Friday, June 30, 2017
Tuesday, June 27, 2017
With this episode of the show we open things up in a new way! Although
and I have had the occasional guest on the NaschyCast they have been rare
occurrences. Generally this was because we wanted to keep the show as focused
on the films of Paul Naschy as we could.
We felt that we should deviate as little as possible from covering the
movies in depth so keeping the visits infrequent allowed us to drill down and
(most importantly) stay on task. Longtime listeners will know that it doesn't
take much to get us sidetracked and having someone else present would make the
show a meandering monster!
So, with this episode we take the Naschycast into new territory and talk to Cort Psyops for about two hours about his love of Naschy. We quiz him on his first exposure to the Spanish Horror icon, learn what his favorite Naschy films are and dig into the various werewolf movies in search of the best and worst. Cort describes his discovery of this strange strain of Euro-Horror and, in the process, makes both
Troy and I feel really, really old. The only
mitigating details are that his initial viewing involved a VHS tape and not a
DVD. We are so old. Any way.....
If you've not checked out Cort's excellent podcast Cinema Psyops it comes highly recommended. I can honestly say that his show has made me laugh more than almost any other film related podcast. Sometimes I laugh at them but often I am laughing with them so I'm proud to have a bit of that fun become a part of our show. The discussion here does waver all over the place with talk of several unconnected topics but one of us always drags things back to Naschy. I'm just looking forward to Cort and his co-host Matt covering more Spanish Horror on their show. I'm wondering if Matt will survive!
Thank you for downloading and listening to the show. If you have any comments or suggestions please write us at firstname.lastname@example.org to let us know what's on your mind. If there are any Naschy subjects you'd like to have us discuss let us know. In the meantime, remember that we are in the Year of Naschy Blu-Rays so go pick up some hi-def horror for your home!
Sunday, June 25, 2017
By the 1970's most of Price's classic horror roles were behind him. He still worked regularly but it was usually in supporting roles for films with large casts. Such is the film under discussion here. Wisely the focus is instead placed on some of the more interesting projects for the small screen that Price was a part of including one very special rock show that fans of a certain age will never forget!
Friday, June 23, 2017
I'm not telling anyone anything new when I say that the field of Stephen King film adaptations is littered with landmines. Each step taken is a risky one and if you keep going you are going to be injured - badly. For decades now long into the night intoxicant-inspired conversations have taken place arguing which King adaptations are actually worth a damn and which ones are so bad they're unwatchable. Even films some consider classics (THE SHINING, CARRIE, THE DEAD ZONE) have their detractors and some of the ones generally thought of as crap are sometimes hailed as underappreciated works of genius (THINNER, DREAMCATCHER, SLEEPWALKERS). I'm tempted to find a way to fund a study that correlates the age of the first time viewer with the estimated quality of King adaptations but barring that unlikely money sinkhole there seems no good test for judging where someone will fall on any particular film.
Personally I think most of the worst versions of King stories have been made for the small screen. Even the best of them neuter the material, excising the elements that give his tales their visceral kick, blanding them down to dull, middle of the road tales of clichéd horror. I haven't seen any of the new crop of work being done for streaming services (11.22.63, CASTLE ROCK) so maybe that is the visual medium that will allow his often lengthy stories to perfectly blossom.
I've never considered Firestarter to be a particularly good book and the film did nothing for me so I never returned to rewatch it even when endless cable reruns were available. The only memories that had stuck with me from over thirty years ago were of George C. Scott being pretty creepy and Drew Barrymore's hair flying around whenever she used her pyrokinetic powers. These were not the kind of memories to inspire a return visit. So, what did make me watch FIRESTARTER (1984) again after all these years? A Blu-Ray release, of course.
One of the film's biggest failings is the choice to very rarely cut into the dialog scenes with any close-ups to give the actors some help getting across the emotions of the characters. About thirty minutes into the film I began to notice how almost all of the film is composed of master shots of multiple actors who should be given some individual insert shots but are not. This has the effect of not only dampening the effectiveness of several performances and distancing us from the emotions onscreen but it also makes big sections of the film pretty dull. Composing your film primarily of master shots gives the feeling of watching a filmed play and destroys any dynamic energy you might be able to coax from your actors. This is supposed to be a science fiction horror movie! We need to have a sense of heightened passion, deep rage, outbursts of intense power that frightens us but most of the time we are simply distant observers of events of little consequence. This poor choice is the mistake that damns FIRESTARTER to second rate status on the list of Stephen King adaptations. For all the explosions, stunts and star power on display the film just isn't very interesting and there is no excuse for it. The word boring should never be used to describe a horror film.
Wednesday, June 21, 2017
I have no good reason to be listening to these tunes. I haven't watched a Euro-Spy film in months! But every now and then I just get the urge to hear some of these amazing pieces of music. See if they hit your spot as well.
