The Bird With the Crystal Plumage (1970)

DIRECTED BY

Dario Argento

STARRING

Tony Musante - Sam Dalmas

Suzy Kendall - Julia

Enrico Maria Salerno - Inspector Morosini

Eva Renzi - Monica Ranieri

Umberto Raho - Alberto Ranieri

Renato Romano - Professor Carlo Dover

Giuseppe Castellano - Monti

Mario Adorf - Berto Consalvi

Genre - Horror/Thriller/Mystery/Giallo

Running Time - 96 Minutes

PLOT

While walking home one evening, Sam Dalmas, an American writer living in Rome, witnesses a violent struggle between a young woman and a black-coated figure in an art gallery. Dalmas attempts to intervene but is caught between the gallery’s electronically operated glass doors, leaving the woman bleeding from knife wounds. Questioned by the police, the shocked author attempts to recall every detail regarding the incident. Convinced that there is an aspect of the crime he cannot recall, Dalmas begins his own investigation - putting himself and his girlfriend Julia in line as the killer’s potential victims.

REVIEW

I couldn’t tell you the last time I sat down and watched 1970’s THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE. When it comes to legendary Italian director Dario Argento, I tend to go to my favorites like 1975’s DEEP RED, 1977’s SUSPIRIA, 1982’s TENEBRAE, 1985’s PHENOMENA and 1986’s OPERA if I need an Argento fix. But taking the time out to watch Argento’s directorial debut, I feel kind of bad for dismissing THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE for so long. It’s not one of my favorites in his filmography, but it’s a solid start for a director who would quickly find his stride for much of the 1970s and 1980s.

While not the first giallo film made, THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE helped inspire other giallo movies that would follow due to how successful its narrative structure is. Unlike later Argento giallo films where situations would get a bit more elaborate and convoluted at times, THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE is a fairly straightforward, and pretty predictable, affair. Really an adaptation of Frederic Brown’s novel Screaming Mimi, the film is more plot driven than focused on visual style. The characters and the police procedural/investigation fuels much of the film, as the movie focuses on writer hero/witness Sam as she helps the police figure out the identity of the film’s killer, while his girlfriend Julia doesn’t really want anything to do with it and just wants Sam to focus on her instead. Sam struggles with his memories of the event he witnesses early in the film while being harassed by cops, goons and even the killer themself who mocks him and the police for not figuring it all out sooner.

THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE is really told through Sam’s point-of-view, as he’s an unreliable narrator of sorts as he tries to piece together the mystery as his memories slowly continue to change throughout the film. While some of the secondary characters may be a bit too eccentric for this type of film, which makes the movie campier and cheesier than it ought to be at times, the main players are all likable and interesting enough for the audience to care and follow them from beginning to end. Later Argento films would have crazier plots that end up being more memorable in the end, but the simple nature of his debut is refreshing as it’s nice to see where his style and vision started from and how much it grew from here.

While THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE inspired later giallo films, the film was heavily inspired by some of Mario Bava’s giallo films, as well as certain Alfred Hitchcock works. While this film takes influence from Bava’s giallo classics like BLOOD AND BLACK LACE and THE GIRL WHO KNEW TOO MUCH, it’s really obvious how big of a fan Argento was of Hitchcock. A scene where Sam witnesses a crime while trapped between two windows is a slight variation of REAR WINDOW, as Sam is paralyzed between the two glass panes and can only watch the crime unfold. And there are several moments where PSYCHO’s influence is in full effect. One murder takes place within a small room, where the killer stabs their victim multiple times. The way it’s directed is how Hitchcock directed the classic shower scene, with jarring edits between the victim and the weapon that gives the illusion that what’s going on looks gorier and more brutal than it actually is. The ending, which explains the killer’s reasoning for their murder spree, also seems similiar to the final moments of PSYCHO as well. Rewatching this not only made me realize how much Argento was inspired by other directors, but how directors later on were inspired by this movie. It’s hard not to see certain scenes and shots play out in the film and not see Brian DePalma’s DRESSED TO KILL or BLOW OUT, which were released a decade later. It’s pretty cool to see.

