Tag horror

‘Dressed To Kill’ – Brian De Palma’s raunchy cult classic

seancarslake Leave a comment

‘Dressed To Kill’ was released in July of 1980, and was a rather risky undertaking for the established writer/director Brian De Palma. The film was originally given an X-rating from the Motion Picture Association upon first reviews due to its gratuitous nudity and violence, which was later downgraded to an R-Rating after a few scenes were edited and/or cut out completely. The response from De Palma and his editors would pay dividends as the movie would be a box office success – perhaps due to its notoriety – and make over thirty million dollars from a budget of six million.

Following ‘Dressed To Kill’, Brian De Palma would go on to direct a number of classic movies such as ‘Scarface’, ‘The Untouchables’, ‘Carlito’s Way’ and the first installment of the ‘Mission:Impossible’ series; but his career would nosedive around the turn of the century with fizzers such as ‘Snake Eyes’ and ‘Mission To Mars.’

But before I go any further, I should point out that De Palma also directed the highly-acclaimed horror/supernatural films ‘Carrie’ and ‘The Fury’ as an up-and-coming filmmaker in the nineteen-seventies – which is why he is described as a ‘Master of the Macabre’ on the movie poster for ‘Dressed To Kill.’

The film features a very solid cast with Michael Caine, Angie Dickinson and Nancy Allen in the leading roles; but there is a slight caveat here: – for Caine was at arguably the lowest point of his career during the early to mid nineteen-eighties, and Dickinson was perhaps a little too old for such a sultry performance, for she was aged almost fifty when the movie was shot. Nancy Allen – who was married to De Palma at the time – was not as well-known as her more famous co-stars, and would not reach the top of her game until playing the tough female cop Lewis in 1987’s ‘Robocop.’

I’m not going to give a detailed blow-by-blow account of ‘Dressed To Kill’ as far as the story is concerned, but instead focus more on the aesthetics and specific scenes within the film that I think are worth pointing out. There’s a lot going on here; as what we are presented with is a movie that is heavily-inspired by Hitchcock whilst giving us shades of noir and strong doses of De Palma’s own unique style. This can be a little hit-and-miss at times – as I will point out later – but it is certainly never boring.

The premise of the film is straight-forward enough, with Caine playing psychiatrist Dr Robert Elliott who is helping a sexually-frustrated housewife Kate Miller (Dickinson) through therapy sessions. When Miller is later murdered by a razor blade-wielding maniac in an elevator, the crime is witnessed in-part by high-class call girl Liz Blake (Nancy Allen) and together with Miller’s grieving son Peter (Keith Gordon) the unlikely pair set about solving the crime, with limited assistance from Detective Marino from the NYPD (played by Dennis Franz.)

But despite the intriguing plot, it was the steamy and sensual elements of ‘Dressed To Kill’ that served as its major drawcard back in the day, and the film kicks off with literally exactly that in the opening scene where Dickinson’s character Kate Miller is experiencing an erotic dream sequence in the shower – and I think the screenshots below say it all…

If one can set aside the over-played nudity and sexual imagery, you will find that there is actually a decent film here – with some clever direction and cinematography; stylish camera angles and first-person shots that make ‘Dressed To Kill’ a movie that is visually engaging and quite entertaining; even without the naked eye-candy and risque themes.

For instance, there is an early scene in the film where Kate Miller (Dickinson) plays a teasing game of cat-and-mouse with a stranger at an art gallery. While there is an argument to be made here that this drags out a little longer than needed, the constant changing of angles from a first-person view, to close-ups of an increasingly-desperate Miller trying to find the mystery man (who has actually taken one of her gloves), onto wider shots capturing the broader spaces and corridors to reveal other patrons – as well as the elusive gentleman slipping around corners – makes this entire sequence work incredibly well, and really draws the audience in.

Eventually, Kate Miller catches up with the stranger outside the gallery, having spotted her missing glove being waved out of the window of a parked taxi. Kate is then lured into the waiting cab, and the pair get right down to business – despite having never spoken a word to each other – before spending the rest of the day in the sack at the man’s apartment. Yikes!

We are then treated to not one but two bizarre memory recall scenes; firstly when poor Kate wakes up in a darkened room after her sordid sexual encounter and can’t find her underpants anywhere – and then has a light-bulb moment when realising they were torn off during the taxi ride. It happens to the best of us, right?

