B-Movie Appraisal: Dementia 13 (The Haunted and the Hunted) (1963)

Francis Coppola? Francis FORD Coppola? Seriously, you did The Godfather and Apocalypse Now, but started out with this? I admire that. I also think it makes a ton of sense (since I dislike most of your movies), but I really do respect that. I think all great filmmakers should start with sci-fi or horror movies. They're simple to make, but incredibly difficult to make well. They hone skills that can be valuable in much more complex movies, are good for up-and-coming filmmakers to chip their teeth on, and will never be critical darlings so most will have free reign or a good amount of control on their project. These are all positives and one of the reason why so many GREAT directors started with horror or sci-fi movies.

Anyway, Dementia 13 was written and directed by Francis Coppola, his third movie directed and first real "actual" movie. I guess his first two "movies" were skin flicks or nudie flicks or whatever, but I've never seen them nor heard of them before I read about them existing for this review. It goes to show how far somebody can go to become one of the best known directors of all time. It also goes to show that he had some talent directing even in his early days. Because yes, this movie had definite talent behind it, even if it isn't the best flick there ever was.

I guess I should start out saying that this is an early 1960s movie, and, as such, is largely not very scary at all. Mostly it comes off as a rip-off (of a sort) of Psycho, which was made just a few short years before. Since Roger Corman produced this flick, I would have to say that it was definitely meant to cash in on this new-found and, at the time, newly popular genre of movie. That being said, as a cash-in, it still is a fairly solid slasher-lite B-movie with a bunch of hiccups that work against the feel of the movie but serve the obviously limited budget and production costs... and most notably the censorship that this movie also very obviously had to work around. Let it be known that while it was on its way out the Hayes Code was still strictly in effect. And yet the movie works around those codes very decently, creating a disjointed movie, sure, but an enjoyably disjointed movie. One of the biggest hiccups is the actual flow of the story and plot. The editing is odd, barely showing a coherent plot throughout, with a greater focus on jumping around in the narrative and showing more psychological elements of the characters. At least I think that was what was going on. The film's stiff attitude towards progression in the story is the biggest issue that holds it back from being either memorable or "good" in any modern sense of that word.

I know that this movie probably very mixed in both thoughts and feelings about it. To me it was a highly mediocre film with some good moments, especially considering when it was made. The fact that characters, fleshed-out and interesting characters, die both early and often is enough to convey that the movie is interesting and also a Psycho rip-off. I have to point that out because it is so obvious. (Also because it is historical record.) I don't have all that much to say about this film either. While it is well-directed, with every shot looking nice and leading up to something, the disjointed nature of the jumps of scenes and the character movements left me feeling very confused at times and, honestly, a little bored as well. That's never a good thing with a horror film. And it's especially bad for a film that seems to have a great deal of somewhat ridiculous filler already.

The plot of the film is simple: three brothers come back to their ancestral castle-home to reenact the funeral of their little sister who died years ago. Their mother insists upon it and refuses to let anybody else but herself and her three sons come to the ceremony. Things go awry early when one of the brothers (John) decides to go boating with his wife Louise. They are having a heated conversation about his mother's will, mocks his wife, then promptly has a heart-attack and dies. Louise disposes of the body and acts like nothing happened but John being called back home on business. As the movie progresses, Louise is intent on gaining the mother's fortune, trying to trick her into believing her daughter's spirit still roams the halls of the castle. She is found out and killed. Then a grubby little man-hunter finds her body and is killed as well. Louise was at the center of most of the first half of the movie, but her death, reminiscent of Janet Leigh's death is Psycho begins the disjointed narrative issues.

Having no central character left the narrative begins to follow four different characters: the two remaining brothers, Richard and Billy, the family doctor, Dr. Caleb, and Kane, the engaged of Richard. Watching them all try to figure it all out is a confusing mess. The focus is on Richard being the killer for most of the second half of the movie, even though Billy seems to be having flashbacks of the day his sister died, which psychologically implicate him. There are subplots with a grave at the bottom of a pond and a wax dummy of Kathleen that both serve as clues or weird pieces of evidence, but neither really is all that important.

Dr. Caleb figures it out, places Kathleen's dummy out in the open, lures Billy who attempts to kill Kane who wants to touch the dummy really badly for some reason. Billy is then shot dead by Dr. Caleb the hero of the story, and that's that. I mean, simple enough, I guess... or really odd, confusing, and overly complex at times.

I did like how the killer could have been either of the two brothers even if it was fairly obvious who it was from fairly early on. Of course it would be the troubled brother, without anybody in his life, who obvious has some psychological issues who would be the one to be the murderer. Obviously. Still, there were moments when I thought it would all be a huge misdirection, and the silhouetted killer was obviously in shadow to show that it maybe could have been either of them. I liked how that worked even with the obvious nature of how it all turned out. There was tension there, maybe not the greatest tension, but tension nonetheless.

I had issues with the idea that there really isn't a main character, just a collection of side ones. While Dr. Caleb kind of comes off as the main character towards the end of the film, he doesn't even appear in the first half at all. It was difficult to connect with the characters as well. None of them were people. They all very much came off as characters in a play, which was disheartening.