Speaking of Argento, his direction is pretty great even at the beginning of his filmography. While he would get more inventive in terms of shots, the use of mise-en-scene and the use of colors, THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE shows that Argento knows what he was doing behind the camera to visually tell his story. The location shots are beautiful. The set pieces are visualized well, adding atmosphere to the film. While tame compared to later films, the murder sequences are shot well and have enough tension to be effective despite the lack of gore. I love the use of shadows and light, in particular to one certain scene where the film is shot just in candlelight to beautiful effect. Argento proved to be a confident filmmaker right from the start, only getting better as he made more films. The film does everything a standard giallo film ought to do, which makes the direction a success.

The acting is tough to judge considering the version I watched was dubbed. Some of the voices, especially for the supporting characters, sounded really campy and cheesy - almost as if they belonged in a spoof comedy rather than a horror film. But the main actors do well in their roles. In particular, Tony Musante is pretty good as the lead Sam Dalmas. He has movie star looks and crafts a likable hero we want to follow and root for. He’s not the most dynamic actor, but he does enough to get by. Suzy Kendall is also quite good as Julia, having good moments of distress in the film’s final act. Plus she’s quite fetching on the eyes. Enrico Maria Salerno does well as the film’s lead inspector, continuing the horror trope of a police officer not being capable of his job, letting someone random do the work for him. But he’s another likable actor who has a nice rapport with Musante, making their on-screen dynamic work. I think Argento’s casts would get more interesting later on, with memorable actors getting to work with better material and crazier set pieces. But for a first outing, the actors set the precedence well.

And I can’t end the film without talking about Ennio Morricone’s interesting score that sounds like a haunting lullaby. The “la-la-la’s” vary in different scenes, but it oddly captures the tone of the film well. Nowhere close to my favorite Ennio Morricone film score but it does it job.

THE FINAL HOWL

Dario Argento’s 1970 directorial debut, THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE, is not top-tier Argento for me. But it’s definitely high second-tier, as it’s refreshingly plot driven with a standard giallo that ends up being more predictable than his later, somewhat convoluted, mysteries would end up becoming. With plot and visual elements taken from previous Alfred Hitchcock and Mario Bava thrillers, Argento crafts a whodunit that’s a fun watch due to likable characters, neat set pieces and a resolution that puts the unreliable narrator motif to great use. While nowhere as stylish or as gory as later films would be, Argento still provides interesting visuals and shot scales that show how much more confident he would be as a filmmaker during his peak period in the genre. The actors are good in their roles, even if the English dubbing can be more campy than one would like at times. THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE is a solid giallo debut from a master of horror who would improve upon his work here to provide horror audiences more memorable and crazier moments to come.

SCORE

3 Howls Outta 4

Paranormal Activity (2007/2009)

DIRECTED BY

Oren Peli

STARRING

Katie Featherston - Katie 

Micah Sloat - Micah 

Mark Fredrichs - Dr. Fredrichs 

Amber Armstrong - Amber 

Ashley Palmer - Diane 

Genre - Horror/Supernatural/Found Footage

Running Time - 86 Minutes 

PLOT

Soon after moving into a suburban tract home, Katie and Micah become increasingly disturbed by what appears to be a supernatural presence. Hoping to capture evidence of it on film, they set up video cameras in the house but are not prepared for the terrifying events that follow.

REVIEW

Even though 1980’s CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST and 1999’s THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT made the “found footage film” a viable sub-genre in horror, it wasn’t really until 2007’s PARANORMAL ACTIVITY [once it was released in 2009 worldwide] that the found footage era of horror really hit its peak. Like many other horror fans, I was curious about the film, even though I’m not the biggest fan of the sub-genre. I watched the film in theaters due to the hype, leaving it feeling indifferent towards it. I never bothered with the sequels and tend to avoid found footage movies unless someone I trust recommends one for me to watch.

After watching a documentary on Shudder called THE FOUND FOOTAGE PHENOMENON, I felt compelled to give PARANORMAL ACTIVITY another chance. Maybe I would appreciate the film more for what it was trying to do. Maybe through older eyes, I would be able to find more merit. Unfortunately, I still felt the same indifference to the movie. But I do get why it became such a phenomenon, even if the film is a bit overrated in my opinion.

