the film’s imagery borders on the surreal. Director José María Castellví had a good eye for decadence. Ultimately, though, it’s a film that leaves you feeling uneasy. The closest thing the film has to a hero is a sociopath who takes a bit too much joy in killing. (The fact that all of the people he kills are bad does not make his demented smile any less unsettling.) The billboard asks us to look, but all we see is a world defined by absolute zero.

The Guest, Short Film Review by Case Wright


This short was really well done. It had some scary moments and great comedy. This filmmaker has some real talent.

A woman gets a cursed painting from old woman and the painting houses an evil spirit who likes to mock the main character. I highly recommend this short. It is so rare to be able to do this genre well that I’m going to see their other work. This is a must see!

Horror Film Review: Hollow Man (dir by Paul Verhoeven)


In the 2000 film Hollow Man, Kevin Bacon stars as Sebastian Caine. Sebastian is a brilliant scientist who has created a serum that, when taken, will turn someone invisible. It’s quite an accomplishment, but you get the feeling that no one’s particularly happy about Sebastian being the one who discovered it. That’s because Sebastian is an arrogant narcissist who is not only a bit of a perv but who also listens to terrible prog rock whenever he’s driving around town. As I’m sure I’ve mentioned in the past, I am firmly of the opinion that progressive rock is the music of evil people, and no film makes that argument clearer than Hollow Man.

Having already successfully tested the serum on a gorilla, Sebastian decides to take the experiment a step further and take the serum himself. Soon, Sebastian is invisible. At first, Sebastian is content to play mean but ultimately harmless pranks on his colleagues, but soon his behavior grows worse and worse. Is the serum causing Sebastian to lose his mind, or has being invisible allowed Sebastian to reveal his true self? It’s not easy to say, because Sebastian was hardly a likable guy before he took the serum. He’s always been a jerk and, even before taking the serum, he was already obsessed with both his ex-girlfriend Sarah (Elisabeth Shue) and his next-door neighbor (Rhona Mitra). What is certain is that Sebastian soon becomes addicted to his invisibility. Whenever the serum wears off, he resents the tests that his colleagues put him through. The invisible man starts to stalk and kill his colleagues.

Oh, this film. Hollow Man is an update of The Invisible Man, but it doesn’t quite work. The first time that I saw this movie, I thought it seemed to be excessively mean-spirited, but I figured that, since it was a Paul Verhoeven film, there had to be some sort of satiric subtext to all of the blood and the sexual violence. But then I read an interview with Verhoeven where he said that Hollow Man was the most impersonal of his American films and that it was also a film that he felt any director could have made. Verhoeven said that making the film was such a discouraging experience for him that, despite the film’s box office success, it still inspired him to leave Hollywood and return to Europe.

The film is relentlessly cruel. The actors who play Sebastian’s colleagues — Shue, Josh Brolin, Joey Slotnick, Kim Dickens, Greg Grunberg, Mary Randle, and William Devane — are all likable, but they’re also stuck playing stock characters who have to do stupid things so that they can be in a position to die in the most gruesome ways possible. (The scene where Grunberg’s neck starts spurting blood is particularly grotesque.) With the exception of a scene where an invisible Sebastian drives around Los Angeles, there’s very little of Verhoeven’s trademark wit. Perhaps if this film were a low-budget grindhouse film, it would be more fun. As it is, the admittedly effective special effects just leave you wondering if any of that money could have been spent on a better script.

It’s also hard to watch Kevin Bacon play such an unlikable character. It’s not that Bacon can’t play villains. It’s just that he projects such a down-to-earth, blue-collar attitude that he feels miscast as a mad scientist. Sometimes, he seems to be trying too hard in the role. If there’s anything that we should have learned from Flatliners, it’s that Kiefer Sutherland should play the mad scientist while Kevin Bacon plays the guy who understands how dangerous an uncontrolled experiment can be. Bacon should have been the one saying, “You’re going to make yourself invisible? Are you stupid or something?”

Hollow Man is ultimately a hollow film.

Horror on the Lens: Night of the Ghouls (dir by Edward D. Wood, Jr.)


In 1959’s Night of the Ghouls, con man Dr. Alcula (Kenne Duncan) moves into Bela Lugosi’s old mansion and pretends to talk to the dead.  What Alcula doesn’t realize is that the house is actually haunted (by Tor Johnson’s Lobo, among others) and real ghosts don’t appreciate pretend ghosts.

What can you say about a film like of Night of the Ghouls?  It’s an Ed Wood film, with all that suggests.  However, how can you resist a film that starts with Criswell sitting up in his coffin and providing commentary?

The role of Dr. Alcula was originally written for Bela Lugosi.  After Lugosi’s death, veteran actor and longtime Wood friend Kenne Duncan got the role instead.  Also of note, Wood appears twice in this film.  Not only does his picture appear on a wanted poster in the police station but Wood also plays one of the ghouls.

