Inferno (1980)

Dario Argento

Irene Miracle - Rose Elliott
Leigh McCloskey - Mark Elliott
Eleonora Giorgi - Sara
Daria Nicolodi - Elise De Longvalle Adler
Sasha Pitoeff - Kazanian
Alida Valli - Carol
Feodor Chaliapin Jr. - Varelli
Veronica Lazar - The Nurse
Gabriele Lavia - Carlo
Ania Pieroni - Music Student

Genre - Horror/Supernatural/Witchcraft

Running Time - 107 Minutes

In New York City, Rose Elliott (Irene Miracle) buys a book called The Three Mothers - a book that details how the author (Feodor Chaliapin Jr.) built houses for three powerful witches known as The Three Mothers. One of these houses was created for Mater Suspiriorum [The Mother of Sighs] in Germany, seen in 1977’s SUSPIRIA. After reading and figuring out the clues, Rose realizes that her apartment is a building built for Mater Tenebrarum [The Mother of Darkness]. Her knowledge, unfortunately, leads to her death by a mysterious person.

Before Rose’s death, however, she wrote and sent a letter to her brother Mark (Leigh Mccloskey), who is studying abroad in Rome. Realizing that his sister is missing and in trouble, Mark arrives in New York to investigate. What he encounters are a series of supernatural events that lead to a bunch of murders within or around the apartment building that may make him a victim of The Three Mothers.

In the 1970s, Italian maestro Dario Argento could do no wrong. Films like THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE, DEEP RED, and especially 1977’s SUSPIRIA brought a lot of attention to Italian horror from all over the world. The success of SUSPIRIA in the US market inspired Argento to quickly capitalize on it with a sequel titled INFERNO, the second part of a proposed trilogy that would showcase each of the Three Mothers. 20th Century Fox, riding high from SUSPIRIA, quickly offered to co-finance the production [along with Italian and German consortia] with a budget of $3 million. Co-writer, actress, and then-Argento flame Daria Nicolodi was inspired by her stay at Central Park for the film’s main setting, while legendary Italian horror director Mario Bava, Lamberto Bava, and William Lustig helped fill in during production to create a good atmosphere and finish shooting scenes when Argento fell ill during production.

INFERNO was released in 1980 in the United States in a very limited theatrical release, which was the total opposite of SUSPIRIA’s release. Apparently, Fox had a change of management at the time, leaving INFERNO’s fate in limbo. The film, outside of Italy, was pretty much unseen until 1985, where it finally went straight to video. The reception at the time wasn’t all that positive, leading to Argento waiting to finish the trilogy in 2007 with THE MOTHER OF TEARS. While the reception of INFERNO has grown more positive over the years, it’s easy to see why this sequel isn’t as beloved as SUSPIRIA. It’s also not as strong as Argento’s earlier films, or later works, such as 1982’s TENEBRE, 1985’s PHENOMENA [aka CREEPERS] and 1986’s OPERA.

That’s not to say that INFERNO doesn’t have great things going for it. The direction, mostly by Dario Argento, is fairly solid and what you would expect from the Italian maestro. If you loved the style of SUSPIRIA, INFERNO will be right up your alley. Like the previous film, the lighting and colors pop extremely well, with many scenes shot in vibrant reds, blues, and greens. In fact, several scenes seem to have been taken right from SUSPIRIA, just with different actors involved. One example is Eleonora Giorgi sitting in a cab as the rain downpours around her, shot in red and blue lighting. It’s totally reminiscent of Jessica Harper’s Suzy at the beginning of SUSPIRIA. It’s a nice throwback that fans will pick up. Same with the film’s final act, which is a shorter play at SUSPIRIA’s ending, but still very effective and fun to watch. Like with many of Argento’s works, the direction comes across as surreal, elegant, and awkwardly titillating when you least expect it. That being said, one of the film’s best scenes wasn’t even directed by Argento. The gorgeous opening sequence involving Irene Miracle diving into a water hole in a cellar, leading to a corpse floating right by to frighten her, was shot by Mario Bava after Argento had fallen ill with hepatitis. It’s well crafted, as the scene slowly builds to that reveal for our first scare. Regardless of who directed what, INFERNO is visually stylish as one would expect.