Let’s get the good out of the way. I get why some people believe the filmmaking for PARANORMAL ACTIVITY is nothing special in terms of technicality and style. It’s a film mainly filmed on a handheld camcorder that anyone with a smartphone today could make without much of a budget to spare. Director Oren Peli doesn’t use dynamic angles, stylish edits or anything visually flashy to make his film pop. But it’s the simplicity that makes PARANORMAL ACTIVITY work. The film is just footage of a couple dealing with a supernatural force they don’t understand, while handling the situation in different ways. The special effects are just random objects being moved around until the very end of the film when strange things happen. Time stamps on the camera let us know when things are happening. And the rest of the film is just the actors having discussions about what’s going on around them. Just a point-and-shoot type of movie that tells a simple story. Too much style would take away from that, so keeping it simple visually is the way to go.

I also found the actors to be believable, especially Katie Featherston and Micah Sloat as the main couple dealing with evil supernatural forces. They come across as a real couple, acting cute with each other at times while bickering as they disagree over how to handle their situation. Featherston’s fear and confusion is convincing, especially as more demonic activity occurs, as Featherston’s performance becomes more frightened and frazzled. Sloat’s performance as Micah intentionally becomes more unlikable as he doesn’t really buy his girlfriend’s supernatural past until things happen, becoming more obsessed and obnoxious as he tries to capture the situation on camera.

Speaking of Micah, it becomes pretty clear that he’s more the movie’s villain than the supernatural entity terrorizing them. PARANORMAL ACTIVITY tends to lose points with me because both he and Katie are not characters you really want to follow or root for about 90 minutes. They’re not all that interesting or fascinating at characters and both make pretty dumb mistakes throughout the film, to the point where they’re just frustrating to watch. But Micah is pretty much a jerk to Katie the entire running time, only having real merit when he reveals that Katie kept her paranormal past from him when they decided to move in together. Still, Micah doesn’t really take Katie seriously when she warns him about not doing anything to antagonize the supernatural force threatening them. He mocks psychics who are willing to help them. He doesn’t want a demonologist coming to the house to fix things because he’ll feel like less of a man if he doesn’t fix things himself. He gets a Ouija board to communicate with the spirit, even though he was warned multiple times by multiple people not to. And he belittles Katie any chance he can get because he feels he knows better than her.

PARANORMAL ACTIVITY isn’t a scary movie and it’s not a film that will elicit nightmares after watching it. But there is something a bit terrifying about a relationship that’s obviously toxic. Instead of supporting and helping the woman he supposedly loves, he ignores all of her warnings and doesn’t take her seriously until it’s too late - meaning when it starts affecting him personally. In fact, the demon seems to be after Micah more than he is after Katie, as if it’s almost protecting her from him in a creepy way. But Micah is more of an antagonist and threat to Katie’s survival than the supernatural evil is.

And while the film isn’t scary, it can also be pretty dull for much of its runtime. While it’s a good thing to keep things simple in terms of the story, it also brings negatives as the story meanders and drags at times until we start to get some demonic action in terms of loud noises and home destruction. Also, I believe we don’t learn about why this demon is so attached to Katie until later installments. So while this mystery is good for audience interaction and potential sequels, it’s hard to connect with any of these characters because we don’t really know much about their backstories other than what’s presented to us on Micah’s camera.

Even the last few minutes of the film are pretty lame, considering it’s there mainly for that last jump scare that doesn’t work on me at all. Other found footage films, like THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and REC have done it better. The special effects aren’t all that great in this scene either and take one out of the film. While, on paper, this film could only end this certain way, I don’t think it was all that interesting visually. 