The second flashback involves Kate noticing that her wedding ring was missing – and then recalls that she left it on the table at the stranger’s apartment.

These shots come across as a little cheap and cheesy – especially when compared to the stylish and tension-building sequences at the art gallery that took place only minutes earlier. I might be being a little harsh here, but they could have got away with one of these flashbacks – but to present two near-identical shots in quick succession doesn’t quite work for me.

At this point it feels like the movie is trying to do too much and be too many things, but it is still quite enjoyable. However, I burst out laughing during both of these scenes – mostly because of the exact-same blank look on Angie Dickinson’s face whilst her lost items suddenly materialise on screen; more so when seeing the missing undies from the taxi. Pure cinematic gold!

But here is an example of what I meant by ‘hit-and-miss’ – for within minutes of the two flashback scenes we are given a zoomed-in shot of some paperwork that is straight-forward yet highly effective film-making. The scene itself is little more than the foolish Kate opening a drawer at the stranger’s apartment and finding his medical records (see screenshot below) – yet the bluntness of the visuals hit hard because I instantly felt sorry for the woman – despite her questionable moral choices leading up to this moment.

‘Dressed To Kill’ then takes things up a notch, for when the confused and distraught Kate Miller is forced to return to the man’s apartment to retrieve her wedding ring, she is violently attacked in the elevator by a woman wielding a razor blade.

This is when Nancy Allen’s character Liz makes her first appearance, for she interrupts the killer when finding Kate barely alive in the elevator and pleading for help – and the close-up shots work very well here.

Liz then tries to reach out to the victim, but looks up at a convex mirror inside the lift and sees the killer hiding around the corner ready to strike with the razor. I thought this was a great scene!

The remainder of the film concentrates on Liz – who is now the killer’s next target – and Kate’s son Peter, who join forces in an effort to identify the villain before she (or he) strikes again. From this point ‘Dressed To Kill’ ticks all the boxes for a standard nineteen-eighties thriller, with a twist that most of us probably would have seen coming.

There were some great scenes in the second half of the film, and I thought the subway sequence was a stand-out with some interesting visuals and just the right amount of tension as the killer stalks Liz around the platforms and then onto a train; with a gang of thugs and a useless police officer thrown in for good measure.

But whilst the film consistently looks good, my major gripe is that it is let down by some poor dialogue – and as a result, even the great Michael Caine comes across as wooden in a lot of his scenes. Honestly, that’s how bad some of it is!

Look at the conversation below for example – taking place only a day or two after the poor lad’s mother is murdered. It’s not the worst writing I’ve seen – but it’s right up there!

And then there is this classic exchange – taking place near the climax of the film.

This one had me in stitches!

See what I mean?

But bad dialogue and ham acting aside, I actually enjoyed this film – more so as a visual treat than anything else. The plot and character motivations are serviceable, and when combined with some really interesting and stimulating direction and cinematography, ‘Dressed To Kill’ ends up being a better-than-average entry into the thriller genre.

Before I give my final score, I should point out that there are a couple of versions of this film out there – as a result of the original censorship rating back in 1980. The cut that I watched was the ‘Unrated Version’ that only differs from the R-Rated edition by showing more nudity in the opening shower scene and splashing more blood about during the razor blade frenzy in the elevator.

In any case, ‘Dressed To Kill’ is a most enjoyable watch – and is a roller coaster ride of impressive highs and burst-out-laughing lows! I wouldn’t go as far as saying this is a ‘so bad it’s good’ movie, but there certainly are unintentional comedic elements at play here, and this is perhaps why it is considered a cult classic these days. On the whole – and leaning heavily into the film’s entertainment factor – I would recommend this to anyone looking for a bit of lightweight, cheesy nineteen-eighties fun.

‘Dressed To Kill’ gets a well-deserved seven out of ten from me!

Screenshots and poster courtesy of Cinema 77/Film Group and Filmways Pictures.

The wonderful ‘Warlords of Atlantis’

seancarslake Leave a comment

‘Warlords of Atlantis’ is a 1978 science-fiction adventure film directed by Kevin Connor and starring Doug McClure. This movie marked the fourth collaboration between both actor and director – as well as producer John Dark – with their most successful film up to this point being 1974’s ‘The Land That Time Forgot.’

The American actor McClure – perhaps best known for the 1960’s TV series ‘The Virginian’ – was considered to be a bit of an action man back in the day, and it’s interesting to note that they were really using his reputation to promote ‘Warlords of Atlantis’ – for his name is printed almost as large as the film’s title on the poster!