Adding to the awesome visual presentation are the perverse death sequences that only Argento could picture in his head. The guillotine death, with the use of a window being slammed over a victim’s throat, is pretty brutal. Another person gets stabbed viciously before being mauled to death by a group of cats. And probably my favorite kill - a crippled man falling into water by a sewer [in order to drown cats in a bag], only to get attacked by hungry rats before getting stabbed in the neck multiple times. It may be overkill, but it’s pure Argento and I love it. We also get bizarre imagery, like women hanging, paper dolls getting decapitated, and beautiful women creating a wind and sound distraction in a lecture room. None of these things seem to connect to anything, but the imagery is bizarre and somewhat creepy. Honestly, the direction and visual presentation for INFERNO are the best things about the film.

Another highlight is the musical score. Unlike many of Argento’s other films, INFERNO is not scored by Claudio Simonetti of Goblin fame. Instead, the musical duties were given to Keith Emerson of prog rock group Emerson, Lake, and Palmer. While not as memorable as Simonetti’s themes, Emerson provides a nice rock and synthesizer score that reflects the turn of the decade from the 1970s to the 1980s. I do think that the music wasn’t used in the proper moments in some cases, creating a jarring effect that hurt these scenes more than help them. Watching a woman sit in a taxi shouldn’t have an upbeat, high-energy rockin’ tune going with it, especially when it hasn’t earned that and only makes the moment silly rather than poignant. And some of the suites are a bit hokey at times. But for the most part, the score works and I liked it. It’s one of the few things that set it apart from SUSPIRIA, so I’m okay with it.

The acting is pretty okay as well. I thought Daria Nicolodi did a good job as Elise, a tenant inside the cursed building that Mater Tenebrarum controls. She’s obviously comfortable working for Argento due to their personal relationship. Plus, she co-wrote the film and knows where her character is coming from. She doesn’t get a whole lot to do, but she’s always a welcome presence. Sasha Pitoeff is also fun to watch as Kazanian, the bookstore owner. His hatred of cats and how it ended up leading to his fate was handled well, and Pitoeff is great through it all. I also thought Feodor Chaliapin Jr. was great in his short role as Varelli, the author of The Three Mothers. I did feel that Leigh McCloskey wasn’t the most captivating male lead in the world and he doesn’t even get to do a whole lot until the film’s final act. His performance was kind of bland in my opinion, but it’s not a performance that ruins a film. I think the acting is much stronger in other popular Argento films, but it’s still pretty good for the most part.

My real issue with INFERNO is the film’s story. Argento’s films have always been more style than substance, even with his classic gialli and supernatural films having flawed storytelling that you can forgive because it’s a fun ride getting to the film’s conclusion. Unfortunately, INFERNO can be a bit of a chore to sit through at times because the way the plot is presented is really disjoined. The film takes place at multiple locations, going back and forth between them as the narrative plays out until the film’s final reveal. There’s nothing wrong with this - that is if we had characters we could care about. Besides Mark, Rose and Sara, the other characters appear in and out without much character development. Some of them just seem to be in the film in order to die a vicious death. That’s great for a slasher film, but not for a supernatural movie that’s the sequel to a classic. In fact, we’re not even really sure why Mater Tenebrarum would even want to deal with these unlikeable people. What’s her purpose? It’s not like killing these people adds to anything she may be planning. When she finally appears, it doesn’t make much of an impression because the storytelling is all over the place. The mystery and the journey solving it should have been stronger. Maybe it’s because Argento fell ill during the production, or because he felt pressure in topping SUSPIRIA. But INFERNO could, and should, have been better than it is if there was more going on in the narrative. There’s definitely an interesting idea underneath INFERNO and it presents itself during the film’s best moments. It’s just a shame it’s not expressed better. I think even if it had a wider release back in 1980, fans probably would have left wanting more.

While not as strong of a film as SUSPIRIA, INFERNO still manages to be a good watch for anyone who is into Italian horror. It’s also a decent continuation of The Three Mothers trilogy started in SUSPIRIA. The film has a lot going for it - great kills, that beautiful Argento visual style, and cool music by Keith Emerson that probably could have been used better at certain points in the film. Unfortunately, the story is all over the place. The characters are weak and things seem to happen in order to fill a gap needed to move the story along. That being said, INFERNO has a ton of atmosphere and a vibe that is sometimes missing in horror films. INFERNO is a classic Argento film that works more than it doesn’t, making it worth a look if you’re a fan of the man’s work.

3 Howls Outta 4


Midnight Confessions 2018 Reunion Special: Halloween (2018)

A Midnight Confessions reunion! Reverend Phantom, Moronic Mark and myself recently got together and talked about the new HALLOWEEN movie and more! Check it out!