Monday, June 19, 2017
Although The Outer Limits lasted only two seasons in the middle of the 1960's its influence is still being felt today. Because it was an anthology series it is often compared to The Twilight Zone but while Rod Serling's brainchild often relied on 'sing in the tail' conclusions The Outer Limits was much more interested in creating strong science fiction stories that could have easily been feature films. With it's hour long running time the show could stretch out to spin large, detailed and complicated tales with multifaceted characters and complex motivations. The best episodes combined strong acting, great storytelling and absorbing ideas to build stories that would stay with the viewer for decades. Even the least effective entries were capable of bringing new things to television whether it be a strange special effect or a concept so dark that most TV would have to shy away for fear of a backlash. Great science fiction often uses the tropes of the genre to comment on contemporary problems and The Outer Limits certainly qualifies.
For our latest podcast artist Mark Maddox joins me to talk about this fine television show. It made a deep impression on both of us, coloring the ways in which we enjoy science fiction film and TV to this day. We discuss some of our favorite episodes; what made them effective; what elements stood out on first viewing as well as things that stick in the memory over time. Mark relates the chore he had a young man trying to see the show at a time when there was only one television in the house and everyone had to compromise on which program would be watched. We talk about the various monsters the show featured as well as the smart cost cutting ways the producers found to fool the eye and broaden the limited visual scope possible on a TV budget. I also babble on a bit about the incredible photography of the show which I think rivals what was being done in big budgeted films of the time. This might well be ground zero for the idea of sci-fi noir! The Outer Limits is a show that accomplished a lot with meager means and still stacks up today as one of the best SF series ever made.
Comments and suggestions can be sent to email@example.com in either typed or MP3 form. We'd love to hear from you. What are your favorite episodes of The Outer Limits? What is the scariest of the show's monsters? Are there episodes that we love that you think are bad? Let us know! And if you would like to help us out there is a donate button on the right side of the blog page - feel free to click it and send a couple of bucks our way. Thank you for checking out the show! Mark and I will return later this summer with another show on 1960's television - if we can stay on topic.
Sunday, June 18, 2017
Although I have seen several films in which Erna Schurer appears it wasn't until last night's viewing of LA BAMBOLA DI SATANA (1969) that I took notice of her. She is a gorgeous lady and is able to do a lot with a little in this film. The script requires that she remain in the dark as her character is Gaslighted by several people and menaced by a classic black-gloved killer. That throws this film into the giallo genre but since it takes place in a European castle it also has a bit of a gothic vibe. Miss Schurer does her best but, although the film is very pretty on its Twilight Time Blu-Ray, it's also not very involving. I think it might be tome to revisit another of her gothic type films - SCREAM OF THE DEMON LOVER (1970) - to see why she didn't catch my eye when I first viewed it over twenty years ago.
Saturday, June 17, 2017
Today would have been the 90th birthday of legendary Italian filmmaker Lucio Fulci. There are a lot of products out there that attempt to capitalize on the cult built around his career - especially his horror films - but this one has to be the most audacious. And the funniest!
Sadly it's only available to UK buyers. Until some enterprising soul imports enough to sell here as well.
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
I've already written about the latest in the ALIEN franchise but here are the other two theatrical viewings for last month.
About GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY VOL. 2 (2017) I'll just say that although it isn't as fresh as the first film it still had more than enough energy, imagination and humor to make for a very fun couple of hours in the extended Marvel Universe. Ever since SLITHER (2006) writer/director James Gunn has shown himself to be a clever, witty fellow capable of making even large, unwieldy ideas easily understandable and abrasive characters somehow relatable. Frankly, Marvel is lucky to have him. This is a damn good movie and I can't wait for more.
But I want to single out two performances for praise. I've said for a while now that the easiest way to up the quality of your film is to get Kurt Russell in the cast. The man is effortlessly cool and a brilliant professional who adds immeasurably to whatever story you place him in. Given the right role he may one day actually be noticed by his colleagues as the shinning talent hiding behind that mountain of sheer charisma but until then we can just soak up his awesomeness in roles like Ego. As soon as I knew he had been cast in this role I knew he could pull it off and, indeed, just might be the only living actor able to play a living, planet sized intelligence without embarrassing himself. Russell is perfect here and shows once again that he can do damned near anything onscreen asked of him.
The other performance has already been talked about by writers my skilled than I so I'll just add my voice to the choir - Michael Rooker has been James Gunn's secret acting weapon for more than a decade and it's high time everyone else noticed how good he is. Here Rooker reprises his role as Yondo and is allowed to bring color (hahaha) and depth to the character that was completely unexpected. By answering the lingering questions about his attachment to Quill we get a beautiful and ultimately touching arc that shows Rooker digging into this criminal and showing us the wounded heart of a good person. He is fantastic and if these kinds of films were taken at all seriously by critics he would be nominated for a supporting actor award or two.
Sometimes when you see a film that is no good it can be difficult to pinpoint exactly what went wrong. Such is not the case with KING ARTHUR: LEGEND OF THE SWORD (2017). There are two big problems with this movie one of which might not have been under the control of the director. But the second one is a direct result of the director's weaknesses and he should have known better.