But it wasn’t McClure’s machismo that first drew my attention to this movie, but rather the above photo that was featured in a science-fiction book that I owned as a child. Funnily enough, I only recently managed to get hold of a copy of the same book and then – around fifty years after first laying eyes on this image – I sat down and actually watched ‘Warlords of Atlantis’ for the very first time!

The movie gets right down to business, and takes us onboard the good ship Texas Rose somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. There, our two main characters Greg Collinson (Doug McClure) and Charles Aitken (Peter Gilmore) man a specially-designed diving bell and are lowered into the depths; hoping to discover the lost city of Atlantis.

But it was never going to be that easy…

Having fought off a sea monster that stuck its head inside the bell, Collinson and Aitken then discover a gold statue at the bottom of the ocean. Taking this as evidence of finding Atlantis, they have their priceless bounty hauled up to the ship – only to create a nasty eight-tentacled problem!

And yes! The deckhand in the above screenshot is none other than John Ratzenberger – who later became famous playing Cliff Clavin in ‘Cheers!’

The giant octopus proceeds to capture four crew members and take them all the way to Atlantis where they are reunited with Collinson and Aitken. Either that octopus was an extremely fast swimmer, or those men could hold their breaths for a very long time!

From here, ‘Warlords of Atlantis’ moves along at a brisk pace and introduces us to the various kingdoms of Atlantis, and throws in a Martian backstory just to add a little spice to proceedings, while the characters from the surface are trying to outsmart their captors and escape back to their ship.

For the remainder of its running time, the film delivers everything it promised and more; serving up aliens, sea monsters, bad haircuts and is never short of a good action sequence! There is a lot to appreciate here, for the sets and matte paintings are incredible – and I think the best way to highlight this is to let the screenshots below speak for themselves.

And now, for the slightly weird…

Forgive me for going off on a slight tangent here, but did you know that ‘Warlords of Atlantis’ has a little something for James Bond aficionados.

Let’s dive into this, shall we?

I was kicking myself when this actor first appeared on screen for I knew I’d seen him in something else – a film or TV show that I’d watched many times – and it took me some time to figure it out.

The actor’s name is Michael Gothard – who sadly died in 1992 at the age of 53 – and was best known for playing the villainous Emile Locque in 1981’s ‘For Your Eyes Only.’

The other James Bond connection is the man in the above photo playing Briggs; the captain of the ill-fated Mary Celeste and now a prisoner in Atlantis.

The actor is Robert Brown, who played ‘M’ in four films – from ‘Octopussy’ in 1983 to ‘Licence to Kill’ in 1989. Brown passed away in 2003 – aged 82.

Now, back to ‘Warlords of Atlantis’ and how the story ends.

So, our heroes manage to escape Atlantis and scramble their way back to their ship – but they are followed by the giant octopus who returns for a final fight!

While the monster is tearing the Texas Rose to pieces – and killing some of the crew members who tried to steal the gold statue for themselves – the good guys manage to slip away from the carnage in a small dinghy, giving us a happy ending!

So, here is my final assessment.

I’m a bit of a sucker for these cheesy science-fiction adventures, and have a great appreciation for the craftsmanship and imagination that goes into making these movies. As I get older, I find myself connecting more with the over-the-hill and slightly out-of-shape leading men headlining projects such as these, so it’s hard for me not to give a decent review.

Look, I found this film to be quite enjoyable. It’s an honest, easy-to-follow adventure story with enough imagination and excitement to keep the audience engaged throughout.

As I mentioned before, I have a soft spot for these types of movies – but I don’t think I’m being overly-biased in giving ‘Warlords of Atlantis’ a solid seven out of ten!

‘Warlords of Atlantis’ screenshots and photos courtesy of EMI Productions.

‘For Your Eyes Only’, ‘Octopussy’ and ‘Licence to Kill’ screenshots courtesy of Eon Productions and MGM/United Artists.

‘Paranormal: Hollywood Haunting’ – New Chapter: New Direction

seancarslake Leave a comment

Having previously written a review for the ‘Paranormal Farm’ trilogy – a series of independent horror/documentary films by British actor and director Carl Medland – I was given the opportunity to share my thoughts on his latest supernatural entry: – ‘Paranormal: Hollywood Haunting.’