THE FINAL HOWL

I still feel as indifferent to PARANORMAL ACTIVITY as I did when the film was released over a decade ago. I do appreciate its simplicity in terms of its visual style. I like the actors involved, as they definitely feel like a legit couple bickering over how to handle a demonic spirit that’s haunting them. And while the characters can be frustrating to watch for ninety minutes, I think it’s interesting to see that the real horror is the toxic relationship between them, not the supernatural evil messing with them. It’s unfortunate that the film can be pretty dull and meandering at times, as it’s not scary or creepy at all [in my opinion] with a pretty uninspired “last scare” ending that does anything but. I get why it made so much money at the time of its release and I understand why a franchise was created out of it. But it didn’t do a whole lot for me back in the late 2000s and it doesn’t do a whole lot for me now. As popular as this film has become, there are way better “found footage” movies out there worth watching over this one.

SCORE

2 Howls Outta 4

The WTF? Worst Films Extravaganza Presents: Firestarter (2022)

DIRECTED BY

Keith Thomas

STARRING

Ryan Kiera Armstrong - Charlie McGee

Zac Efron - Andy McGee

Sydney Lemmon - Vicky Tomilnson-McGee

Kurtwood Smith - Dr. Joseph Wanless

Michael Greyeyes - John Rainbird

Gloria Reuben - Captain Jane Hollister

Genre: Horror/Thriller/Fantasy

Running Time: 94 Minutes

PLOT

A girl with extraordinary pyrokinetic powers fights to protect her family and herself from sinister forces that seek to capture and control her.

REVIEW

When I first saw the trailer to 2022’s new adaptation of Stephen King’s Firestarter, I was mostly puzzled that Universal decided to waste money on a new version of a novel when no one asked for one. While the novel itself is quite good, the 1984 adaptation had a lot to be desired when it came to transferring the words onto the big screen. That being said, it was a childhood staple of mine and it’s not a bad movie. It has cool effects and some nice performances [in particular Drew Barrymore and George C. Scott] that elevates it into something kind of memorable. The less said about the 2002 mini-series sequel because that was so bad, that I never bothered to go back and finish it after 20 years. So maybe a different adaptation could erase the stink of that, right?

2022’s FIRESTARTER is, without a doubt, my worst film of the year so far. There’s no heart and soul in recreating Stephen King’s text, as this is obviously a cash grab to create a new franchise for the studio. This version is 20 minutes shorter than the 1984 version, eliminating a lot of depth and character development - especially when it comes to the villains, who barely get any screen time and are not at all interesting in the slightest. And I get that when you do an adaptation, you want to change things to make it stand on its own two feet. But this movie butchers what Stephen King presented to his audience in 1980. It’s so lazy and beyond generic that it makes the slightly above average 1984 adaptation look like a masterpiece of filmmaking in comparison. I’m all for changing the narrative to reflect the time period it’s being made for and to possibly expand it if you do want to create some kind of movie universe out of it. But the changes here are terrible and never click in terms of creating tension or anticipation for what could possibly come next. I was honestly glad when the film ended because it just left me cold and disappointed. There’s a good movie in here somewhere, but for whatever reason, the filmmakers half-assed it. And for what? Low box office receipts? To alienate a horror audience wanting something good? I don’t get it.

Is there anything good? The special effects are pretty cool, with the fire scenes and the after effects the fire leaves looking convincing. The music score by John Carpenter, Cody Carpenter and Daniel Davies is really good, making me wish it was part of a much better movie. And the actors aren’t terrible - in particular Zac Efron and Ryan Kiera Armstrong who carry the film as the father-daughter duo running away from the evil scientists wanting to control them and their powers. In fact, the first 25 minutes of the film focusing on the protagonists and their family dynamic was the best part of the movie for me, with Efron and Armstrong doing some damn good acting. Gloria Reuben, Kurtwood Smith and Michael Greyeyes do what they can with the roles they’re given, but aren’t given enough time to really give depth to their characters.

THE FINAL HOWL

2022’s FIRESTARTER could have been an improvement over the 1984 adaptation, but ends up wasting its potential of being a modern Stephen King adaptation worth investing in. The actors do the best they can with what they’re given [Zac Efron and Ryan Kiera Armstrong are the best of the lot as the father-daughter protagonists]. The music score by John Carpenter, Cody Carpenter and Daniel Davies is really good stuff. The special effects are done well enough. And while the first 25 minutes of the film focusing on the McGee family was well-written and structured, the rest of the film just takes a deep dive in its narrative just to make it to the finish line as quickly as possible. No tension. No depth given to the villains. And while I respect the producers for trying to deviate from the novel in preparations for future installments, the changes made aren’t necessarily all that interesting or well executed enough for me to care about any potential universe this film is trying to establish. The original isn’t the best adaptation either, but it’s a masterpiece compared to this version.