Venom (2018)

Ruben Fleischer

Tom Hardy - Eddie Brock/Venom
Michelle Williams - Anne Weying
Riz Ahmed - Carlton Drake/Riot
Jenny Slate - Dr. Dora Skirth
Reid Scott - Dr. Dan Lewis

Genre - Action/Horror/Sci-Fi/Comic Books

Running Time - 112 Minutes

When Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) acquires the powers of a symbiote, he will have to release his alter-ego “Venom” to save his life.

Even after the terrible usage in SPIDER-MAN 3 and the licensing of Spider-Man from their studio to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Sony decided to continue with their “Spidey-Verse” with the release of VENOM - a solo venture featuring one of Spider-Man’s more famous foes and resident anti-hero of the Marvel Universe in general. While the lack of Spider-Man involved in Venom’s origin left me feeling less than motivated to watch, the casting of Tom Hardy as Eddie Brock did leave me intrigued as I’m a fan of his work. But you know me - I’m going to watch any comic book related movie in a theater, so VENOM was always going to be on my radar. I wasn’t expecting much out of the film and the bad reviews didn’t help to persuade me that I was going to waste my money watching this. And while VENOM is definitely mediocre and forced at times at what it’s trying to accomplish, I couldn’t help but enjoy myself throughout. It definitely has serious issues, but I thought VENOM was more fun than it had any right to be.

The main reason VENOM may be worth a recommendation for superhero genre fans is for Tom Hardy as Eddie Brock. Hardy seems to be really enjoying himself in the role, acting like a schizophrenic with an alien voice in his head while doing some cool stunt work. He also plays Eddie like a human being, flawed and all, wanting the big scoops as an investigative reporter that end up costing him not only his job, but the love of his life in the process. The human moments for the character seem to be where Hardy thrives the best, creating a three-dimensional character that we can identify with and support throughout the film. And when he actually becomes Venom, his behavior becomes more erratic and he has hilarious dialogue with his alien counterpart. Hardy could have phoned it in for a paycheck, but you can tell he’s one-hundred percent invested in giving us a great performance and to lead a franchise. He definitely made me forget about Topher Grace’s unfortunate performance from eleven years ago.

And while the screenplay isn’t anything to write home about and the direction as generic as they come when it comes to this genre, at least both aspects are memorable enough to be entertaining. Whether it’s in a good or a bad way, that’s up to the viewer. But I friggin’ had a blast at the cheesy dialogue, the silly action sequences, the better-than-expected special effects [Venom and the symbiotes looked cool], and the hammy acting by everyone involved. It felt like a B-movie from a different era and I was more than okay with that. Sometimes I don’t want to think while watching a film, and VENOM allows that in spades.

VENOM is nowhere close to perfect though. The story itself is totally contrived and cliche, the dialogue is ridiculous a lot of the time, and the villain is stereotypical as hell [the idea to recreate the world in his own image like a God] even though he starts off more interesting than he how he ends off. Things just randomly happen without explanation, leaving one feel that there was more to this film but was edited off for some reason. As I later learned, over 40 minutes of footage was cut - I guess to save later for a blu-ray release. You can really tell, since VENOM does feel disjointed every now and then, making for a strange pace that still kind of works for some reason. And the final act is pretty weak to be honest, even if the action element was pretty okay.

I also thought some of the actors, especially Michelle Williams, seemed to be forcing her performance. I didn’t really buy her all that much and seemed to try too hard. She didn’t feel like a real character to me, but rather an archetype of the love interest that had to be inserted to give Eddie Brock some motivation. She’s definitely a better actress than what she portrays in VENOM, as she seems to having trouble trying to keep up with the comedy and with Tom Hardy. Maybe it was the material she was given. Maybe she just did the film for a paycheck. Either way, she stood out a bit because I don’t think she took the role seriously enough for most of the movie. Some of the other actors had a similar issue to varying degrees, but Williams was the most high profile.

Even with its issues, VENOM turned out better than it had any right to be. Yes, it’s not a good movie. Yes, the story is cliche, predictable, and really dumb. The obvious edits create some pacing issues and most of the actors seem to be forcing it and trying too hard. And it’s weird not having Spider-Man be part of the character’s origin, as he should be honestly. However, VENOM still manages to be an entertaining film that never bores you, regardless of its problems. And Tom Hardy is excellent as Eddie Brock, finally giving the character the portrayal we all wanted since 2007. It looks and feels like a B-movie and I had fun with it. And with the $200 million-plus worldwide gross the film has already received, we’re definitely getting more of this universe - with a long anticipated villain that will hopefully be done justice to. Not the superhero film of the year, but still worth a watch if you want something silly and dumb for two hours.

