Midnight Movie of the Week #201 - Fortress

The prevailing message of most Australian horror films - or at least most of the ones I've seen - is that you're pretty much screwed if you're not safely in a big city. Many Aussie flicks, like '70s masterpieces Walkabout and Wake in Fright (a rather obscure little gem that y'all should find in its new blu-ray format), former Midnight Movie of the Week Roadgames, and modern torture flick Wolf Creek, warn us about traveling in less populous areas of that island continent, while others like Dead Calm and Rogue focus on watery dangers around the terrain. I'm not sure what it is about Australia that makes people so afraid of traveling around or being in rural areas, but there's definitely something there that they want people to be afraid of.

A newly found entry into the "dangers of Australia" subgenre is Fortress, in which a teacher (Rachel Ward of the Phil Collins-flavored '80s drama Against All Odds) and her students are abducted from a one-room school house by a group of men in masks who throw them in a cave and ask for a ransom. Naturally, the kids don't like this, but their teacher gets them pumped up and a little bit of a war for survival follows.

Fortress was originally released on HBO in late 1985, as the network put up half of the budget in exchange for debut rights. But no punches were pulled for the TV broadcast, and the result is a survival thriller that still feels as sleazy and violent as theatrical productions of the era. The film tiptoes around some of the violence due to the cast of young characters, but still offers a few surprisingly vicious moments, like a well placed severed head in the middle of the film.

More tension comes from the trio of kidnappers, whose appearance in various masks - one a duck, one a cat, and one as Santa Claus (or, to these Aussie kids, Father Christmas) - reminded me of the aggressors in recent horror favorite You're Next. The kidnappers are large men (one of them is played by the well-known Vernon Wells, who co-starred in The Road Warrior and Commando, and also appeared in Stuart Gordon's unrelated 1992 sci-fi film Fortress) who look even bigger next to the young children and their feminine teacher. There's a definite statement about male domination of women and children being made here, and director Arch Nicholson does a good job of building up the difference in size and strength between the kidnappers and their victims.

But the film gets most interesting when it puts power back in the hands of our teacher and her students, who adapt to their surroundings in attempts to first survive and later fight back.  Ward gives a solid performance in the lead, but all of the children around her do a fine job of keeping the film moving. By the time the teacher and her students are ready to take a stand the film has already created a large amount of empathy for the characters, which leads to a final act that wraps the film up in a manner that is both satisfying and chilling. And the end result leaves Fortress as a great piece of survival cinema and one more example of why you appear to be safer if you never go to less populous parts of Australia.

The Mike's Top 10 Made for SyFy/Sci-Fi Channel Monster Movies

SO MANY OF YOU PEOPLE FREAKED OUT ABOUT SHARKNADO LAST WEEK!

Seriously, it blows my mind.  People who only watch Oscar nominated films or big budget blockbusters were coming to me and saying things like "WHOA! There's a movie called Sharknado! About a Sharknado!" And I was like "Yes...these things happen." And I was all calm and stuff.  I've been down this road a few times. It's kind of a busy street where I live in the nerdy genre fan kingdom. It's crowded with all kinds of ridiculous and wonderful and cheesy and poorly made stuff - and it's glorious.

I did watch Sharknado, and will say it had a few moments of brilliance - especially in the final act. But honestly, it kind of left me wanting something more fun. It was a one trick pony with a drab color pallette, an often misplaced sense of humor, and a repetitive nature. I felt cheated, because for such an inspired idea it was actually kind of dull - while also being bad. And I feel a little like some of the people who think Sharknado is the end-all-be-all of ridiculousness might want to watch a few more movies.

Which movies? Well I'm glad you asked!  Below are ten movies that (as far as I can tell) premiered on the SyFy network or its previous incarnation as the (grammatically correct) Sci-Fi Channel. Do I mean to tell you these are fine pieces of cinema? Well...not really. But they stick out in my mind as more inventive, more fun, and more ridiculous than most pieces of trash I've ever seen. And if you're gonna watch something bad, you should at least watch something that does bad right. The ten following movies just might fit that bill.

Bonus Honorable Mention: Atomic Twister

Original Air Date - June 9, 2002

Atomic Twister would have been one of the highest ranked films on this list - until I realized it premiered on TNT, not Sci-Fi. Alas, I will warn you that this one is about a Tornado hitting a town with a nuclear plant and stars Zack Morris and a cougar scientist who never buttons her shirt. Sadly, it's almost impossible to find now - so you're just going to imagine Zack Morris as a sheriff trying to stop a nuclear tornado.