‘Hollywood Haunting’ has only just been released on Amazon Prime Video, but at the time of writing is not yet available in the UK, so I will keep this article spoiler-free as best I can – but will put a warning in places where I may delve into plot areas and potential giveaways.

So, let’s get into it…

From the opening shot panning alongside the Hollywood Reservoir with the city skyline in the distance, complemented by haunting theme music – I knew immediately that this was a major step-up in presentation when compared to the previous films.

Medland then wastes little time in setting up the story and introducing us to married couple Arthur and Daniel – who are experiencing some paranormal issues in and around their spacious home, and have reached out to Carl to help them with their otherworldly troubles. Of course, this challenge is accepted and Carl – along with cameraman Taz – fly to Los Angeles to hopefully sort things out.

Side note: I can’t get my head around the fact that Arthur – on the left in the screenshot above – is ninety-two years old! The guy looks great and is both nimble and mentally sharp. What a legend!

One of the things that impressed me about the ‘Paranormal Farm’ trilogy – particularly the first film – was Medland’s talent in making the location come alive and become a real part of the movie. That creepy farm and the way it was captured and presented on screen was a credit to the film-makers, but on this occasion we have almost the opposite as far as the setting is concerned: – a multi-million dollar house in the Hollywood Hills.

So does this dynamic work?

The short answer is ‘yes’ – for this amazing home plays a huge part in the film – but in a very different way to how the farm was used in the previous entries. I will go into this in a little more detail later, as it involves the plot and tone of the movie, but without spoiling anything I would say that this incredible location is embraced and shown-off to its fullest here; immersing the audience into every scene that was filmed within.

The main positive that stood out for me with ‘Hollywood Haunting’ was the writing – in particular the tightness of the script – which to be honest I found surprising, for I was expecting some inconsistencies here and there. A huge effort has been made by Medland to make this film as credible and serious as possible, and this comes across evidently with both the plot and pacing of the movie.

Of course, the downside of this is that a lot of the goofiness and quirkiness of the first three films are gone or have been reduced significantly – as well as the cheap jump scares – all of which I enjoyed personally, but I completely understand the direction in which this film has taken.

It’s not just the storyline and creative elements that have improved so dramatically, for the camerawork has also stepped up a level or two – and perhaps more importantly so too has the editing – for this film looked good and the transitions were slick. What we end up with is a well-paced movie that does not fall into some of the traps that its predecessors did – but in order to explore this a little deeper, there may be mild spoilers ahead…

Here is an example of good pacing: – there is a sequence in the film where Carl is given a tour of Hollywood by his hosts, and they visit the filming locations for ‘Halloween’ and ‘A Nightmare On Elm Street’ – which was an interesting and relatable tangent. What impressed me here was that we did not linger for long at these iconic places, and the focus of the film quickly shifted back onto the paranormal investigation at the house. I felt there was a concerted effort when it came to editing the film to not allow these scenes – as good as they were – to drag and take the audience’s attention away from the main plot.

Further to this point, ‘Hollywood Haunting’ has a smooth running time of eighty-five minutes, and pretty much does everything it needs to do within this time frame. I will mention the pacing again here, and say that the plot purred along nicely and there were no moments of lag nor the story being bogged down in dialogue-heavy scenes. In fact, the improvements in these areas are so great that this feels like a standalone film when compared to the farm trilogy.

*** POTENTIAL SPOILERS AHEAD ***

Going by what I have already written, it can be safely ascertained that I enjoyed ‘Hollywood Haunting’, and considered it to be technically superior to the ‘Paranormal Farm’ trilogy. The step-up in quality and execution is evident – and I’m going to give this film a very good score.

But that being said, this is a very different movie to what we experienced with the farm trilogy. Medland has clearly moved away from in-your-face horror and cheesy stunts to instead present a very mature and grounded story where the supernatural elements exist alongside the emotional tale of the main characters – particularly the younger partner Daniel. We still get to see Carl doing his clairvoyant things, and Taz is back behind the camera – and the documentary style of filming is consistent with their previous work, but a drastic change in scenery has no doubt brought about a new approach.

I’ll be honest here and say that I enjoyed the first ‘Paranormal Farm’ movie more. This is of course my own personal view, and I base this solely on the fact that I had a lot more fun with it. However, when I take a step back and compare both projects from a film-making perspective, it is clear that ‘Hollywood Haunting’ is a far more polished product.