2.5 Howls Outta 4


Catch Up Reviews: Mandy (2018), Terrifier (2017) & Summer of '84 (2018)

Panos Cosmatos

Nicolas Cage - Red Miller
Andrea Riseborough - Mandy Bloom
Linus Roache - Jeremiah Sand
Bill Duke - Caruthers
Richard Brake - The Chemist
Ned Dennehy - Brother Swan
Olwen Fouere - Mother Marlene

Genre - Horror/Action/Supernatural

Running Time - 121 Minutes

PLOT (from IMDB):
Taking place in 1983, Red (Nicolas Cage) is a lumberjack who lives in a secluded cabin in the woods. His artist girlfriend Mandy (Andrea Riseborough) spends her days reading fantasy paperbacks. Then one day, she catches the eye of a crazed cult leader (Linus Roache), who conjures a group of motorcycle-riding demons to kidnap her. Red, armed with a crossbow and custom Axe, stops at nothing to get her back, leaving a bloody, brutal pile of bodies in his wake.

Following his cult 2010 arthouse horror film BEYOND THE BLACK RAINBOW, Panos Cosmatos returns with MANDY - another surreal and arthouse horror film that takes elements of rape-revenge and exploitation films to create a memorable, even if unoriginal, story. In a lot of ways, MANDY is a love-letter to late-70s/early-80s horror and exploitation. We get elements of HELLRAISER [Satanic Cenobite looking bikers], MAD MAX, PHANTASM, FRIDAY THE 13TH [Crystal Lake reference], THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE II [chainsaw battle], and so on. And the visuals are definitely inspired by works of Mario Bava and Dario Argento, with the film’s rich reds, blues, and greens that infiltrate the more dream-like scenes. The film isn’t for everyone and may test some with its slow burn first half, which leads into a crazy second half. And while unoriginal and sometimes cliche at times, MANDY still manages to leave an impression on you once its over, making this surreal nightmare resonate and leave you wanting more.

MANDY really works due to its performances, especially that of Nicolas Cage. Cage hasn’t made the best impression as an actor for a while now, but 2018 seems to be the year of his critically acclaimed comeback with both this and MOM & DAD [a film I hope to watch soon]. Cage was born to play a role like Red - a peaceful man turned crazy vengeful when his love is taken away from him in a violent way. Cage manages to do a wonderful job from going to normally subtle to batshit over-the-top - having chainsaw battles, snorting drugs, slicing throats and getting bled on like Ash from THE EVIL DEAD - Cage is in his element here. And even though Cage can be a bit much at times, it’s convincing here considering all the crap he goes through along his way towards vengeance. Andrea Riseborough is also fantastic as Mandy, giving a quiet performance that relies more on her facial expressions and body language rather than the words she says. She has a Sissy Spacek quality about her, making her a compelling presence. Linus Roache is also pretty great as cult leader Jeremiah Sand, managing to be creepy without doing a whole lot. Takes balls [pun intended] to show your pecker out there and then get laughed at, so kudos to him on his bravery and intensity. Also nice to see Bill Duke and Richard Brake make small supporting roles.

And even though it’s only a short segment, that Cheddar Goblin is truly a bizarre character. I’d like to know what drugs I need to take to create something so strange, yet memorably appealing at the same time. With the fandom it has gained, I could see this character make another appearance in another Cosmatos film. 

And any film that uses King Crimson’s “Starless” during its opening credits automatically gets approval from me. Such a wonderful song and used in the right type of film.

MANDY isn’t for everyone, so it’s a hard film to recommend to mainstream audiences. If you’re not into Lynchian storytelling and arthouse style that is inspired by Italian horror and other genre films, then this film isn’t for you. But if you want to see a pretty great Nicolas Cage performance, some trippy filmmaking in terms of visuals and storytelling, and violence shot beautifully, then MANDY may be for you. Sometimes, I feel a film like this can come across as pretty pretentious, turning me off from it. But something about MANDY had me invested from beginning to end, leaving me still thinking about it days after watching it. It’s not a perfect film, but I absolutely loved it. One of the most interesting films I’ve seen in 2018 by far and worth a look if you go into it with an open mind. The less you know about it, the better. It may surprise you.