10. Mega Piranha

Original Air Date - April 10, 2010

 You're not going to see a lot of movies by The Asylum - the company responsible for most movies like Sharknado or Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus or Battle OF Los Angeles - on this list. Their cheap knock-offs of big budget thrillers have occasional charms but can end up a little vapid.  But a) there aren't a ton of great movies to chose from here, and b) This one sticks out in my mind as more clever than most of their recent "battle between giant things" movies have been. (And I just love Tiffany. There, I said it.)

9. Mammoth

Original Air Date - April 2, 2006

A frozen wooly mammoth is revived and causes havoc in a small town while Firefly's Summer Glau and the excellent Tom Skerritt try to stop it. Why's it here? Because it's a freakin' mammoth! Those things are/were awesome!

8. Never Cry Werewolf

Original Air Date - May 11, 2008

This is basically a remake of Fright Night with werewolves replacing vampires, future Vampire Diaries star Nina Dobrev being attractive and replacing William Ragsdale, and Kevin Sorbo replacing Roddy McDowell. Before you run away to vomit, you should know that I'm a sucker for the Rear Window-with-monsters film, which is a big reason why I love Fright Night and why I can laugh at this thing.

7. Puppet Master vs. Demonic Toys

Original Air Date - December 18, 2004

Not only do the title toys go to battle in this one, but they're joined by Corey Feldman and Vanessa Angel feuding over control of the miniature forces. This thing also partially comes from the writer of Dark City, The Dark Knight, and Man of Steel (David S. Goyer) and gets bonus points for ticking off the notoriously shady Charles Band, who doesn't recognize this as "canon."

6. Kraken: Tentacles of the Deep

Original Air Date - September 23, 2006

This one gets crazy bonus points for taking itself too seriously, even while it has an O'Connell in the cast. The real star of the show is one of my favorite underloved actresses, Victoria Pratt, who manages to play a very serious marine archaeologist while only wearing bikini tops. It also features recently deceased Glee star Cory Monteith as one of Pratt's assistants.

5. Wyvern

Original Air Date - January 31, 2009

The Academy Award for Best Lead Performance in a SyFy Original Film of All-Time simply has to belong to Nick Chinlund for his work on Wyvern. The co-star of films like Eraser and Con Air stars as a trucker who has to help a small Alaska town battle a snake dragon, and manages to get in a heavy personal monologue on his way to becoming a hero. Like the last flick, major bonus points for taking itself so seriously.

4. Sasquatch Mountain

Original Air Date - September 9, 2006

Lance Henriksen's wife gets killed by a 'squatch and then a bunch of crooks start pretending their life is Reservoir Dogs in the woods and then there's a bunch of Sasquatch going down and Henriksen is angry and out for blood. There are some obvious flaws, but it still is one of the better Sasquatch movies out there. Then again, there are about zero good Sasquatch movies out there - so I'm not saying much there.

3. Beyond Loch Ness (aka Loch Ness Terror)

Original Air Date - January 5, 2008

If there's one thing I love more than Sasquatch - it's Nessie. I couldn't stop freaking out when that stupid Nessie movie for little kids came out in theaters around the end of 2007. Thankfully, SyFy was there for me. They picked me up and said "Don't worry, The Mike. You want a killer Nessie movie? WE'VE GOT THAT!" And I think that was the moment I knew I was in love.

2. Terminal Invasion

Original Air Date - September 14, 2002

YOU GUYS! You guys! It's Bruce Campbell, you guys!

Campbell stars in what is essentially a feature length (and low-low-budget) adaptation of the classic Twilight Zone episode "Will the Real Martian Please Stand Up?" that is directed by Friday the 13th's Sean S. Cunningham. I KNOW THAT SOUNDS AWESOME. Some bad special effects set the film back a bit, but it's one of the more well-plotted films made for the network and - OH YEAH - it has freaking Bruce Campbell!

1. Mega Python vs. Gatoroid

Original Air Date - January 25, 2011

OK, I know I said I'm not a big fan of The Asylum - but this is their The Dark Knight. Directed by Pet Sematary's Mary Lambert and reuniting '80s pop stars Debbie Gibson and Tiffany - the former reprising her role from Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus and the latter returning from Mega Piranha - this is the one time when the stars just seemed to magically align and everything ridiculous about these movies came together to make one perfectly entertaining work of art.  Plus, we finally get to see a catfight between Debbie and Tiffany that is bookended by quotes from their once popular songs. This is the new American treasure that Sharknado wishes it was.

YEAH I SAID IT.