As I mentioned earlier, the strength and consistency of the writing is to be commended, and the screenplay managed to avoid plot holes and incoherent narratives – which is a rare feat these days. For instance, the crawlspace in the mansion was mentioned very early in the film as a potential hotspot for the paranormal activity – and the film continued on for some time without referring back to it. However, this creepy part of the house was eventually addressed – and not conveniently forgotten like a J J Abrams plot device – when Carl and Taz returned to check it out later on and didn’t really find anything there. This may sound like a minor or insignificant observation – but I assure you it is not – for how many Hollywood and Netflix movies are riddled with lazy writing when setting up an early hook only to never mention it again?

I also thought the references to the water were a clever touch; forming a connection between the reservoir lake and the house – and it therefore made sense that the most ‘violent’ supernatural attacks took place in the swimming pool. This is logical writing.

But I can’t write a proper review of ‘Hollywood Haunting’ without mentioning the strong LGBTQ themes throughout the movie. Clearly these are talking points that are very near and dear to Carl Medland – and the message he incorporates into his script is both valid and relevant. For what it is worth, these issues and ideas are presented very well in the finished product; it’s just that they don’t always resonate as strongly with some people as they do with others – and if you play your hand too hard you risk isolating part of your audience.

There was only one moment in the film when I thought it came close to doing just that: – during the discussion around the table near the end of the movie – right after the mystery was solved. To me, this exchange felt forced and out of place – with the dialogue a little jarring and it was the only part of the film that struck me this way, but to be fair – just when I thought it was about to get a little preachy and continue for a while longer, the scene did cut and move on.

But this is a film driven by raw human emotions, with the paranormal and spiritual elements serving as a lesser theme – but still an important part of the storytelling. There is a lot of dramatic weight here; from the tragic tale of the restless entity, to the great losses and difficulties suffered over the years by the couple living in the house. This is heavy stuff – a long way from watching a guy being chased by clowns on a farm – which is perhaps the best way of describing just how far Carl Medland has come as a film maker.

Before I give ‘Hollywood Haunting’ a final score, I must take into consideration that Medland and his team were working with a small budget – with very little equipment and no special effects department or a team of writers to fall back on. There are no ‘professional’ actors on show either – but everyone who starred in the film really stepped up to the plate, and this is important to note.

As I’ve already mentioned, the solid writing and sharp editing are two of this film’s greatest strengths – but in some ways it is the location that steals the show. The house on top of the hill overlooking the reservoir was an inspired choice, and the interior scenes were executed so well – particularly the many continuous shots gliding through from one luxurious room to the next. The expensive decor of the home leans in to the serious tones of the movie, and gives the story a grounded base – and the small library where a few scenes were filmed looked amazing.

And I must point out that I loved seeing Bill O’Reilly’s book ‘Confronting The Presidents’ featuring prominently on one of the bookshelves. I bet it belonged to Arthur.

‘Hollywood Haunting’ is a good, solid film – and those who can connect personally with the issues and messages within would definitely say it was a great film. Carl Medland has shelved the outrageous antics of the farm trilogy and deftly shifted the supernatural tones and themes into a more serious and firmly-based presentation. The emotional undercurrents that were crafted into the film – relationships, identity, acceptance, love and loss – will resonate deeply with a lot of people.

But for me personally – being a typical Aussie bloke looking for some crazy action and a few laughs – I did miss some of the mucking about and diabolical storylines seen in the farm movies. However, I watched ‘Hollywood Haunting’ all the way through and enjoyed it – and hopefully this will lead in to future installments of the ‘Paranormal’ series!

‘Paranormal: Hollywood Haunting’ gets four stars out of five from me!

‘Paranormal: Hollywood Haunting’ is available to rent or buy on Amazon Prime Video.

Photos and screenshots are courtesy of MY Production Limited and MY Spotlight Independent.

Was the 1976 version of ‘King Kong’ that bad?

seancarslake Leave a comment

It’s fair to say that monster movies have been well-represented in recent times, with Warner Bros’ ‘Monsterverse’ leading the way; supported by notable projects such as Apple TV’s ‘Monarch: Legacy of Monsters’ and the Japanese-made ‘Godzilla: Minus One.’

But back in 1976 we were given a blockbuster version of ‘King Kong’ that didn’t quite hit the heights it was expected to, and is rarely mentioned in terms of classic monster flicks. However, the film was remastered and released on Blu-ray a couple of years ago, which is more than enough incentive for me to go back and re-watch it for the first time in over two decades.