4 Howls Outta 4

Damien Leone

Jenna Kanell - Tara
Samantha Scaffidi - Victoria
David Howard Thornton - Art the Clown
Catherine Corcoran - Dawn
Pooya Mohseni - Cat Lady
Matt McAllister - Mike the Exterminator

Genre - Horror/Slasher

Running Time - 86 Minutes

A maniacal clown (David Howard Thornton) terrorizes three young women (Jenna Kanell, Samantha Scaffidi and Catherine Corcoran) on Halloween night and everyone else who stands in his way.

With all the talk and hype about this one, TERRIFIER was a film that was majorly on my radar from the moment I heard about it. You know me - I love slasher films and I wasn’t going to miss this one as long as it was streaming on Netflix for the time being. With a cool looking killer and word-of-mouth claiming that this film was a “nod to ‘80s slashers”, I was expecting a fun nostalgic trip with TERRIFIER. And while it does have some cool moments, I felt that the hype didn’t match with TERRIFIER.

The best things about the film are, without a doubt, the gore effects and death scenes. A slasher film needs memorable and sometimes gruesome deaths, and TERRIFIER meets that requirement. The violence is pretty nasty in this film, feeling more like SAW and HOSTEL at times rather than an 80s slasher. But these effects are the highlight of TERRIFIER. We get people getting shot, slashed, stabbed through the skull, decapitations, hammers to the head - nothing all that inventive but still cool to watch unfold. And the best part is that most, if not all, of the effects are practical rather than CGI. I thought they were all done really well. Damien Leone directed a decent little slasher here that doesn’t succeed in tone, but succeeds in spirit. It’s also perfectly paced at less than 90 minutes too. Gorehounds will love the effects.

The other highlight of TERRIFIER is the film’s villain. Art the Clown, who was also featured in 2013’s ALL HALLOW’S EVE, is pretty great and extremely memorable. Never uttering a word, actor David Howard Thornton uses body language and facial expressions to convey Art’s creepy and psychotic personality. Art acts like a mime and moves around as if he was Buster Keaton or Charlie Chaplin. He stalks and stares at his victims with a glare that could send chills up and down your spine. And Art is pretty handy with weapons, making you aware that his targets don’t have much of a chance. A lot of slasher filmmakers try to create a villain that could eventually star in their own franchise, losing sight of crafting a standalone horror film just to make a business decision that could either be successful or a total failure. And while TERRIFIER isn’t a complete success, at least Damien Leone managed to create a villain that many horror fans will remember and want to see more of. I wouldn’t mind a sequel or a spinoff to TERRIFIER, as long as Art the Clown is doing his thing.

I wish I could say that I loved the other characters as much as I did the film’s villain. But when I’m indifferent to the protagonists and feel more for the killer, that’s a problem I can’t overlook. Even in those franchise with the classic horror villains, you still had heroes that you could root for and identify with. I was unable to do that with TERRIFIER. The characters have no depth. They’re not even archetypes of any kind. People just randomly show up, just to be murdered. Honestly, TERRIFIER doesn’t even have a story. There’s sort of a premise here and it tries to follow slasher film 101. But things just happen for the sake of happening. Maybe it was designed to be one of those stories where it’s just a “moment in time” rather than a character arc that has a beginning, middle, and end. But none of these characters made a lasting impression on me. I felt bad for the actors because they do a good job with what they’re given, which isn’t a whole lot.

TERRIFIER got a lot of hype for a film that probably didn’t deserve it. Sure, it has great special FX [the death scenes are pretty damn awesome] and a memorable villain in Art the Clown [David Howard Thornton is more than solid and could probably carry a franchise as this character]. But with lack of story and characters that are paper-thin and unremarkable, I can’t justify myself watching this again for a long time. Decent for what it is, but I was expecting a whole lot more than what I got. 

2.5 Howls Outta 4

François Simard
Anouk Whissell
Yoann-Karl Whissell

Graham Verchere - Davey Armstrong
Judah Lewis - Tommy “Eats” Eaton
Caleb Emery - Dale “Woody” Woodworth
Cory Gruter-Andrew - Curtis Farraday
Tiera Skovbye - Nikki Kaszuba
Rich Sommer - Wayne Mackey
Jason Gray-Stanford - Randall Armstrong

Genre - Horror/Drama/Mystery

Running Time - 105 Minutes

After suspecting that their police officer neighbor (Rich Sommer) is a serial killer, a group of teenage friends (Graham Verchere, Judah Lewis, Caleb Emery, Corey Gruter-Andrew) spend their summer spying on him and gathering evidence, but as they get closer to discovering the truth, things get dangerous.