Midnight Movie of the Week #165 - Dan Curtis' Dracula

There are more films about Dracula than there are deaths in the Friday the 13th series (OK, I just made that up, but it might be accurate), so it's never a surprise when one pops up and I'm like "Huh, I didn't know that was a thing."  Such was the case when I came across a 1974 adaptation of Dracula by Dark Shadows creator Dan Curtis.  Now, Dark Shadows is one of those things I've never really "got" - I'm too young to have been there when it happened and it seems too Twilighty when I watch it these days - but I do recognize that the man behind this iconic creation had an eye for Gothic romantic horror.  And sometimes, curiosity is all it takes to make me leap.

Curtis' version is billed as a straight adaptation of Bram Stoker's Dracula, but the story written by the legendary Richard Matheson for this TV movie takes a few liberties with the novel - which makes it just like every other adaptation of the tale.  The set up is the same - British real estate dude Jonathan Harker goes to Transylvania, meets Dracula, and leads Dracula to London where he obsesses over Jonathan's bride/fiance (depending on the version) Mina.  The twist, which Curtis admits is clearly a rip off (of himself), as he borrows from the love storyline of his hit series and makes Mina the spitting image of his long lost lover. The result is another melodramatic Dracula tale, but one with a key element that keeps the film edgy.

That edge is provided by the man in the title role, respected gruff guy Jack Palance. It's an odd casting (if nothing else, Palance's head doesn't seem to be the shape of the head I expect from Dracula) and one that immediately piqued my interest in the production.  This isn't like having Christopher Lee or Bela Lugosi in the role, because Palance is all about the intensity and doesn't offer much of the suave romanticism that his counterparts brought the table.  I mean, when Lee snarls at the camera because his brides are being wenches it's cool and scary. When Palance does it it's like he's a cat facing off with a dog and putting on the snarl. It's animalistic and harsh and unsettling - which is cool in its own way, but not at all comforting.  This is not the film where you're going to see Dracula making hungry eyes at his victim like Patrick Swayze would in the role.

Palance works in the role because the film allows him to suck all the air out of the melodrama whenever he needs to.  The performance does an excellent job of keeping the film in horror territory, because we don't get the feeling that Dracula is the tortured, yet soothing, soul that he's often portrayed to be. Palance's Dracula is all about the tortured side of the character, and is presented as an uncaged beast who longs for his love but doesn't proceed with anything less than a determined rage. It is not what we are used to from Dracula, but it is unique and thought provoking.

You could argue that a romantic Dracula movie with an unromantic lead is problematic, and you'd be right to assume that the film has some issues. Curtis' film won't win many prizes for style or substance - though it does send some chills when utilizing Dracula's brides around Jonathan Harker - but there's a unique intrigue to this vision of the Dracula legend. The scowling performance by Palance and the soap opera-esque twist to the plot don't really fit together, but they each work on their own. Perhaps that's the most interesting fact about this Dracula; the fact that it's basically two different Draculas in one place.

The common thread that ties these two Draculas together is the pain that the Count is experiencing, and Curtis' film hammers that point home with no subtlety. A Dracula film that relies this much on misery really only works with the confluence of factors here. Palance looks like a truly beaten Drac throughout much of the film, and we buy into his quest for his lost love because he looks so intense about it, not because he's being the suave version of the character that we're used to seeing. It's an odd idea, and one that's not going to sell the film very well to the romantic horror crowd, but it establishes this film as its own beast. It's not the version that's going to make anyone forget about Lugosi or Lee (and it's occasionally laughable when it goes too far into melodrama) but it feels like an interesting addition to the Dracula mix.

The Deadly Tower

(1975, Dir. by Jerry Jameson.)

It's 1966, and there's a sniper atop the university tower in Austin, Texas.  It sounds like a pitch for a high-concept thriller - and, since 1966, it has been a few times - but it's actually the true story of Charles Whitman, a former Marine turned sniper who killed thirteen people on August 1st that year.  His tale would be the partial inspiration for one of my favorite movies - Targets - in 1968, but it's tackled headfirst in the 1975 TV movie The Deadly Tower.

I've had a passing interest in the Whitman case since I first saw Targets, and when I saw that this "true crime" adaptation of the massacre and its bloody end starred the coolest actor to ever live (aka, Kurt Russell), I pretty much had to become good friends with The Deadly Tower.  And now I have, and now you're gonna read about it.

There isn't a lot known about Whitman prior to his actions - which became violent and criminal when he murdered his mother and wife in the early hours of the day of the shooting - so The Deadly Tower takes a rather simple approach to the character.  Russell makes Whitman an intense character who speaks very rarely...in fact, he pretty much spends the last hour of the movie squinting, pulling a trigger, ducking, and repeating.  He gets in a good primal scream at one point, too.  Presence is what the movie needs from Russell, and he delivers that.  The end result is a performance that isn't as jaw-dropping as I hoped it would be, but is memorable and efficient within the film.