I've loved Guy Ritchie's crime films, really liked his Holmes films and I think his stab at The Man From UNCLE was brilliant but it seems that he has taken the wrong lesson from those tales. Ritchie and his writers have reimagined Arthur and his band of blokes as a group of
London pimps and
criminals which might well have worked IF - and this is a big if - there had been
any attempt to make us believe that these characters existed in the story's period of
history. But there is zero desire (it would seem) to have these
guys act like people would act in Arthurian England, so, instead we get SNATCH
refugees running around being cool with knives instead of guns. It does not
work and so often destroys the tone and atmosphere that the excellent
production design evokes that it becomes completely irritating. Casting the characters as
rouges with rough edges was a good idea but making them late 20th
century pub blokes with dialog that feels lifted out of ROCKNROLLA was a huge
The second big problem is one I'm not sure Richie could have done much about given the state of things in filmmaking today. It would seem that because of the Lord of the Rings films we will never be able to have another medieval fantasy type battle without CGI creatures regardless of whether they are needed. From the first few minutes of the film we are treated (?) to the sight of several humongous war elephants helping to lay siege to an even larger castle. They smash up against things, swing huge boulders tied to their tails and just generally stomp around causing a large amount of CGI damage. All this over-priced carnage is there only to give audiences what I'm sure is perceived as what they expect - big monster CGI beasts. I mean, how will anyone know this is a fantasy story without the big CGI beasties, huh?
It's pathetic unnecessary crap and it's clear that they were an addition slathered onto the film late in the game by someone panicking that people would expect such things in a film with swords and stuff. How do I know they were added late? Because the monstrous animals are never even referenced in the dialog! Wouldn't giant, tusked, castle-crushing brutes be a topic of conversation in the aftermath of a battle? Or during it? Or at some damned time? Ugh! What a lame mess.
THE LORELEY'S GRASP (1974) - 7 (rewatch)
THE FALCON IN
(1944) - 7 HOLLYWOOD
FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE SPACE MONSTER (1965) - 2
THE FACE OF FU MANCHU (1965) - 7 (rewatch)
THE OTHER HELL (1981) - 4 (Italian 'nuns get possessed' tale)
POINT OF TERROR (1971) - 5 (drama masquerading as a horror tale)
GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY VOL. 2 (2017) - 8
ROBERT KLEIN STILL CAN'T STOP HIS LEG (2016) - 8 (excellent documentary about the comedian)
THE BRIDES OF FU MANCHU (1966) - 6 (rewatch)
THE VENGEANCE OF FU MANCHU (1967) 5 (rewatch)
ALIEN: COVENANT (2017) - 8
NIGHT HAS A THOUSAND DESIRES (1984) - 6
CALTIKI, THE IMMORTAL MONSTER (1959) - 8 (rewatch)
TRAIN TO BUSAN (2016) - 9 (excellent Korean zombie film)
STRYKER (1983) - 4 (post-apocalyptic trudge)
KING ARTHUR: LEGEND OF THE SWORD (2017) - 4
PRIVATE LIVES (1931) - 6 (Noel Coward play adapted in pre-code style)
ABBOT & COSTELLO MEET THE MUMMY (1955) - 5 (rewatch)
Sunday, June 11, 2017
Today is the birthday of my longtime celebrity crush Adrienne Barbeau. She turns 71 and I still think I would blush like an adolescent virgin if she were to wink at me. Which means I should never try to meet her in a public place. Ever.
Happy Birthday Miss Barbeau!
Saturday, June 10, 2017
After borrowing the DVD of this Hong Kong set Shaw Brothers Production I finally got around to watching it tonight and my God is this a strange film! It's kind of a character story about a social misfit and his odd life. He's a very socially awkward loner who's constantly the victim of bullies, cheating employers, low level criminals and muggers. Constantly harassed in many different ways he is a sad, pitiable creature who seems to have either the worst luck in the world or is without a doubt one of the most put-upon film characters I've ever seen.
Adding to the fellow's odd nature is the fact that he seems to have an almost supernatural affinity for snakes. He seems to be able to communicate with them and clearly feels absolutely no danger handling every type of snake or reptile that you can think of. Whether it's incredibly venomous cobras or fairly dangerous monitor lizards he seems to have some kind of extrasensory mental rapport with them and, as you might expect, eventually is able to command them to do his bidding. This leads to the expected revenge portion of the film in which a lot of people who have treated him like dirt end up on the receiving end of a lot of poisonous fangs. That might be considered a semi-satisfying section of the story but it's coupled with the nastiest elements that they can throw into a story of this type.
So, of course, there's a sleazeball scumbag who desperately wants to have sex with the virginal female and so is slowly pushing her into being a prostitute. The virgin's best female friend - who's already a prostitute - is pushing her in that direction as well because they're just aren't a whole lot of economic opportunities for the young lady. So by the time the inevitable happens and the slithery venomous revenge takes place we all know where this thing is going. It's difficult to feel bad for any of the snake victims as they lead such wretched, self-centered lives but the nastiness of the story also blunts any sympathy we might have for the main character and his romantic fixation. Everyone here is doomed to live out a cheerless, sad existence until the snakes come.