As a sucker for anything from or inspired by the decade of excess, SUMMER OF ’84 seemed like an easy choice to watch and talk about. My eagerness to watch the film was also helped by the fact that the people behind 2015’s awesome TURBO KID were also behind this film. While not as fun and colorful as TURBO KID, SUMMER OF ’84 is a more mature and grounded entry in the filmography of Simard, Whissell, and Whissell. I don’t think it’s as good or memorable as the earlier film, but still a worthy watch nonetheless.

My issues with SUMMER OF ’84 really stems from the film’s pacing. I enjoy a slow burn, but SUMMER OF ’84 really does take a while to get going. But when it does, it’s great - in particular, the final act is well-done and surprising at points. But I felt that nostalgia weighed the film down in the first hour. Instead of really moving the story along, SUMMER OF ’84 was more focused on sharing its inspirations. I’m always down for a film that’s a little bit of STAND BY ME, THE ‘BURBS, THE GOONIES, and any other ‘80s film that dealt with children living in the suburbs and suspecting evil people and things happening right under their noses. But you also have to keep the audience interested by telling a story that moves along faster than a snails pace. I almost fell asleep during this one at one point because there was too much nostalgia and dialogue-heavy moments, when I wanted more mystery and investigation over whether the neighbor really was a serial killer or not. Maybe I was looking for something different in the film than some others, but too much character development can be a bad thing as well.

I will say that when the film focuses on the investigation by the teenagers in the neighborhood, SUMMER OF ’84 is a lot of fun and downright creepy at times. The mystery isn’t so much of a mystery, but a case of whether Officer Wayne Mackey is a serial killer or not. Through REAR WINDOW spying and breaking into Mackey’s home, we slowly learn the truth. And this is where the film shines, as it’s a simple investigation that allows character growth and a mystery to be answered in a really dark manner. All of the characters are well defined and share realistic relationships with each other and the neighborhood. In a lot of ways, the protagonists seem to be majorly inspired by Stephen King’s Loser Club from the novel “It”. You have the brave leader, the smart one, the overweight one, the outsider, and the girl-next-door who comes from a broken family and finds a new one with the mentioned teenage boys. The characters are fleshed out and you care about them as they struggle with the idea that someone in their neighborhood could be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Even the adults are well fleshed out, including our suspect. He’s a well respected cop in the neighborhood and seems like a great guy. But is he really? And watching the kids get spooked by the strange things he does also makes the viewer wonder if the kids are on to something, or if they’re just paranoid. And with a chaotic final act and an ending that could possibly justify a sequel of some sort, SUMMER OF ’84 has things going for it - even if it takes its sweet time getting there.

The direction by Simard, Whissell, and Whissell captures the time frame very well, wearing the inspirations on the film’s sleeve. While a slow burn, the film never feels longer than it is and keeps you interested in the end result. Unlike TURBO KID, SUMMER OF ’84 is a more muted and grounded affair - yet still trying to maintain a level of lost innocence that will never return. As someone raised in a metropolis, I can’t really identify with suburban life. But I’m sure those who do will compare the neighborhood to their own when they were the characters’ ages.

The acting is also well done. Graham Verchere is an excellent lead, capturing the portrait of a young teen struggling with the idea that his life-long neighbor could be harboring a secret that’s threatening not only other children, but himself as well. Verchere is confident, brave, smart, and truly feels like a curious teenager that may end up in more trouble than its worth. Tiera Skovbye, best known as Betty Cooper’s sister Polly on Riverdale, is also very good as Nikki - the troubled girl-next-door. While a bit older than Verchere, the two have good chemistry with each other even if it starts a bit awkwardly. The other actor to really mention is Rich Sommer, of Mad Men and GLOW fame. He’s perfectly cast as the suspected serial killer since he has such a baby face and nice guy demeanor. He carries his end extremely well and enjoyed all facets of his character arc.

SUMMER OF ’84 is a good film that captures the mid-80s suburban life really well, wearing its inspirations with pride while trying to create its own identity. While I think the film takes way too long to get to where it needs to go and maybe relies on the nostalgia love a bit too much at times, the mystery aspect is done well enough where you want to see how it all ends. The acting is wonderful and the characters are fleshed out enough for us to care about what happens to them. If you like films like THE ‘BURBS, STAND BY ME, REAR WINDOW and THE GOONIES, SUMMER OF ’84 probably deserves your attention.