SCORE

1 Howl Outta 4

(3 out of 10)

The B-Movie Bungalow: Biohazard (1985)

DIRECTED BY

Fred Olen Ray

STARRING

Aldo Ray - General Randolph

Angelique Pettyjohn - Lisa Martyn

William Fair - Mitchell Carter 

David O’Hara - Rieger 

Frank McDonald - Mike Hodgson

Art Payton - Dr. Williams 

Charles Roth - Jack Murphy

Christopher Ray - The Bio-Monster

Genre: Horror/Science Fiction/B-Movie

Runtime: 84 Minutes

PLOT

A group of skeptical government officials headed by General Randolph are brought to a remote laboratory for a demonstration in “Psychic Materialization”, a successful side effect of an experimental drug. But the project scientists had warned that not enough testing had been completed to assess safety concerns. In a freak accident during the demonstration to the politicians, a vicious creature is created! Unable to contain the monster, it unleashes unbelievable havoc & destruction against mankind! Reproducing itself at an alarming rate, and all known weapons seemingly powerless against the creature, the scientists are gravely concerned for the survival of mankind!

REVIEW

BIOHAZARD is a B-movie that I wanted to like more than I did, considering the film’s promotional art with that cool looking alien creature. But a bare bones plot with uninteresting characters, trying to stop a 4-foot alien monster as they drive around, make out and recite bad dialogue brings this film down for me. Despite its generic plot ripping off sci-fi movies like 1979’s ALIEN and 1982’s E.T.: THE EXTRA TERRESTRIAL, there’s not much in the way of story to dissect in BIOHAZARD. Also, actress Angelique Pettyjohn [who plays one of the more unconvincing psychics in a film] looked so much like Lady Gaga, that I wanted to watch A STAR IS BORN or HOUSE OF GUCCI instead. But at least the film is short, the alien outfit is better than one would expect with a low budget flick, the gore make-up is actually impressive and the film looks great considering its budget. And seriously, how many films do you know have a 7-year-old child masquerading as an alien creature as he mauls people in the neighborhood and rip up posters of E.T.? Plus, that jarring ending and a blooper reel that proves the best of the bad acting was in the actual film! Not so terrible that it lives up to its title, but BIOHAZARD is pretty average and doesn’t warrant much of a recommendation unless you watch with some buddies under the influence of booze or other substances. You could do a lot worse, I guess.

SCORE

2 Howls Outta 4

(5 out of 10)

Doctor Strange In the Multiverse of Madness (2022)

DIRECTED BY

Sam Raimi

STARRING

Benedict Cumberbatch - Dr. Stephen Strange

Elizabeth Olsen - Wanda Maximoff/Scarlet Witch 

Chiwetel Ejiofor - Karl Mordo 

Benedict Wong - Wong 

Xochitl Gomez - America Chavez

Rachel McAdams - Christine Palmer 

Genre: Action/Horror/Fantasy/Adventure/Comic Books

Running Time: 126 Minutes

PLOT

Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch), with the help of mystical allies both old and new, traverses the mind-bending and dangerous alternate realities of the Multiverse to confront a mysterious new adversary.

REVIEW

After 15 years of not directing a Marvel superhero film since 2007’s SPIDER-MAN 3, Sam Raimi returns to the genre with the latest MCU Phase Four feature - DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS. MCU’s Phase Four seems to be heavily focused on the multiverse, judging by the stories told in WandaVision, Loki and SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME. While DOCTOR STRANGE 2 definitely wants to ride the success of those projects, it’s unfortunately not the best film with that theme. Hell, it isn’t even the best film this year about multiple universes (EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE says hello). But luckily, DOCTOR STRANGE 2 brings up the quality of Phase Four compared to other films included such as BLACK WIDOW and THE ETERNALS.