Horror Song of the Day: Main Title Theme From Alien By Jerry Goldsmith


Today, the Shattered Lens wishes a happy birthday to the one and only Sigourney Weaver.  Seen here with Jonesy the Cat, Weaver will always be best-remembered for bringing to life Ellen Ripley and totally revolutionizing both horror and science fiction!

Today’s song of the day comes from Jerry Goldsmith’s iconic score for Alien.

Horror Scenes That I Love: Lynda Day George Goes To Pieces


This scene comes from the 1982 film, Pieces.  It’s not easy find an appropriate scene to share from Pieces, or at least a scene that I can share without this site getting in trouble.  Just about every scene in the movie features either nudity or really bloody violence.  It’s probably nothing that would shock our wonderfully jaded readers but still….

But then there’s this scene right here.  Now, in order to understand what’s happening here, you should keep in mind that Lynda Day George is playing an undercover cop who also happens to be a tennis pro.  She’s been assigned to the local college.  Her job is to figure out who is using a chainsaw to kill all of the students.  Unfortunately, she sucks at her job so she has to get this kinda nerdy college student to help her out.

Anyway, after a fun-filled morning of playing tennis and not looking for the killer, they’ve just discovered a dead body in the showers.  Yes, the killer has struck again and …. well, it was really messy.  Speaking as someone who appreciates a clean house and a carefully organized day, I can relate to the reaction below.

4 Shots From 4 Horror Films: October 8th


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!

4 Shots From 4 Horror Films

West of Zanzibar (1928, dir by Tod Browning, DP: Percy Hilburn)

Dracula (1931, dir by Tod Browning. DP: Karl Freund)

Frankenstein (1931, dir by James Whale, DP: Arthur Edeson)

The Invisible Man (1933, dir by James Whale, DP: Arthur Edeson)

Thoughts On The Culture — 10/8/26


Photography by Erin Nicole

Happy Horrorthon

Hello and welcome to Day 8 of our annual October Horrorthon. I hope everyone is enjoying the horror content that we’ve offered so far. There’s a lot more to come! I was being somewhat flippant when I originally said that I was hoping for 1,000 October posts this year, but still, October is traditionally the month that brings out the site’s prolific side. One of the more interesting things about the horror genre is that there has always been a demand for it. People have always been in the mood for a good scare. Perhaps it helps them deal with reality. If I can handle seeing something scary on a screen, I can handle seeing it on a street corner as well.

I Blame American Horror Story

That said, I do have to say that I worry horror is becoming too “respectable” for its own good. When I was growing up, horror films got terrible reviews and were hated by parents. Today, they get nominated for Oscars, and horror filmmakers are given glowing write-ups in glossy magazines. That just doesn’t feel right to me. The best horror tended to be subversive, rebellious, and fearfully fun, and I fear that’s something that has been lost in this age of “elevated” horror.

Personally, I blame American Horror Story. Ryan Murphy’s deathless series normalized the idea of horror as something you watch in your living room with your family, as opposed to something you watch with all the lights out and the sound turned down so you don’t get in trouble. I’ve always felt that American Horror Story was essentially a horror show that was made by people who think that they’re better than the genre. We’re meant to be impressed that American Horror Story has a political and cultural subtext, as if that weren’t true of thousands of horror productions released before AHS aired its first episode. We’re supposed to be impressed that Jessica Lange and Sarah Paulson are willing to do horror, while ignoring all of the truly talented actors who worked exclusively in the genre before them.

Probably the worst thing that could have happened to the genre was American Horror Story winning that first Emmy for Best Limited Series. True horror doesn’t need awards.

In Praise of Older Movies

With all the controversy surrounding AI, I will say that, speaking for myself, I will always prefer movies with human beings, and I will always prefer practical effects to CGI. I think that’s reflected in the movies that I choose to review. I prefer older movies, and it worries me that those classics are running the risk of being forgotten.

That’s why I’m going to keep reviewing and promoting older films. I’m going to keep watching It’s a Wonderful Life every time it airs, because I know that, as soon as the ratings slip, NBC will use it as an excuse to yank it and replace it with Caroling With Celebs or something similar. And I am going to hold onto my physical media and keep it safe. That doesn’t mean that good films can’t be make use of AI, though I do think that it’s something that will work better for short films than for feature length productions. But my heart will always be with movies starring real people and shot in real locations and I’ll always admire the ingenuity of low-budget filmmakers who managed to make a compelling movie while spending very little money.

In the end, I think the future of AI in the film industry will depend on whether or not the studios feel that they can increase their profits by using it. That’s just the way things work. That said, I also think that there’s something a little bit boring about the inauthentic perfection of Tilly Norwood, and hopefully audiences will agree.

Who Are These People?

I’ve noticed that films are now being advertised with pull quotes taken from Letterboxd and other social media reviews. At the risk of being a snob, that really bothers me. I don’t know who any of these people are. Why should I care what they think about a movie? In the advertising for Backrooms, a Letterboxd user is quoted as saying, “Horror fans are eating good.” What does that even mean? Why should I be impressed that someone couldn’t even come up with something original to say?

Is That It?

That’s it! I hope everyone continues to enjoy Horrorthon and that this October is a great one for you!