3 Howls Outta 4


[Animal Summer '18] Grizzly (1976)

William Girdler

Christopher George - Michael Kelly
Andrew Prine - Don Stober
Richard Jaeckel - Arthur Scott
Joan McCall - Allison Corwin
Joe Dorsey - Charley Kittridge
Charles Kissinger - Dr. Hallitt
Mike Clifford - Pat

Genre - Horror/Thriller/B-Movie/Bad Animals/Bears

Running Time - 89 Minutes

You have to give it to Steven Spielberg and Peter Benchley - they indirectly influenced a lot of studios and producers after the blockbuster success of their 1975 film JAWS. Even today, we have channels dedicated to Shark Weeks and SHARKNADO films, while the box office is thriving on another shark film called THE MEG. The “animal-run-amok” sub-genre of B-movie horror films have crafted some memorable, and absolutely terrible, films and TV programs that surprisingly have stood the test of time in a pop culture sense.

One of the more familiar films of the sub-genre happens to be one of the first filmed after the release of JAWS - 1976’s GRIZZLY. Replace the beach with a forest setting and a giant shark with a giant bear, and you got a cult favorite that has been RiffTrax’d and even spawned an unreleased sequel [although you can find footage of that online]. GRIZZLY doesn’t compare to the quality of JAWS, or even other “animal-run-amok” films that have been released before or since. But it manages to be a decently fun time for a rip-off.

Campers and park rangers are being murdered by a giant grizzly bear in Yellowstone National Park. Ranger Michael Kelly (Christopher George) is worried about the future of the park, wanting it shut down to protect citizens while his squad can find and hunt down the bear. However, the director of the park (Joe Dorsey) won’t hear any of it - instead hiring untrained hunters to hunt down the bear. This just creates more problems as the hunters murder anything that moves, while the bear defends himself and goes after them. Realizing that the director doesn’t care about the park, using the publicity to gain more visitors, Kelly and his crew decide that they’re the only ones who can stop this menace once and for all.

Calling GRIZZLYJAWS with claws” is pretty accurate, as producers/writers Harvey Flaxman and David Sheldon pretty much used the same template that made the before mentioned film a success. Inspired by encountering a bear during a camping trip, Flaxman thought it would be a neat idea to replace a shark with a grizzly bear to capture the same effect. William Girdler, best known for his 1974 EXORCIST clone ABBY at the time, decided he would direct the JAWS clone with a $750,000 budget. With a $39 million box office gross, GRIZZLY managed to be a big success for Columbia Pictures and Film Ventures International. Unfortunately, GRIZZLY just highlights the fact further that JAWS is the King of Animal-Run-Amok films even after all these years later.

It’s surprising Spielberg and Benchley didn’t sue anyone involved with GRIZZLY’s production, unlike what happened with 1981’s GREAT WHITE. GRIZZLY feels like Flaxman and Sheldon took JAWS’ script, changed names and settings, and decided to replace a mechanical shark with stock footage of an 11-foot grizzly bear. The similarities aren’t even subtle either. Park Ranger Michael Kelly is obvious Chief Martin Brody. Helicopter pilot Don Stober is this film’s Quint. Naturalist Arthur Scott is Matt Hooper. Greedy park director Charley Kittridge is Mayor Larry Vaughn. And the shark has been replaced by a bear. We also have a female photographer named Allison who is, I guess, Ellen Brody since she and Kelly share a flirtatious relationship. Even the plot points are the same. Animal kills people. The rangers want to shut down the area to protect the citizens from the threat, but the authority figure refuses for greed/publicity purposes. The animal gets more violent, leaving the three heroes to stop the threat themselves until an explosion conclusion. Unless you prefer bears to sharks, you’re better off watching a much better movie.

It doesn’t help when the characters aren’t as fleshed out as the ones in JAWS. They’re all familiar archetypes, all playing their token roles well enough to move the story along. But you don’t really know much about any of these people but superficial aspects of their personalities. Even the flirtatious angle between Kelly and Allison doesn’t really go anywhere, nor do they have much chemistry for anyone to care. Even the trio of Kelly, Stober, and Scott don’t connect as a unit as much as one would want. They all do the right thing in trying to help each other contain this bear, but you never get the sense that they have a friendship bond that makes you believe these three would unite over a threat like this. And Kittridge is your typical tycoon villain who eventually sees the error of his ways, without much fanfare or development. The story is written well enough for a rip-off, but it never tries to be anything other than that. Nor it tries to bring anything new to the table for it to be memorable.