Since a mostly-silent sniper isn't much of a story, The Deadly Tower also focuses on one of the police officers that would play a major role in the story, Ramon Martinez (played by Richard Yniguez).  The first half of the film attempts to create a parallel between the cop and the killer, both who have frustrations with their lives, but the film loses steam when it tries to play Martinez's issues against Whitman's.  Part of this might be due to some falsities in the film's production, as the real life Martinez sued the producers for misrepresenting his wife in the film (and won a settlement out of court).

Though the police investigation - primarily a couple of scenes with a Lieutenant and a Priest - does provide some background into the Whitman character, the police side of the story left me cold.  The Deadly Tower is most interesting when it merely lets us experience the gunner's horrific actions, which are handled well by director Jerry Jameson at most times.  The moment when Whitman takes his first shot at a random gentleman in a grassy courtyard is handled perfectly, and the film really seems to nail that "WHAT THE HECK DID THAT REALLY JUST HAPPEN" style of shock that you'd expect to come over you if you were trapped in the same situation. (Or at least the style of shock you'd expect if you expected to see the same situation in a movie.)  But then the film just kind of stays at that point of "Yep, he's shooting peeps and stuff" for a while, and the shock turns into boredom at times.

I am really glad I finally saw The Deadly Tower, because it has that raw TV movie of the '70s vibe that we seem to have lost as time moved past, and because I got to see Russell be an emotionless sniper in a clocktower for 90 minutes.  But I don't know if The Deadly Tower really did as much for me as I wanted it too, primarily because I wasn't interested in the cop side of the story and because the film grew repetitive with time.  I'm sure The Deadly Tower shocked audiences in 1975 - especially when you consider Russell's earlier fame via Disney - but it's pretty ho-hum by today's standards thanks to these problems.  I could see a Tarantino-esque non-linear version of the story working for today's audiences, but for now I'll probably just watch Targets again the next time I start thinking about the Charles Whitman case.

Or, I'll just watch news coverage from '66 on YouTube.

"So You Want To Be A Monster?" Episode 1 - He Who Kills

Let's face it. In the horror world, there's usually only one thing that's gonna get your movie over the top.  A MONSTER.  But what we horror fans often forget is that the term monster is entirely subjective.  After all, what may be a monster to you might not be a monster to me.  You might see Bozo the Clown (R.I.P!) walking down the street and freak out at his clowny features, but if I see Bozo the Clown walking down the street I'd be like "Dude, can I play the toss the ball in the cups game? Seriously, that game was like the best thing to happen during my childhood that wasn't Hulk Hogan."  To me Bozo's just a guy in an outfit who made me dream of getting the chance to put balls in cups for a big prize, but to you who fear clowns - he's a monster.

It's worth discussing how and why any potential monster makes the jump to full monsterhood - and here at FMWL, we're up the challenge.  So allow me to introduce our newest feature - which, as you can see, is titled "So You Want To Be A Monster?" - in which I will use my keen insights and opinions (along with some scientific criteria determined by me) to determine just what it is that puts certain villains into the hallowed grounds of Monsterdom.  So, let's meet our first contestant

HE WHO KILLS

As played by some carved wood in Trilogy of Terror & as written by Richard Matheson in Prey.

Let's learn a little more about our contestant!

Direct from Africa comes He Who Kills - a Zuni Fetish Doll who's not much of a charmer and carries a small (but useful) stick.  Alleged to contain the spirit of a full-sized hunter, He comes equipped with a trusty spear and a lot of pointy teeth, which really bring out his dark black eyes.  He's midsection gives me the impression that He might need a sandwich or two, but his small size just might be his greatest asset.  He also enjoys hunting, sleeping in boxes, and anything else that allows him to never comb his hair.

The Criteria:

Each contestant will be given a score of 1-4 (1 being a Not Monstrous, 4 being Incredibly Monstrous) on five core traits that could define any monster.  The total of all five ratings will be added up and turned into a percentage to form the contestant's "Monster Rating", which will show us just how much of a monster they really are.  In my head, I'd say a Monster Rating of 80 or above is fantastic, a Monster rating of 60 or above is solid, and anything under 60 means that monster might have some glaring weaknesses.

The five traits? Well, they're listed below...so let's do this.

 Monster Rating Category 1: Physical Prowess

It's really hard to size up He Who Kills.  He can't be more than 18 inches tall on a good day, and probably weighs under five pounds.  Considering that one could grab him and chuck him out a window with ease - or, if they're feeling more Fargo-y they could throw him in a woodchipper and make a chopped Zuni salad - He's certainly not imposing, which is one of the key parts of this category in my mind.  But, as mentioned above, his size is also an asset.  He might be under your bed or couch right now. Or, He might be hiding in your closet behind some towels or pillows.  You really can't rightfully know...and that's worth something.  Though I have concerns about his flexibility, I'd say his rating in this category is Partially Monstrous - which equals a score of 2.