It's not a bad movie, not a good one either though. And yet, I'm not certain whose product I'm seeing on screen. Did Corman cut the production to his specifications? Or did Coppola have basically full control? The movie, while a mess, is both well shot, and very odd in the way it cuts to different (and sometimes inexplicable) scenes at the drop of a hat. The focus on characters and their faces is interesting, but also clearly ripped off of Psycho. I think the movie is ultimately an interesting mess of a movie.

But still I have a few questions. Why is it called Dementia 13? Does the title mean something I don't understand? I don't think I see dementia at all in the film. Nor the number 13. So... yeah, the title is incredibly flawed. Okay, and here's the biggest and most important question at all: why do the brothers not have Irish accents? It takes place in Ireland. They were supposedly raised there unless I missed something important. So, why did they all talk like Americans? It was incredibly distracting. They had the castle and had lived there as young children, it seems, but no accent. Man, that was a problem for me. I just couldn't look past it, specifically because other character have very strong accents. Wow.

So, I have a middling opinion about this movie. Check it out if you like old horror movies. If you don't just forget about it and try something else. I can't really recommend it as anything more than an interesting look at an early slasher movie, and not a particularly good or interesting one at that.

B-Movie Appraisal: Plaguers (2008)

The cheapest movie you will ever see.

So. This is something, let me tell you. This here is a movie among many other movies. It is a horror film. It is, in a word, something. I can't say if it's a good something or a bad something. All I can say is that it is something and leave it at that. I call this a B-movie as well, even though it isn't necessarily such because of the acting, the way the movie is shot, and, mostly, because it absolutely is. Unlike many of the movies that I review that are put into this October month of reviews, this one is wholly terrible. It rips of Alien and Aliens so bad it is actually physically painful. There is nothing good in this movie. There is no dialogue that is worth your time, money, or effort. There are no characters that are going to give you new thoughts and motivations throughout your life. There are, in fact, no redeeming features of this movie. It is, quite possibly, the worst horror movie I have ever seen. I would even go so far as to say it definitely is the worst horror movie I've seen, even worse than those crappy Japanese horror movies I review sometimes while I sigh and hate myself.

And yet.

I think I must have something wrong going on in my head. I think I must be seriously deranged and damaged. Because despite all the negatives about this film (and the film is nothing but negatives remember) I had a goddamn great time watching this movie. Its effects are laughable. The "zombies" or plague victims or whatever are laughable. The acting is literally almost painful. The script is terrible. The premise is simply awful. But there is something under the surface that makes it interesting despite the fact that it is a movie made of flaws. It is an enjoyable trainwreck.

Is it ever scary? No.

Will you ever have nightmares over the gore, the make-up, the situations, or anything else? No. Nothing is scary. The characters are never fleshed out enough to be interesting. The dialogue is so wooden and flat that it sounds like these "actors" for the most part are just reading off of a half-finished script. Steve Railsback is good as the android character. I'll give the movie that. It did have one legitimately decent actor in it.

But I think calling this movie terrible goes against all of my instincts. Is a movie terrible if it still entertains? Is it terrible when it is absolutely memorable? Yes, everything about this movie is bad. But at the same time I was never bored, never uninterested. Hell, I watched some scenes more than once simply because I wanted to laugh at them again. And some scenes played twice in the movie because the editing was literally that terrible. I'm looking at you, scene(s) where Riley's chest gets pulled open. The same shot of his rip-cage being exposed twice? Wow, movie. Did you really think I wouldn't notice? You must have. And yet, I still loved it.

There must be something wrong with me.

I will say that you'll know exactly what you're getting into in the first scene. Oh boy is that opening scene terrible. As soon as you see that you'll know what this movie is. It's schlock, pure and simple. It's a "horror" movie with terrible dialogue, terrible acting, sexy women because why not, an android because if they're going to try and rip-off Alien thirty years after the fact they'd better damn well use an android. Who is even going to notice? Besides everyone?

Oops, I meant to say syndroid there. Syndroid. Yeah.

There are moments of actual interest to me as a human. I think there is something to be said of each female character being strong in various ways and each male character being weak in various ways. The women are the strength of this movie and the male characters are paperthin and very horny caricatures of what a man might look and act like if sex were the only thing on his mind constantly.Which some might argue is completely true. I simply found that interesting. The male characters are in the background, with only Tarver the android (not really male) being interesting or compelling in any way. The rest of the characters who are interesting are all female. The captain who is the tough one. The psychotic pirate. The pirate who wants to be in charge. And... yeah... I'm sure there are others.

This movie makes me need a drink.

Any movie I've complained about before is nothing compared to this. This is the single worst horror movie I've ever seen. Why I enjoyed it I will never know. Why I can complain about and hate The Innkeepers and like this movie I will never know. That movie was at least shot competently and for its budget. This movie was not. And yet I liked this movie so much more. It had so much more to offer despite crappy visuals and everything else. It never talked down to me or asked a ton from me at all. It was a gory fun stupid horror film. I mean, no, it was never scary, but it had some life to it.