I think the most interesting part of GRIZZLY’s screenplay is how it resembles a slasher film before the term was even used. Even though JAWS did use first person point-of-view shots for the villain, GRIZZLY uses this tactic more frequently due to its much smaller budget. We never see the bear for half the film, instead seeing bear claws attack helpless victims as its travels through the forest. There’s always a looming threat throughout the film, as people are murdered - including some of the main characters. Instead of playing like a survivalist film like JAWS, GRIZZLY is more like a porto-slasher and it works for the movie.

Speaking of the bear, the low budget doesn’t allow the creation of a mechanical bear that could attack the actors on command. So instead, we get a lot of stock footage of a bear named Teddy roaming around - looking bigger due to close-up shots. And whenever the bear attacks, some guy wearing bear paws claws at the victims and mauls them. I’ve seen worse in films of this ilk. The better special effects come with the gore effects, which are quite violent for 1976. We see blood splatter, limbs and body parts being ripped apart, and even structures getting destroyed that end up killing people. Yes, the use of mannequins aren’t hidden as well as they should be. But what can you do for a film that cost less than a million to make? It’s done well for a modest budget and I was pretty impressed.

The direction by William Girdler is fine for a B-movie like GRIZZLY. The location shots for the park were filmed in Clayton, Georgia and look very nice. The use of the park is done well and matches well with the stock footage of the bear. The film flows decently well, even though it does drag a bit during scenes that don’t involve the bear. Like I mention, the special effects are done well and give GRIZZLY an oomph it needs. I do wish the film was a bit more fun, in terms of being it more exciting or even campier [no pun intended]. JAWS managed to blend drama and comedy really well, but JAWS was ultimately a serious movie. GRIZZLY takes itself seriously, when it honestly should be a bit more silly. The story and the characters don’t really lend to a dramatic “killer animal” movie, making GRIZZLY feel uneven in tone. I’m not saying Girdler should have directed a comedy, but a bit more levity would be been nice. Girdler’s future project, 1977’s DAY OF THE ANIMALS, manages to be a lot better because it knows how to blend the serious with the camp. It also has a stronger script and more memorable moments. GRIZZLY doesn’t contain these elements, so a different tone could have hid that. I will say that the ending is probably the best part in terms of presentation. I won’t spoil anything, but it involves Christopher George, a bear, and a rocket launcher. The effects seem to have been lifted from the Batman TV show from the 1960s. I actually laughed out loud, which made me wish Girdler could have added more scenes like that one.

The acting in GRIZZLY is okay. Christopher George is fine as Ranger Kelly, trying to do his best Roy Scheider impression as best as he can. He doesn’t come close, but he’s a reliable presence in these B-movies and carries the film well enough. Andrew Pine is good as Stober, but fares better when he doesn’t try to be Robert Shaw’s Quint. Richard Jaeckel is a bit better as Scott, as he plays the “Matt Hooper” copy better than expected. I think he had the most energy of the three actors and I liked him the best. The other actors play their roles as if they were starring in a quality 70s TV-movie. They’re neither memorable or terrible. Special mention goes to Teddy, who looks like a really cuddly bear and was trained well in the role. Too bad he was too cute to be a vicious threat.


  • We have more backpackers pitching tents than raccoons in the woods.” Hey, don’t talk about Ennis and Jack behind their backs. Not their fault they can’t quit each other.

  • Every face tells a story.” Michael Jackson was quite the storyteller, then!

  • Bears don’t eat people.” Obviously no one in this film has ever watched gay porn.

  • A woman was mauled behind a waterfall by the bear. Next time, listen to T-Boz, Left Eye, and Chilli.

  • The bear tried to destroy a watchtower. He must not be neither a Bob Dylan or Jimi Hendrix fan.

  • Scott and the rest of the camp enjoy drinking Coca-Cola. Maybe this bear lashed out because he was afraid of being institutionalized for just wanting a Pepsi. He’s not crazy! You’re the one who’s crazy!

  • Scott tried to take out the bear on his own, but failed. Why? Because Scotty doesn’t know. DON’T TELL SCOTTY!!

Not a great film, but GRIZZLY manages to be a decent watch if you’re in the mood for a “beer and popcorn” flick. The proto-slasher elements and the bear effects work, considering the film’s modest budget. And it tries to do its best while ripping off JAWS, but ends up just making you wish you were watching a much better film instead at times. Still, watching a cuddly grizzly bear murder campers is fun when it happens, and the explosive ending is one of the silliest and most hilarious endings ever in a B-movie. Not smarter than your average rip-off, but handles the bare necessities well enough to warrant a watch.

2.5 Howls Outta 4

Related Posts with Thumbnails