Monster Rating Category 2: Destructive Capabilities

While He's size doesn't put him among the most threatening of folks, I think he ranks higher in this category than I first thought.  That spear and those teeth are awfully pointy, and a poor human's Achilles tendon just happens to be right at his level.  Remember that pencil in Evil Dead?  Yeah, that would be a killer move for He to hit you with.  And once he brings someone to their knees and starts moving around at a fast speed, the amount of damage he can do is pretty serious.  That spear could go a lot of places (ear lobes, eyeballs, reproductive cavities) where it could cause a lot of damage.  It might take him some time to get control, but when he does I think he can be Totally Monstrous - which equals a score of 3.

Monster Rating Category 3: Psychology & Motivation

To be a monster, there has to be some unpredictability.  It's sometimes scarier to know what's going on in the mind of the monster, but at other times it's simply not possible to understand them. And this can effect how much a monster effects us differently in every situation.

In the case of He, there is pretty much no knowing what's going on inside this wooden doll's mind.  He doesn't speak real words, he doesn't emote. In fact, he only does one thing - he kills.  Hence, his name.  So, while we can't very well know much about the little wooden killer or the spirit which inhabits it - we certainly know that it has a singular purpose...and that's pretty cool in Monster terms.  I think the one track mind hurts his score a little, but the primal nature of the little guy has to be admired.  I'd say that equals a rating of Totally Monstrous - and another score of 3.

Monster Rating Category 4: Good Ol' Creepiness

Truthfully, I'm not sure I can rate He Who Kills very high on the creepiness factor.  I mean, He does look kinda scary (and He reads even scarier, because Matheson is a boss) - but it's also kind of hard to take him seriously with those wide eyes and that excited grin.  And, thanks to Karen Black, he's not even the creepiest thing in his portion of Trilogy of Terror.  Then again, do I want him standing on my end table watching me while I sleep?  Not really, but I'd be more open to that than Michael Myers standing over me.  So I'm gonna say his score here is Partially Monstrous, which adds another score of 2 to his total.

Monster Rating Category 5: External Factors

This is the catch all category of our discussion, which will hopefully stop me from forgetting important aspects of our characters' monster application.  In the case of He Who Kills, I feel like I must discuss the allegations of a Zuni Hunter's soul being trapped inside him, because that's pretty effed up.

Let's stop and think about this for a minute. According to Ms. Black's Amelia "there's supposed to be some Zuni hunter's spirit inside of" He Who Kills, and only a golden chain can prevent He from coming to life.  Now it's totally obvious that that's going to happen, and when it does the thing becomes more volatile than a 12 year-old Call of Duty addict after too many Monster Energy Drinks.  He gets ahold of knife and he just starts stabbing and growling and biting.  Now...can you imagine what the hunter that's trapped inside that thing must have been like?  Yikes.  That scares me.  We'll say He Who Kills gets an extra 3 points based on that, because that's Totally Monstrous.

The Monster Rating: 

 2 Partially Monstrous ratings (2 points each); 3 Totally Monstrous ratings (3 points each - for a total score of 13.  When divided by the total amount of points possible (20), we find that.....  

He Who Kills has a Monster Rating of 65

What It Means: 

There's no denying that He Who Kills is one of the more inventive monsters I've come across, and the idea of a doll possessed by a killer's soul (which would come up again 13 years later in Child's Play) definitely gives me a few chills.  If there's a problem with the resilient hunter, it's simply that he's too small to be a long term threat.  And, to be honest, the trained horror fan might say he's even kind of cute.  If nothing else, he's a lot less scary than THIS:

Midnight Movie of the Week #73 - Duel

Driving can be a traumatic experience.  One time, when I was on the final leg of an ill-conceived one night six hour road trip (I saw Halloween, it was worth it), I ran over a dead deer.  I'm not sure why I ran over the dead deer - I had plenty of time to think 'Oh, hey.  That's a dead deer man.  There are four lanes here.  So I should probably..."  before the abrupt ka-klunk jarred me.  In the grand scheme of things it didn't matter much - the deer was still dead and my car barely noticed - but my pace was certainly racing for the last hour of my road trip.

Of course, looking back at this experience is pretty funny.  And, I'd imagine the experience would be funny to anyone who was watching a tired driver run over a dead deer.  And, I'd imagine it'd be even funnier if someone could hear the thoughts going on in my mind - which have now been posted here.  I have no shame.

