Horror, Not Horror: the trash bin

"Horror, Not Horror" movies are those that toe the line of being horror movies but don't quite comfortably fit the mold.  I'm not a big horror fan (Toast is the horror buff here), but I do quite like these line-skirting type movies, as we'll see. 

In the past few months I've been wading more and more into the underexplored depths of genre cinema.  Some of this has been on my own, at random, and some of it's been prompted by the films discussed by Quentin Tarantino and Roger Avery on the very fun Video Archives podcast (noted by an asterisk below).  These are, to a one, not good films, but the hope is always that, for as maybe limited in budget, or as tossed off as they may have been, they still have something going for them. Oh, but surprise, one of these is a prestige picture that was nominated for Oscars!

---

Hercules Conquers Atlantis (1961) dir. Vittorio Cottafavi - Tubi

(AKA Hercules and the Captive Women)

What is it? One of the many, many iterations of Hercules in the "sword'n'sandals" genre of action/adventure movies, largely made in Italy throughout the 1950's through 1980's.  In this one Hercules, played by the handsome and beefy Reg Park, is ostensibly kidnapped by his friend and taken on an adventure where he discovers Atlantis, but the place is a nefarious one, and only the might of Hercules can stop their evil plot (whatever it was).

Why watch? I had, on a whim, picked up a copy of the Mario Bava directed "sequel" film to this, Hercules in the Haunted World, so I thought I should just give this one a shot first.

The good? Bava served as a director of photography so there are some pretty nice shots in this.  Reg Park, former Mr. Universe, is really nice to look at.  Bava does this tilt-down/pan-up shot in the cave which is really sweet, and there's a high-up crane shot of.  The shot of Hercules bounding through a courtyard of dead bodies is kinda nuts as is the reveal of the Atlantian elite guard which is a little provovative.  It's impressive seeing Hercules driving a chariot of 10 horses, if only there were a Hercules movie that could sustain that sort of scale.  Hercules being a petty dick was pretty fun, as were all Reg Park's muscles.  Fay Spain's eyes are the best special effect in the movie.

The bad? The audio - dubbing, sound effects, music - is pretty awful most of the time, and seemingly mixed all at the same volume. The action sequences are incredibly clumsy. The story is flimsy nonsense with little internal consistency. The wardrobe and sets waver between spectacular and silly. The envisioning of both ancient Greece and Atlantis is pretty uninspired. The cinematography wavers between impressive and pedestrian.

The trash? Reg Park does this one-armed swimming technique which just blows my mind thinking about it.

Is it horror? No, but there's definitely some little twinges of horror that the film never thinks to exploit.

---

Hercules in the Haunted World (1961) dir. Mario Bava - BluRay

What is it? Reg Park's second - and final - foray as the demigod hero.  But this one's directed by Mario Bava, and Christopher Lee co-stars.  Maintaining no continuity from the prior film (in which Hercules had a wife and son), here he must go on a quest to retrieve a specific stone in order to cure the madness of his lover.  The stone's destination? Hell!

Why watch?  Bava, of course.

The good? This is a visual feast of nonsense.  I watched it twice.  Bava's innovative craftsmanship and colour sense is so damn impressive.  The visual effects, in many instances, seem so surreal, as if they shouldn't exist.  The big finale features the raising of the dead which is a sequence that would have for sure scared the crap out of me as a kid (but is both fun and silly as an adult watching on a hi definition TV)

The bad? The story is utterly nonsensical.  The Kino blu-ray features an audio commentary from a Bava scholar who identifies that there was obviously a completely different shooting script at one time and that few pains were taken to marry the original story with what they wound up with.

The trash? Very little trash in this one.  It's a really stunning watch.  I guess, the biggest trash is that they dubbed over Christopher Lee's performance. Blasphemy!

Is it horror? No, but it does swerve that way for the climax for a bit, providing a sense of Bava's chops in the genre.

---

*Demonoid: Messenger of Death (1981) dir. Alfredo Zacarias - Tubi

What is it? A Mexican (but English) horror film about a demonic hand which possesses people to kill. Samantha Eggar stars as the wife of the mining honcho who releases the hand.  It seems to be fixated on trying to get her specifically as it goes from possessing person to person and murdering along the way.