Marvel promised us a horror film in DOCTOR STRANGE 2 and while it’s never a scary film at all, the imagery that Sam Raimi presents throughout the film are definitely callbacks to his EVIL DEAD franchise, as well as certain elements from DRAG ME TO HELL. And visually, DOCTOR STRANGE 2 is one of the more memorable in the MCU catalog because of it. From possessions, to hideous looking ghouls, to evil mirror reflections and demons and to certain characters looking and acting like zombies, DOCTOR STRANGE 2 has a lot of horror elements that might turn off younger audiences and squeamish viewers. And superheroes actually get murdered in this movie, some in really messed up ways. Marvel and Raimi really pushed that PG-13 rating with some of the film’s brutality, which even surprised me at times considering this is a Disney property.

The cast is really great in this film - in particular both Benedict Cumberbatch and Elizabeth Olsen, who can play their respective roles of Doctor Strange [all of them] and The Scarlet Witch in their sleep at this point. Olsen, especially, is amazing in this film playing through so many emotional beats and making each one of them believable. Newcomer Xochitl Gomez does well with what she’s given. And returning actors Benedict Wong, Rachel McAdams and Chiwetel Ejiofor have memorable moments. I also enjoyed the cameos, although I wish they were in the film more.

Even though I missed Michael Giacchino’s score from the first film, I thought Danny Elfman captured the atmosphere and tone of the film’s story. 

The narrative could have been stronger, as it felt too rushed at times. The film was supposed to be about 35 minutes longer, which makes me wonder what was cut out or reshot as replacements. There were times where you can tell a scene was edited a bit, as it felt a bit incomplete. I also think those lost minutes could have been used for more character development, especially for America Chavez. I also felt that Rick and Morty and Loki scribe Michael Waldron had some cheesy dialogue that didn’t quite work [especially for America Chavez] as well as writing for certain characters that made me think he didn’t watch some of those Disney+ shows that connect to this movie. I also felt the Illuminati stuff could have been longer and felt more important, and what’s the point of a Multiverse movie if you don’t do more with that concept? What we got was pretty neat, but I felt it was more of a teaser for something in the future more than anything. I did dig the mid-credits scene a lot however, as it promises to be a more Doctor Strange type movie that doesn’t deal with any Avengers. So I’m really looking forward to the future.

THE FINAL HOWL

DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS is a flawed movie, but it’s also a very entertaining one. I can see why some didn’t enjoy it as much as I did. Sam Raimi has a certain style that doesn’t cater to everyone, although I feel it helped this film quite a lot. I think Raimi should have wrote the film to make it even crazier, honestly. It also requires audiences to watch a couple of the Disney+ shows to really understand what’s going on with some of the characters. But besides the muddled screenplay and some of the VFX that look like a video game, the acting is great [Elizabeth Olsen needs her own Scarlet Witch movie for sure], the action is pretty cool, the horror elements and brutality even surprised me in a good way and Raimi’s cool nods to previous films in his filmography added a different feel and tone to this MCU property. I don’t think the film matches the hype, which is unfortunate, but it’s one of the better Phase Four films so far and looks to present a more interesting sequel that will cater to comic book Doctor Strange fans. Not a bad way to start the Summer Season.

SCORE

3 Howls Outta 4

(8 out of 10)

Lunar Cycle - April 2022

Since I don’t have as much time to write longer reviews than I used to, I figured I would just post shorter reviews for horror/cult films that I feel deserve your attention.

Directed By: Tony Maylam

Starring: Rutger Hauer, Kim Cattrall, Michael J. Pollard, Alastair Duncan, Alum Armstrong, Pete Postlethwaite, Ian Dury

Genre: Horror/Science Fiction/Serial Killers/Supernatural/B-Movie

Running Time: 90 Minutes

SCORE - 3 Howls Outta 4 (7 out of 10)

Plot: In a flooded future London, Detective Harley Stone hunts a serial killer who murdered his partner and has haunted him ever since. He soon discovers what he is hunting might not be human.