There was a lot of money thrown at this project back in the day, with a budget of around $US 24 million – and ‘King Kong’ would at least prove to be a commercial success by grossing just over $US 90 million at the box office. With Dino De Laurentiis producing and ‘The Towering Inferno’ director John Guillermin at the helm, hopes were high for this movie to be well-received critically, but things did not quite work out that way.

The cast was solid without featuring any major drawcards from that era, such as Charlton Heston or Robert Redford, preferring instead to have Charles Grodin, a young Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lange (in her film debut) playing the lead characters. Bridges and Lange would go on to become established and award-winning actors over the following decades, so those who made the casting decisions for ‘King Kong’ might have been onto something.

Interestingly, the actor standing behind Jeff Bridges in the photo above is none other than John Lone, who like Jessica Lange was also making his screen debut. Unfortunately, we don’t see a lot of Lone in this film as he plays a small role as the cook on the exploration vessel.

Before getting into the plot and themes of the movie, I should take a moment to mention the musical score composed by the legendary John Barry. This should have been a slam dunk, however Barry’s compositions in this film are little more than serviceable – and well below his usual high standards. Any movie wanting to reach classic status must have a memorable score and powerful theme music – but ‘King Kong’ falls short in these disciplines.

On a positive note, ‘King Kong’ remains fairly true to the storyline of the 1933 original, and is at its best during the scenes on Kong’s Island. In fact, the sets and scale of this spectacle are worthy of high praise, with the native village and defensive wall perhaps at the top of the list. The special effects used for the fog were also of a high standard, and looked quite convincing.

When Kong eventually turns up, some of the effects start to show signs of faltering, but I suppose they would have stood up to scrutiny back in the mid-seventies. Most of the action sequences still look alright though, but I wasn’t entirely sold on the Kong costume during facial close-ups – while the larger mechanical hand prop used to pick up Dwan (Yes – Jessica Lange’s character is named ‘Dwan’ and not ‘Dawn’) looked authentic more often than not.

Of course, there is the infamous scene where Kong gets a little frisky with his female captive…and the look on the big guy’s face says it all!

Two-thirds of the way through the film and it’s shaping up fairly well. The early scenes on the boat setting up the plot are solid, and the movie wastes little time arriving at the uncharted island and the introduction of Kong is neither too soon nor too late. Where the action falls short is not having enough monsters on the island for Kong to fight – except for a giant snake – and these elements were prominent in both the 1933 version and Peter Jackson’s 2005 movie.

Which brings us to the final act: – King Kong in New York City.

Who thought wheeling out Kong inside a petrol bowser was a good idea?

I can understand the argument that the film-makers were highlighting commercialism and corporate greed, but it comes across as a little cheesy and over-the-top for me. However, the humiliation ritual that followed was very well executed – the juxtaposition of Kong wearing a crown whilst imprisoned in a cage is clever and effective.

Of course, we all know what happens next – and I think the final act of the film suffers from the contemporary setting; especially the replacement of the iconic Empire State Building with the World Trade Center – which unfortunately has not aged well.

There was a sequence within this final act that I could not get my head around, when the main characters were on the run from a rampaging Kong and Dwan (Jessica Lange) insists on stopping at a bar for a drink. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for moments of levity – but the timing of this was diabolical!

And the shot of Kong looking through the window when he finds them is just as outrageous! What a shocker! At this point, I was having fits of laughter.

But it’s not all bad, because some of the sequences with miniatures only moments earlier were quite impressive!

The film is struggling to hold it together at this point, but it is still an enjoyable spectacle. Unfortunately, the special effects throughout Kong’s battle with helicopters atop the World Trade Center are pushed well beyond their limits, and the scaling and perspective are terribly askew – see screenshot below.

In the lead-up to the rooftop showdown, there were a number of shots that appear to have been filmed inside one of the World Trade Center buildings, which now come across as sombre and haunting. I am also certain that the plaza where Kong falls to his death was filmed at the now-extinct complex.

Overall, I enjoyed the 1976 version of ‘King Kong’ having watched it through older and more critical eyes. I found it to be well-directed, neatly-paced and above all entertaining – not to mention keeping fairly true to the original story.

On the flip side, I don’t think the modern setting works; especially during the New York finale, but plays out reasonably well throughout most of the film. Some of the special effects shots were a little ordinary – and I’m still giggling over that window shot – but it worked most of the time, and I must keep in mind that the film was made in the nineteen-seventies.