Why watch?  It was a Tarantino/Avery recommendation.

The good? Honestly, it has a pretty solid sense of its own history and the evil forces at play.  It does better than many horror films in that aspect. The acting is surprisingly decent for such a off the beaten path production.

The bad? But make no mistake, this is some cheesy-crust crazy-bread stuff.  The special effects are that special blend of late-70's/early-80's waxy gore with stark red corn syrup blood. I have to wonder if the makers of this took any of it seriously or if they knew it would eventually be considered campy fun.

The trash? They really liked to work their gross visual effects, and we've come so far in making that shit so gross that it's really quaint what they used to be able to get away with.  Oh and gratuitous nudity tied to violence in the first five minutes (seen in one of the trailers even)

Is it horror? Yeah. It's that special type of 80's low-budg horror.

---

*Blind Rage (1976) dir. Efren C Pinon - YouTube

What is it? The war in Viet Nam has decimated the markets in the Asian Pacific, so the world bank (I guess?) has decided to invest 15 million dollars into the region, to be held at a bank in Manila before dispersing. A man on the inside is recruited by a Black L.A. mobster to pull off a heist of said 15mil, but he's going to do it with ... 5 blind guys!  Because who would ever suspect blind guys of robbing a bank. 

Why watch? Another Tarantino/Avery recommendation.

The good? Umm, this movie real bad, but so bad that I enjoy telling people about how bad it is. It ends with a cameo by Fred Williamson in a bright blue butterfly collared deep-V-neck jumpsuit chomping on a cigar, looking great and being a total badass.  And the line: "It's all going down right now at the International House of Pancakes".  

The bad? There's no protagonist to this film.  There's nobody we follow all throughout the movie.  Is there anyone to really care about if they succeed or fail? No, there is not.  

The trash? This movie is part Blaxploitation, part kung-fu, and part crime thriller, none of which is done particularly well.  Is "Blindsploitation" a genre?

Is it horror? No, nor is it trying to be, though people do be getting shot, tho.  And the script is a nightmare, lol.

---

*Welcome to Blood City (1977) dir. Peter Sasdy - YouTube

What is it? A group of strangers find themselves in the desert with no memory of who they are, and a note each found on their person telling them that they were a killer.  Kier Dullea (2001: A Space Odyssey) doesn't believe a thing.  They're escorted to Blood City by the sheriff (Jack Palance) who doesn't really want to tell them much about how the town operates, but it's basically a place where anything goes, including slavery and murder.  In fact, the more you murder, the greater your status.  But who are the people in a control booth watching all this, and why? 

Why watch? Though Avery and Tarantino didn't necessarily love this, they were generally intrigued by the premise, and cited it as one of the Westworld knock-offs of the era, which intrigued me.

The good? The premise was really, really intriguing.  A group of people with a secret past, possibly filled with murder, but without their memories, are they still the same murderers?  Just one of many questions the film poses, but never answers.  It's rather rife with ideas that don't get explored well enough, and has a mysterious backdrop that gets slowly revealed in a pleasant way (possibly cribbed by Cabin in the Woods) but ultimately doesn't pay off.  And hey, more Samantha Eggar

The bad? The film is either shot terribly, with the active actor partially or fully out of frame most of the time, or else its transfer to video/digital went horribly wrong.  It's actually pretty funny how awful it looks.

The trash? The one female "murderer" is the helpless object of affection and treated like a non-entity by everyone (content warning: off screen rape).

Is it horror? No, but it's certainly playing with dystopian themes which can be scary to some.

---

*The Keep (1983) dir. Michael Mann - Criterion

What is it? The infamous/forgotten Michael Mann disaster that finds Nazi soldiers in 1941 taking over an old Romanian Citadel only to unleash a terrible, murderous being from its cage.  The being uses Jewish scholar Ian McKellen to try and get set free upon the Earth, by tempting him with revenge upon all Nazis.  Scott Glenn plays an otherworldly savior type who's arrived on earth to stop it, but not before sexing up Alberta Watson, McKellen's daughter. 