However, it's an interesting thing to consider when discussing Steven Spielberg's Made-For-TV debut film Duel, a bit of roadway terror that pits a meek and slightly pathetic motorist - played by veteran TV actor Dennis Weaver - against a malicious 1955 Peterbilt semi that seems intent on driving him crazy.  I recently watched Duel - which I've seen quite a few times - with some friends, and I was surprised at how much they laughed at the film.  It wasn't entirely a laugh that denoted mockery, but there were more than a few comments about how much of a "loser" Weaver's character is.  I can't disagree too much - part of the film's appeal comes from how frantic Weaver is in his reaction to the demon truck - but I feel like this is one of those performances that is so on point that it might rub people the wrong way.  (Kind of like every '80s movie that had Billy Zabka as a villain.  Don't act like you didn't hate that guy.  You did.  But you hated him because he did what he was supposed to and did it well.)

I think the crowd caught on as the film went on - even if they were still a little bothered by him turning ALL THE WAY AROUND to look out his back window instead of using the rear-view mirror - which is a credit to Spielberg's mastery of suspense.  Weaver is not painted as a hero we should root for - he's already tense as he drives and listens to talk radio before the truck shows up, and we don't see much into his life that makes us think the world really needs this doofus around - but we still sympathize with anyway.  After all, he is being hunted methodically by a truck that doesn't even need the voice of Ted Levine to be creepy.

In fact, the truck is probably the hook that makes the film interesting, we might not have been able to stomach Weaver's sniveling lead if his adversary was anything less than what it is.  The dirty, rust brown colored truck appears to be breathing most of the time, with smoke pouring constantly from the exhaust pipes and the engine.  Spielberg lets the sound effects do a lot of the work, and these combine with Billy Goldenberg's musical score to make the truck sound a little more like a monster than an automobile. One famous sound effect at the end of the film was reused by Spielberg in Jaws, and it serves the same purpose in both films.  Just like what we see in Jaws isn't just a shark to the viewer, Spielberg and crew do everything they can to remind us that this truck is not something we should be comfortable around.

As we'd expect, Weaver is not comfortable.  Even though his sweaty and nervous behavior is a bit laughable, the sequence in a roadside cafe that allows him to weigh his options and look for his aggressor is crucial in developing his character and putting the viewer in his head.  As we hear his inner monologue, we become absolutely certain that this man is not reacting to the situation that's around him in a rational manner.  That doesn't make him a good hero, but it does make the film that much more interesting.  We now know that this victim is susceptible to anything, and that keeps us just a bit more on edge than the film would otherwise.

After all, we shouldn't expect a normal person would react to a killer semi like a Hollywood hero would.  (Just like we shouldn't expect me to chill after I ran over a dead deer and got jarred awake, right?)  To me that's the beauty of Duel - the film is content to provide us a traumatic situation and hopes that we won't mind the potential victim being kind of a doofus.  We're not sure the hero can save himself.  And, even though we don't really like him, we can't help but worry - because we're not sure we could save ourselves in that situation either.

 

Quick Reaction - The Walking Dead, Episode One

If Rick Grimes, played by Andrew Lincoln, is the last person to learn of the zombie outbreak, I'm probably the last horror fanatic to check in to the series for the first time.  Here's a quick set of bullet points recapping my thoughts on The Walking Dead, Episode One.


(I can't promise there aren't spoilers in here.)

• The opening scene featuring Rick and a young zombie is effective, but it didn't exactly get me pumped up.  I feel like we've seen that scene, or something like it, a few dozen times before.  But it's made effective by the slow pace.  Other variations on that scene would have turned the reveal of our first zombie into a moment of frantic shock, but Frank Darabont knows a little something about how to maintain a slow pace and up the tension.  That makes him a pretty good choice to develop a zombie horror.
•  
• Darabont's trademarks shine through in other parts of the episode, too.  Like The Mist or The Shawshank Redemption, conversations about each character's problems seem to carry extra weight.  The scene where Rick and another survivor discuss how much their wives value the family photo albums reminded me of his previous work.  Like Shawshank's Andy Dufresne or The Mist's David Drayton, these characters seem able to empathize with each other while keeping their personal objectives in sight.
•  
• Very cool to see Snatch co-star Lennie James as the first survivor Rick meets.  James - alongside youngster Adrian Kali Turner - does a fine job of selling the dangers to our lead character, and I found the characters instantly interesting.  There's a scene in which James' Morgan tells his son to go in another room, and I had a moment of concern even though the film hadn't done anything to warn me of that setting or given me much information about the boy and his son.  The final scenes with James' character were very well done and had me involved in the characters.
•  
• The introduction to a group of survivors - which include Darabont favorite Jeffrey De Munn and Frozen star Emma Bell - didn't do much for me.  Again, it seems like a standard zombie flick scene.  I'm sure there's more to come from this group, but the quick introduction was too little for me.
•  
• One thing I must comment on is the set-up, with Grimes waking up alone in a hospital to discover the outbreak.  In other words, it's the 28 Days Later set up.  Gets a big meh from me.
•  
• On the flipside, we get Grimes riding into an abandoned Atlanta in full sheriff gear, carrying a bag of weapons, on horseback.  VERY COOL.  And very sad when it ended, but the couple shots we got of this were quite fantastic.
•  
• The zombies didn't look too unique to me, but the effects are definitely not bad.  
• 
  