Review:

Directed by the man who brought us the 1981 slasher classic THE BURNING, Tony Maylam’s 1992 sci-fi/horror film SPLIT SECOND is a solid B-movie that wears its inspirations on its sleeve. Take some atmosphere and aesthetics from BLADE RUNNER [including star Rutger Hauer], add some monster action like PREDATOR and ALIEN, put them all together and you have this cult flick that’s not perfect but has enough going for it to make it watchable.

SPLIT SECONDS’s dark and gritty dystopian set pieces create an atmosphere that Batman would feel more than comfortable living in. With the main character being an out-of-control detective who has burned more than a few bridges in his professional life, his stories of this serial killer, he’s obsessed with being more than human, creates this level of paranoia and mistrust throughout the film. It’s also helped by Maylam’s direction, as he keeps the killer’s appearance hidden for much of the film, so you’re left wondering if the killer is just really creative with his murders or is something more supernatural. While Maylam keeps the death sequences off-screen, the aftermath of these events are pretty gory, which makes up for it. And the action scenes, for the most part, are directed well despite the obviously low budget. Unfortunately, the final act seems like it was directed by someone else, as it feels rushed and doesn’t conclude the film in any impactful way.

What makes SPLIT SECOND worth the watch is Rutger Hauer as Harley Stone, who acts like a badass and recites dialogue that would only sound cool coming from him. He fleshes out your generic hard knocks detective with charming quirks, like drinking tons of coffee while stirring it with random pens he borrows from other detectives. Hauer also portrays paranoia well, while coming across convincingly as a man obsessed with his work, not caring if he lives or dies apprehending his target.

Rutger has some comical moments with the supporting cast as well, especially Alistair Duncan who plays Dick Dirkin - the by-the-book nerdy detective who starts becoming more reckless and gritty as the hunt for the killer deepens. Rutger also has some nice rapport with Kim Catrall, who is there to play the damsel-in-distress but has her moments to shine.

While I did expect SPLIT SECOND to wow me more than it actually did, considering how many of my friends have recommended this film to me, I did have fun with this flick. Despite its modest budget and disappointing finale, it had good action, memorable gory moments and actors who seemed to be having a blast making a silly sci-fi B-movie.

Directed By: Paul Norman

Starring: Clint Howard, Olivia Hussey, David Warner, Jan-Michael Vincent, Sandahl Bergman, David Naughton 

Genre: Horror/Comedy/Mystery/Thriller

Running Time: 84 Minutes

SCORE - 1.5 Howls Outta 4 (4 out of 10)

Plot: Young Gregory Tudor sees his local ice cream man murdered and later grows up to inherit his business, opting to inject gruesome ingredients—including human body parts—into his frozen confections. When one of the neighborhood boys goes missing, the local kids suspect Gregory and band together to get to the bottom of things.

Review:

ICE CREAM MAN is a really odd film that one would think would be better considering the cast. But it never really comes together due to so many different tones, weird character choices and the fact that the movie never knows if it wants to be a scary movie or a PG-13 teen adventure film in the vein of THE GOONIES, STAND BY ME or THE MONSTER SQUAD. There are even moments where the creepy and murderous Ice Cream Man is given moments where we’re left to sympathize with how people see and treat him, despite the fact that he kills people and uses their body parts in his ice cream servings. I was never sure what I was supposed to be getting out of this film, if anything at all.

The direction by Paul Norman is just as odd, as Norman seems confused as to what he wants to express with ICE CREAM MAN. If he’s going for a comedy, it doesn’t work because the film isn’t all that funny. If he’s going for horror, that doesn’t work because there’s nothing about the film that’s creepy or scary. And if he’s focused on making this a teen adventure, that doesn’t work either because the kids aren’t all that interesting enough to invest in them. The film isn’t all that stylish or interesting to look at either, looking like your standard 90s direct-to-video feature. The film is also oddly paced [those flashback moments ruin the flow in the film’s last act] and it cuts away from the murder scenes, which would have bumped up my rating if I was allowed to see at least some cool gore here and there. Considering Norman was a pretty prolific adult movie director, he sure had no idea how to complete the money shot with this flick.