‘King Kong’ certainly aimed high, and delivered on most of its promises, but ultimately fell short of being the classic movie the producers intended it to be. That being said, this film impressed me enough to give it seven out of ten!

All screenshots are courtesy of Dino De Laurentiis Corporation and Paramount Pictures.

‘Paranormal Farm’ Trilogy – campy but enjoyable!

seancarslake Leave a comment

‘Paranormal Farm’ is a found footage horror film released back in 2017, and is the brainchild of independent filmmaker Carl Medland. I recall watching this on Amazon Prime Video a few years ago, and finding the show quite entertaining, especially as Medland was using little more than the camera on his mobile phone to bring this story to life.

Having recently learned that there was a trilogy of ‘Paranormal Farm’ movies, I took it upon myself to watch all three films over consecutive nights – and to say I was amazed and enthralled would be an understatement!

Before I continue any further with my glowing appraisal, I should point out that there are a few contentious plot issues – some wide enough to drive a truck through – and I am of the view that these were created deliberately. In fact, I am certain that Carl Medland is taking the mickey out of us – especially throughout both sequels – and the outrageous scenes featuring some truly bizarre behaviour from off-beat secondary characters would ultimately help his films gain cult status.

Therefore, this is not going to be one of my usual reviews and I will not deep-dive too much into the pros and cons of each episode. The simple fact that Medland has gone out and created something unique and original – putting a lot of time, money and effort into it – should be respected and admired.

While I am throwing compliments about, a special mention must go out to the actors who played Lucy and Darren – the farming couple whose property is the setting for the paranormal investigation – as they both have a natural screen presence, with weird mannerisms that keep the audience guessing as to their true intentions. This is countered by the performance of Medland, who spends most of the film recording himself on his phone while attempting to solve the spooky mystery, and doing so in a ‘big city’ manner that often rubs the country folks the wrong way. This is a strong dynamic.

There are a few well-crafted moments where nefarious villains creep up on Medland while he is recording – especially throughout the first film – and these movies are at their strongest during these scenes. However, when the main character’s reaction is to simply squeal and jog away, often turning around and moving back in the direction of where the threat was coming from, it does take away from what was a brilliantly-executed and genuinely frightening encounter.

Is this done on purpose? I think so – and this brings me back to using the term ‘campy’ in the heading, for at times I thought I was watching George Michael running about being chased by monsters and goons. What an absolute masterclass!

As far as the story is concerned, the mystery is solved at the end of the third film where an overly drawn out – and diabolical – scene plays out between the major characters. In many ways, it was a fitting end to the series and I was sitting on my sofa in total bewilderment whilst all was being revealed.

Despite its flaws and shortcomings, I cannot really fault the ‘Paranormal Farm’ series as it delivered an entertaining and eye-opening experience across all three films. The rural location featured was an inspired choice, with the clever use of disturbing mannequins and quirky storage sheds filled with junk adding to the eerie vibes and complementing Medland’s sharp direction.

I must say, for a guy who put an entire project together using only his mobile phone and editing software, Carl Medland has proven himself to be a talented filmmaker. Although Medland brought his colleague Mumtaz into the second and third films, along with a larger camera, I would say the original ‘Paranormal Farm’ is by far the superior product.

The ‘Paranormal Farm’ trilogy is available to watch on YouTube, but note that age restrictions apply in some countries. In any case, I have attached the link below.

Screenshots and posters are courtesy of Myspotlight Independent and MY Production Ltd.

Special thanks and appreciation to Carl Medland.

‘Kingdom of the Spiders’ is a cool movie!

seancarslake Leave a comment

Headlined by the legendary William Shatner, this 1977 horror flick is surprisingly good: – with a decent story line and impressive use of thousands of live tarantulas. In fact, around one-tenth of the entire film’s budget was spent on handling so many spiders, which is an incredible statistic.

My understanding is that tarantulas are fairly docile creatures – especially around humans – so it was quite an achievement for the film-makers to have the spiders appear to chase or attack people in this movie. The use of off-screen fans were utilised to great effect to have the arachnids move in the direction and manner desired, and it certainly paid dividends with some wonderful yet frightening sequences being brought to the big screen.

The story is set in the town of Camp Verde, Arizona where livestock are suddenly dropping dead, and tests later reveal that this is due to lethal amounts of spider venom. The local vet ‘Rack’ Hansen (played by William Shatner) along with an arachnologist soon discover a massive spider hill on a local farm, and the decision is made to set it on fire. Big mistake!