• The final shot of the episode does a great job of showing how wide the show's view could be.  And the little bit of a cliffhanger regarding other survivors is a nice touch. 
• 
  
• Overall I don't know if the show really wowed me.  Parts were very standard, but other parts really nailed the human element of Darabont's previous works that I dig.  Lincoln seemed competent in the lead, and it definitely seems the show could go up in scale from here.  Like I said, I'm not wowed....but I'm definitely intrigued to keep watching.  Chalk up one more point for Mr. Darabont.

Dario Argento's Door into Darkness - The Tram

From Midnight, With Love has been operational for two years, one month, and twenty-two days.  In that amount of time, I've focused on a lot of films from all corners of all eras of genre film.  But you know who, aside from a few brief mentions, I've never fully covered at FMWL?  That's right, Mr. Dario Argento.

There's not a good excuse for this.  I could blame my weird shaped head or the fact that others are way better at talking Argento than I am, but that would be silly.  Truth is, I've just neglected to directly write about the work of Mr. A, despite having already inducted him in FMWL's Hall of Fame.

In an attempt to change this, I wanted to shine a light on one of Argento's less-publicized projects, Door Into Darkness.  A brief Italian answer to The Twilight Zone, Door into Darkness was a series of four one hour chillers created (and introduced by, though he's no Serling) by Argento in 1973.  At the time of its conception, Argento had completed his "Animal Trilogy" (The Bird With the Crystal Plumage, The Cat O' Nine Tails, Four Flies on Grey Velvet), which were each financially successful in Italy, and branching out to television was one of the first signs of how brightly his star would shine.

I hope to focus on all four episodes of Argento's series - which are now collected on one 2-DVD set by Mya Entertainment - but I started my look at the short series with the second episode, The Tram, which was written and directed by Dario himself.  Starring Enzo Ceruscio as a tenacious detective and Paola Tedesco as his girlfriend, The Tram opens with a young woman's body being found under the seats of a tram, and then follows the detective as he tries to figure out how the crime may have occurred.

If you're like me, you might not even know what a "Tram" is.  (What? Don't look at me like that.  I'm from Iowa, we have cars, trucks, and tractors.  That's it.  You fancy dancy city folk and your modern means of transportation frighten and confuse us.)  As far as I can tell from the episode (yeah, I'm not even gonna google tram, I'm just gonna assume), the tram is kind of like a cross between a trolley car and a subway train (if I knew what those things were).  I know this seems not important, but the whole point of the episode is that this murder occurred in a public place where it seems likely that someone - anyone - might have noticed a young blonde being killed and shoved under a bunch of seats.  On a tram, which I now know is a real thing that exists.

(Why can't there be tractor based murder mysteries?  Then I'd be sittin' here typing "Don't worry guys...I GOT THIS!")

My insolence regarding means of transportation aside, The Tram offers an interesting query to the viewer, and I must admit that I spent a large part of the early episode considering just how someone could pull off a murder on a mode of public transportation. I had to imagine a bus, because we do have those and the tram looks kind of like a bus.  I kept pondering how such a murder could occur, and found the idea behind Argento's story most interesting.  Unfortunately, the final act is tram-specific, and thus my bus thoughts were completely meaningless.  I fail at city living.

Luckily for the film, Ceruscio's Inspector knows a lot more about trams than I do.  And he has access to one, which means that he can spend most of his time trying to recreate the events of that fateful night at the scene of the crime.  Argento urges us to keep our eyes on the faces that appear throughout the film as we try to solve the mystery, but there really are only a couple of logical suspects in the film.  The mystery isn't too deep, but watching the detective piece together the crime as he nervously snaps his fingers is more entertaining than the plot deserves.  Argento doesn't offer the scope we're used to from his films either, but despite the shortcomings in plot and style I still found myself caught up in the mystery.