I don't know. I don't even know where to start. Or end. Or whatever. I guess the story is about these spaceship people who take aboard a mysterious object they found one day. They thought it was heading to a planet named Thanatos. Don't ever call a planet Thanatos. Seriously. You're just asking for trouble. Why it was called Thanatos nobody will ever know. Because that place has been dead for two years. Thanatos. Ugh. WHY? (For people who don't know Greek, Thanatos mean Death, usually in reference to the personification of Death.)

Anyway, these spaceship people find another spaceship in need of help. On board that ship they find four "gorgeous" women who appear dirty and awkward in terms of acting. These women turn out to be pirates who activate the zombie effects of the mysterious device. Then everybody turns into an awkward zombie (and some are awkward alien zombies for some... reason that none of us will ever understand). And that's it.

I have no idea what to say about this movie. I thought it was really something. While terrible in every way, it made me laugh. I had a good time watching it, and I get the feeling that watching this movie with friends would be really enjoyable. It's never scary or horrific, but it is substantially gory. There's no nudity even though parts of the movie look exactly like what a porn film looks like. You know, those stereotypical bad porn films about the pizza man coming into the house awkwardly asking to show the barely dressed bored woman his big sausage or whatever they do these days. Yeah, with how this movie was shot, I was literally expecting that. Anyway, we have Brad Sykes to thank for the way this movie was filmed and directed. I guess, good job? I have no idea. I said way too much about this movie already.

B-Movie Appraisal: Galaxy of Terror (1981)

In taking some time to research this movie I found that a clip of this film is on a DVD entitled "The 50 Worst Films Ever Made." This is so untrue that I don't even know how to take that seriously at all. Roger Corman certainly has a stigma for his movies, but this Roger Corman directed space horror film is not even a slightly bad film. It is a very good film. Yes, there is some roughness around the edges, the acting isn't always stellar, the sets and creatures are kind of ridiculous looking at times, and the plot leaves a lot to be desired, but this movie works very well for what it is.

And what it is is B-movie schlock. Or that's what it should be. That's what people think it is. That's what it's promoted as. That's where this movie's heart lies. But in reality it works really well as something other than just a crappy horror film. It has a heart to it, and that really makes all the difference in the world. It seems like the people involved actually cared about this film, obviously to varying degrees, but the attention to characters and details and just the quality that came out of this movie shows the quality of care put into it. I don't usually talk about stuff like this with movies, but it's impossible not to with this one. It works in so many more ways than I would have expected, being both subtle and different than many other things I have seen. It has visceral imagery and scenes (and gore effects in those scenes) that work a heck of a lot better than I would have ever thought they could. The movie even looks better (with a few obvious exceptions) than a lot of CGI effects from newer movies. I find that fascinating how something like this can actually look better than newer movies too. It's pretty neat. The worst effect in the movie is arguably the one that should have looked better, the Master's glowing face. I have no idea what a master is and why he has a red lightbulb for a head, but there it is, and it isn't a good effect.

As for characters, most of them are well done. Each has his or her own strengths and weaknesses, and the acting of each and every character carries some emotional depth if not the stellar acting capabilities of a Grade A film. Special mention goes out to Robert Englund as Ranger, Grace Zabriskie as the ship's captain, Trantor, and Taaffe O'Connell as Dameia. Robert Englund shows his acting chops before becoming famous for portraying Freddy Krueger in the Friday the 13th series of movies. He comes off as intelligent and willing to do anything to survive. He's the first character who survives his fear. Grace Zabriskie is fantastic as a captain who has clearly lost whatever sense she had. She very definitely has PTSD,and her acting may very well be the best in the movie. Taaffe O'Connell is an honorable mention because of the famous scene she has, the worm rape scene, which may in fact be the sole reason that the movie was so badly received. The other actors all do a fine job with Edward Albert, Erin Moran from Happy Days fame, and Ray Walston as the lead characters, but they don't go over and above in their acting like the three I mentioned previously do.

The movie's premise is basically that the ship Quest is sent to the planet Morganthus for the purpose of rescuing a crew stranded on the planet. The crew is found to be dead, but the Quest is stranded on the planet until all the bodies are recovered... or something. Anyway, the planet has a weird effect of showing the characters their worst fears and then killing them with those fears. That's the main premise of the film, and each character has to either survive their fears, mastering their own mind, or succumb to their fears. Later it is learned that the entire planet is a trial and a test to find the next Master. The story is pretty simple, but works quite well.

I enjoyed this movie a lot. The famous worm rape scene was probably the hardest part to watch, but most of the film has some great effects. The gore is well done. The costumes are pretty good. The ship looks good. The environments look good. The actors are good. Hell, there is little about this movie that I would say is bad. I have no idea how this movie found its way on a list of the worst of all time. I'm sure I can name way too many movies that I've seen even semi-recently that are so much worse than this one. I can't even think of negative things to really even point out. Most of the movie is quality inside and out. I have to recommend this film, especially if you like the B-movie styled films, but even if you don't it's a pretty good movie to watch. Not too many scares really, but the gore and the effects will certainly be enough to show a pretty good adventure.