But before we explore the consequences of upsetting thousands of spiders, I should point out that it wouldn’t be a William Shatner movie without a little romance – and the great man is in fine form here!

Anyway, the locals would pay a heavy price for attempting to destroy the spiders’ nest, as a swarm of angry tarantulas descend upon the town; even ambushing some of the folks by crawling into trucks and planes as part of their ultimate revenge!

But the most unnerving moments were saved for the film’s final act, and you have to appreciate how difficult it would have been to pull off some of these scenes. Remember: No CGI involved – only real tarantulas with the odd rubber spider thrown in.

Now as creepy as some of these screenshots are, the following sequence is perhaps the most disturbing in the entire movie. Credit goes to the very young actress here!

‘Kingdom of the Spiders’ is a solid film that builds suspense nicely throughout and goes out of its way to explain the aggressive – and rather unscientific – behaviour of the tarantulas, before delivering a truly exceptional ending that I will not spoil here.

The charismatic but serviceable performance of William Shatner helps the movie along, with second-billing going to the ridiculous number of hairy arachnids that share the screen with him. In summary, this is a movie worth watching, and despite being a low-budget production, I would still rate it seven out of ten!

Screenshots courtesy of Dimension Pictures and MeTV.

‘Empire of the Dark’ is pure B-Grade genius!

seancarslake Leave a comment

An out-of-shape middle-aged leading man takes on sword-wielding Satanic priests, demons, gun-toting villains and more in this 1991 horror/action thriller!

Written, directed by and starring Steve Barkett (who sadly passed away in 2023), this feature has all the hallmarks of a vanity project – re Neil Breen or John De Hart – but turns out to be a pretty solid flick. One simply needs to see beyond the flaws of this ambitious low-budget film to be able to enjoy the spectacle that it truly is.

Barkett stars as Richard Flynn, who while working as a cop, enters through a portal into Hell to rescue his ex-girlfriend’s baby son before he is sacrificed by devil worshippers. The film then skips twenty years to when Flynn is now a private eye, and is forced to battle the evil acolytes of Satan once again!

Barkett clearly considers himself to be an action man, and his screenplay and direction suggests as much, as he is constantly killing bad guys and romancing women way out of his league. However, he delivers a lot of tongue-in-cheek comments and one-liners, hinting that he is aware of his physical shortcomings, and decides to run with it anyway. What this does is bring a lot of charm and character to the film, and you end up really liking the guy and cheering him on.

The soundtrack to this movie – from composer John Morgan – is quite good, from the opening theme to the catchy incidental music featured throughout the film. I have watched bigger – and supposedly better – productions whose musical scores were nowhere near as memorable as this effort.

The special effects were decent in places, especially the modelling of the hellish caves and wooden bridges and platforms within the underground labyrinth. However, the stop-start animation that brought the main demon to life was a bit ‘how ya going’, as we say in Australia. Perhaps ‘questionable’ might be a more widely-recognised term, but you can appreciate what the film-makers were trying to do.

As far as action goes, ‘Empire of the Dark’ delivers the goods. There is an endless supply of hooded evil disciples trying to kill our hero, who fights them all off with either a gun or a sword, while less-than-gracefully executing moves that are awkward and sluggish yet somehow appear on screen as poetry in slow-motion. It’s comedy through and through, and Steve Barkett is right on point here; really hamming things up and breaking the fourth wall on at least one occasion.

‘Empire of the Dark’ has a 4.8 rating out of 10 at IMDB, and I think this is just about right. This is not a great movie, especially with the poor acting and ridiculous plot, but nor is it a complete dud. This film is watchable and quite entertaining, and as mentioned earlier it has a certain charm – or affability – that gets it across the line.

It’s a solid 3 out of 5 from me. Yes, it’s a ‘bad’ movie but it’s one you can laugh along with. I also think it’s a shame we didn’t see Steve Barkett in more mainstream movies over the years.

There was an episode of ‘So Bad It’s Good’ on YouTube a few years back, where they reviewed this movie and seemingly enjoyed it as well. It’s worth watching, so I’ve added the link below.

But if you are feeling a little more adventurous, the entire film is also available on YouTube. I’m not sure if the link will work due to age restrictions, but it is provided below – courtesy of Jacohsc Films YouTube Channel.

Screenshots courtesy of the Nautilus Film Company.