The final act does show off some of the giallo trademarks that Argento is famous for, and any viewer versed in Dario can probably tell from the beginning that Tedesco is far too good looking to not be a potential victim.  The climactic moments are closer to the likes of Deep Red (which would be Argento's next film) than the rest of the episode, but they mostly left me wanting more.  I also was a bit sad that we didn't get to witness the initial murder, at least through a recap after the killer is revealed.  It feels like this story could have easily been beefed up into a feature, which would have allowed for a little more action, better characterization of the suspects, and a bit of blood.

The Tram has me interested to check out the rest of what Argento put together in Door into Darkness, but certainly is a far cry from his most artistic thrillers.  It's still a fun quick viewing, and I recommend it to any Italian horror fan who loves the man's work.  Just try not to get caught up on the specifics of the tram itself, especially if you're a Iowan like me. Public transportation is just so confusing when it's not a hayride.

That's right.  We roll...in the hay.

Final Girl Film Club - The Initiation of Sarah

(1978, Dir. by Robert Day.)

By all accounts, I am a dude of the male persuasion.  In my experience as a male person, I've never come across many initiations.  When I was preparing for college I spent a summer night in a fraternity during orientation, but I quickly remembered that I didn't like alcohol or polo shirts, and got the heck out of there.  I didn't get to any initiation phase, and am grateful for that.

Sarah, played by Kay Lenz, is not fortunate enough to escape that easily.  Sent to college with her sister Patty by her adopted mother, Sarah is an awkward creature with crazy jowls and a mean stare.  She wants to get into the best sorority on campus, along with her sister, but she's not cut out for their sort.

That decision is made by witchy queen bee Jennifer - played by Morgan Fairchild - who then sets out to separate the siblings.  Sarah is accepted into the nerdy rival sorority, and thus contact between the sisters is not allowed.  Sarah goes off to her old-school sorority, which looks like your grandparents' house with Tom Noonan's House of the Devil furniture.  I don't know what her problem is, because that's my kind of sorority house!

(Also, I should mention that Patty is played by future Dallas co-star Morgan Brittany.  I bring this up only because Ms. Brittany has pretty much the most piercingly beautiful eyes in the history of beauty.  I recalled them instantly from that odd vampire flick Sundown: The Vampire in Retreat, in which I also thought they were also piercingly beautiful, and now I feel safe saying that they kind of see through my soul and make my knees weak.  So yeah....where was I?)

Sarah has long had a strange ability to control objects with her gaze, which causes some tension when dealing with those who embarrass her.  This is when Shelley Winters enters as the house mother who wants to make sure that Sarah uses her powers to their maximum potential, even though she seems to be doing a good job on her own.  A mid film scene where Sarah stands up to Jennifer is a fantastic moment of self-confidence, but revenge is swift (and comes with an assist from Jennifer's hunky boyfriend, Airplane! star Robert Hays).  Despite her budding relationship with a wise psychology TA (Tony Bill) who enjoys leading half-cocked discussions on the duality of good and evil, Sarah wants to get a leg up on Jennifer. 

Since we're currently focusing on Mothers of Horror here at FMWL, I find it imperative that I focus a bit on Winters' character.  She might be just a house mother, but Sarah quickly follows her lead.  The house mother's first appearance is accompanied by ominous music and a mysteriously locked door - so it's pretty obvious that there's a darker side to her character.  That doesn't faze Sarah, and Winters' Mrs. Hunter ends up the Burgess Meredith to her telekinetic Rocky Balboa.  This is another example of a motherly character in horror who isn't exactly Mrs. Cleaver, though it makes for some great entertainment in the final act.

I know this sounds like it's basically Revenge of the Nerds meets Carrie...and it kind of is...but there's something magical about it.  We all ran into a bully or two when we were growing up, and The Initiation of Sarah harnesses those memories perfectly.  Fairchild is fantastically sadistic as Jennifer, and we really want to see her get what's coming to her.  But the film becomes even more interesting when Winters' character is played against the snooty sorority.  Caught in the middle, Sarah really seems like a lost soul who caught a bad break.  She rarely smiles (even when she's with her manfriend) and her stare of doom provides for some fantastic moments - especially in an early scene with a lifted piano.

There's not much to say about The Initiation of Sarah except that I kind of love it.  Maybe I was done in when I saw Ms. Brittany's eyes, or maybe it was the thrill of a suspended piano that just might crush someone at any moment.  Maybe it was Fairchild's gravity defying hair, or a possessed shower door.  Whatever it was, I loved it.  If you thought Mean Girls needed a few more cloaked sacrifices, this film's for you.

(Want to hear more about this rocking film - which happens to be on Instant Netflix, despite never making DVD? Then head over to Final Girl at some point on Monday and see what other Film Club Fanatics have to say!  In the meantime, stare into the eyes of Morgan Brittany and grovel.)