What keeps ICE CREAM MAN from being totally terrible are the actors, who all seem to be having fun in their roles no matter how small and/or quirky they are. Clint Howard is the best thing here, giving this villain role so many layers that you’re torn on how to feel about the Ice Cream Man. And that’s not a terrible thing because, what could have been a one-note character, Howard makes into a three-dimensional human being who clearly feels justified and damaged in believing what he’s doing is right. While the other actors don’t really get to shine as much as Howard does, at least they all add memorable moments to the film. David Naughton is a cheating husband. David Warner is a priest who is the father of one of the teens. Olivia Hussey is oddly playing an older, kooky nurse in an amusing role. And Jan-Michael Vincent plays a cop - at least I think he is considering he looks like he would rather be somewhere else. I know the actor was dealing with substance abuse at the time, but Vincent doesn’t even bother trying to hide his lack of enthusiasm here. Lee Majors II makes me wish his father was in this film instead. And the younger actors are fine, although I’m not sure why one of them was forced to wear a fat suit or pillow. Did the film really need a kid pretending to be overweight? Oh, those Hollywood stereotypes!

If you’re looking for something brainless and dumb for 90 minutes, I guess you could do worse than ICE CREAM MAN. But if you want to watch a good movie, I’d steer away from this one. This is a film not worth getting brain freeze over.

Directed By: Beverly Sebastian, Ferd Sebastian

Starring: Claudia Jennings, Sam Gilman, Douglas Dirkson, Clyde Venture, Don Baldwin

Genre: Thriller/Action

Running Time: 88 Minutes

SCORE - 2.5 Howls Outta 4 (6 out of 10)

Plot: Desiree lives deep in the swamp and supports herself and her siblings by poaching. Ben and deputy Billy hope to get a little sexual comfort from the “Cajun swamp rat” when they catch Desiree trapping ’gators, and give chase. Desiree outsmarts them but Billy accidentally shoots Ben and tells his sheriff dad that Desiree did it. Ben’s dad and sons join them in the search party and quickly get out of control. Soon the hunters become the hunted as Desiree exacts her revenge for their violence against her family.

Review:

1974’s GATOR BAIT is an exploitation drive-in movie that doesn’t come close to reaching the heights of films that inspired it, like 1972’s DELIVERANCE - nor is it as upsetting and controversial to watch like later films such as 1977’s I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE. However, there’s something oddly charming about this low budget flick that makes it worth a look for 1970’s cinema lovers.

GATOR BAIT is definitely a film that would never fly in today’s society, as it’ll probably offend those ready to cancel anything they can get their minds on. This movie has incest, misogyny, humorous exchanges about raping and sexually assaulting women and depicting backwoods folk as toothless, dumb, violent and just horny all the time. Even the police are corrupt, which will make modern audiences probably root for the female lead and her family by default. Those looking for good taste and progressive themes will probably want to steer away from this one.

Considering the film’s themes, however, GATOR BAIT is fairly tame and almost PG-13 compared to other films just like it. While the acts committed in this movie are kind of gross, there’s a vibe of fun surrounding it all that makes you feel both dirty and entertained at the same time. It kind of plays things like your typical rape-revenge movie, where the good guys suffer but get their vengeance while the bad folk suffer both physically and emotionally. It’s a simple science and GATOR BAIT pulls it off fairly well, even if it does drag at points in its short runtime.

The direction by Beverly and Ferd Sebastian isn’t going to win any awards, but it does the job fine. The cinematography is competent, the soundtrack is actually quite good, and the pacing is done well enough for the film to never wear out its welcome. And the acting isn’t the greatest, but that’s part of the charm with GATOR BAIT. Former Playmate of the Year (1970) Claudia Jennings is really the most memorable person in this film. She looks fantastic in every frame of celluloid she’s in, with her Daisy Dukes and her shotgun making her look like a woman you don’t want to mess with. I do find it funny that, in this world, the men are dirty and not really all attractive while all the women look like they got hired from a modeling agency. There must be something special in that swamp.

GATOR BAIT is a sleazy and exploitative 88 minutes of backwoods men doing dumb, violent things while a woman sorts them out with swift punishment. Not the greatest film I’ve seen of this type, but it definitely has an odd charm about it that makes it worth a look if you’re into this kind of movie.