Why watch? I caught this film years and years ago on a late night TV airing, and have long been wanting to revisit it.  It's a moody piece with haunting Tangerine Dream synths, that probably was even moodier in Mann's lost original 210minute cut.  This 98 minute hack job by the studios leaves the film feeling disjointed and frequently confusing.

The good?  I love all the strange lighting, the sets, the evil creature, Mann's style is all over this, even in it's chopped up form.

The bad? I have to think that a 210minute version of this would be better as a cohesive story, but still potentially direly boring.  But then again, there are some intriguing character reveals and dynamics that I think may have played out so much better in a longer form.

The trash? Scott Glenn meets Alberta Watson for less then a minute before they start boning.  Does he have Starfox's powers?

Is it horror? I think it's trying to be.  

---

Leviathan (1989) dir. George P. Cosmatos - AmazonPrime

What is it? The other, lower-budget undersea movie of 1989 (next to the Abyss), it's basically Alien (with a dash of Carpenter's The Thing) in a sealab.  Starring Robocop, a Ghostbuster, Flash's girlfriend, and Evil-Lyn, so it's 80's to the core.

Why watch? It's been on my "to watch" list since I first spied its tape cover at a video store.  It always looked like something that would be in my wheelhouse.

The good? There's some really great sets and some nice underwater sequences.  It does manage to build a decent amount of attention, but...

The bad? ...you can basically watch as the film's budget starts shrinking the longer it goes on. They try to edit around the budget limitations, but they become painfully obvious.  The budget limitations can't capitalize upon the film's buildup and it's a real wet fart of an ending.

The trash?  The creature, and not in an "oh, it's so gross" kind of way but more in a "really? That's what you're going with?" kind of way.  It's a pretty corny looking beast, and the film does an incredibly poor job with devising any sort of mythology or backstory behind it.  It's basically a perfunctory creature with little to no intrigue behind it.  It's a terrible let down to an otherwise acceptably entertaining picture.

Is it horror? It probably was at some point during production.

---

Nightmare Alley (2020) dir. Guillermo del Toro - Crave

What is it? The saga of down-on-his-luck crumbum Bradley Cooper who winds up helping out at 1920's-era carnival/freakshow, learning the tricks of the trade.  He effectively steals one man's mentallist act then starts performing for New York High society, pushing the boundaries of good taste and kayfabe.  Psychologist Cate Blanchette starts working with him, if only to ultimately use him for her own purposes, then destroy him for fun.

Why watch? Generally intrigued by del Toro's films, and I share his fascination with carnivals of old.  Oh yeah, and Sid worked on it!

The good? It looks great.  It's a phenomenal looking film in every aspect.  The attention to detail in every scene -- the sets, lighting, costuming, makeup, props - all just eye catching and really attractive.  I also liked how it exposed the sham of mentallists (if only it had more fun with it)

The bad? The film is tedious. It's a long 150 minutes of watching a not great person do not great things. You never really connect with Bradley Cooper, nor with any of his relationships. There's nothing there. You know he's bad news from the beginning, and that sense of distrust never abates. It makes it very, very hard to invest in him. Were he, maybe, more charming, or perhaps if we had some insight into what his goals were, what he's actually working towards, or, mayhaps if he were even a semblance of a good person we could follow him, hoping for his success even as he makes the wrong choices and finds himself unable to stop from going deeper into the darkness. But we know he's shit from the beginning, Del Toro wants us to know that being easy on the eyes will get him far, but for this story, it's not enough. We're rooting for him to fail (and hoping, at least, that he doesn't take others undeservedly down with him)..

The trash?  The last 30 minutes finally pick up the pace but they're kind of the worst moments of the film. Just waiting for Cooper to get his comeuppance, little of which is satisfying, moreover, it all seemed kinda overblown and carny...I mean corny.

Is it horror? Meh, its toes creep over the edge of the deck, but it never really tests the waters, nevermind jumps right in.