Film Review: The Comedy of Terrors

 "The Comedy of Terrors"

*** (out of ****)

"People are dying this year that have never died before!"

Addington Ganzy (Bert Wheeler) - Hook, Line and Sinker (1930)

Despite whatever wise-cracking comedian Bert Wheeler may have to say the dying business ain't what it used to be. Especially for Waldo Trumbull (Vincent Price). Business has slowed down to such a degree that Waldo is a full year behind on his rent to Mr. Black (Basil Rathbone) - who has given Waldo 24 hours to come up with back payment or he will be put out in the street!

I don't think Waldo, a drunkard, would care very much about being out in the street except for the fact after a night filled with drinking, where would he rest his weary head? Waldo's wife, Amaryllis (Joyce Jameson) and his senile father-in-law,  Amos (Boris Karloff) may feel differently about the situation. Not that Waldo would give their considerations much thought. Our introduction to the married couple shows them bickering, hurling insults at one another. Amaryllis accuses Waldo of only marrying her to take over her father's funeral parlor business, which Waldo doesn't object to. 

But what is Waldo to do? He can't help it if business is slow. What is he supposed to do? Go out and kill people? Can he do that? Should he do that? Someone might considered that wrong, wouldn't they? "The Comedy of Terrors" isn't Dostoyevsky so these moral ponderings aren't given much weight. And so Waldo and his assistant, Mr. Gillie (Peter Lorre) head out to take matters into their own hands. 

As comedy-horror movie plots go, this isn't half bad. The casting of heavyweights like Vincent Price, Peter Lorre and Boris Karloff is inspired. It gives "The Comedy of Terrors" horror movie credibility while also allowing the actors to poke fun at their screen personas. Plus, the fact the movie was distributed by American International Pictures (AIP) it makes us think of Roger Corman, who often casted these actors, and released his Poe adaptations through AIP.

"The Comedy of Terrors" however wasn't directed by Roger Corman but instead by another venerable filmmaker of the horror genre, Jacques Tourneur. Tourneur, along with producer Val Lewton, gave us the highly influential horror movies "The Cat People"  (1943) and "I Walked with A Zombie" (1943). After his collaboration with Lewton, Tourneur also directed "Night of the Demon" (1957). With such a pedigree behind this movie, they could have given us an actual horror movie. Too bad they didn't!

It feels like AIP wanted to make a kind of sequel to "Tales of Terror" (1962), which the studio released a year prior. That movie was an entry in Corman's series of Poe adaptations and used the anthology format. There was some humor added to one of the three stories and here it seems the decision was made to fully capitalize on it and make a full feature comedy. Much of the cast is even the same - Price, Rathbone, Lorre and Joyce Jameson.

In true comedy-horror fashion the movie is a balancing act between the two different genres. Often there is both comedy and horror in the same scene. Lets take for example a sequence involving Waldo and Mr. Gillie mistakenly believing they have killed a man. When brought back to their parlor, the man awakens and so the two men sit on top of his casket while the man fights for his life to be taken out. It is both horrific and comedic. These two men are killing a man. Essentially burying him alive and yet we laugh at the situation because of how outlandish it is. Waldo keeps insisting to the man he is dead and the man keeps refuting it!

Much of the comedy is of a very silly nature. In the first scene we see Waldo and Gillie as on-lookers at a funeral. Once the family pays their respects, the camera speed is sped up and silent movie ragtime piano is played while the two men hustle to dump the man's corpse into the ground, keeping the casket so they can reuse it! Bury him and drive off in their carriage.

There is also a running joke between Waldo and Amos. Amos' character basically sits by a table and dozes off and only awakes to mutter something completely unrelated to the conversation others are having. Waldo, who has grown frustrated with Amos, regularly offers to give Amos his medicine, which is actually poison. Whenever he pours some in Amos' cup, Amaryllis is there to take the cup away. Amos however, unaware of what is going on, becomes discouraged with his daughter constantly interfering with his medicine. 

What may be surprising to some viewers is how well Price, Lorre, Karloff and Rathbone are at handling comedy. Price and Lorre have an almost Laurel & Hardy relationship as they try to break into homes and create customers. Price and Lorre's antics reminded me of the Laurel & Hardy comedy "Night Owls" (1930).

The script was written by Richard Matheson, who would go out to write the novels "I Am Legend" and "A Stir of Echoes". He worked with Corman on the Poe adaptations writing the scripts for "The Fall of the House of Usher" (1960), "The Pit and the Pendulum" (1961) and "The Raven" (1963). It's said he grew tired of the Poe adaptations and writing stories of people being buried alive, so he decided to turn it into a joke.

While some modern viewers will probably consider the movie camp, I like the movie's spirit. It would have been nice if the movie paid homage to Tourneur's horror movies from the 1940s instead of Corman's Poe adaptations. I find it funnier than Corman's "The Raven". Matheson wasn't really allowed to show off his ear for dialogue in the Poe movies but here his words sparkle and he is not only able to combine comedy and horror but Shakespeare too. The movie's title is a pun on the play "The Comedy of Errors" and one character goes around quoting "Macbeth".

Unfortunately, the movie was a flop at the box-office but today remains something of a cult classic and is very deserving of a second look. It's not the best example of comedy-horror out there but you could do a whole lot worse.

Film Review: Ernest Scared Stupid

 "Ernest Scared Stupid"

** (out of ****)

Superman! Batman! Ernest P. Worrell? The ne'er-do-well, lovable man-child is a defender of our  American way of life. First he saved Christmas and now he is going to save Halloween in "Ernest Scared Stupid" (1991). Is there no end to what this man is capable of? 

Ernest is a dim-witted jack of all trades and truly a master of none. In "Ernest Scared Stupid" he works in a small town's sanitation department and unwittingly unleashes an evil troll one of his ancestors helped capture 100 years ago. According to the legend, the troll, for some reason named Trantor, places a curse on the Worrell family, making each generation dumber and dumber, leading the town's scary old lady (Eartha Kitt) afraid Ernest may be the one dumb enough to let the troll, buried under an oak tree, free.

I don't know where or when I first saw Jim Varney and John Cherry's  (the movie's director) Ernest creation but his slapstick hi-jinks and imbecilic nature delighted me as a child and touched my funny bone. I was eight years old when I saw the trailer for "Ernest Scared Stupid" and by gum, I knew right there and than someone was going to take me to a movie theater to see it!

As we grow older and become adults our taste (hopefully) becomes more sophisticated and mature. We outgrow the silliness of our childhood. As such I haven't seen "Ernest Scared Stupid" - or any Ernest movie - in the last 30 some odd years. However as I wrap up my annual October tribute to horror movies nostalgia kicked in and this comedy / horror kiddie movie popped into my mind.

Watching Ernest again I can kind of, sort of see what the appeal was to a child but I don't find the character to be endearing as an adult. Ernest has similar qualities to another famed man-child character, Pee-Wee Herman. I actually re-watched "Pee-Wee's Big Adventure" (1985) not too long ago and found that character's appeal has vanished for me too. Though, if my life depended upon it, I'd rather watch Pee-Wee again.

And while I may be down on Ernest and "Ernest Scared Stupid" I must confess something. At eight years old, "Ernest Scared Stupid" scared me! I couldn't have been the only child scared by this movie. So when I say as an adult the movie is poorly made and not at all scary, I must remind myself of my inner eight year old. This movie can indeed scare children!

For as juvenile as we may think Ernest is, in the world of comedy he actually does everything right and possesses your typical comedic persona traits - in his mind he is a foremost authority on any given subject. He can be brash, confident and cowardly. He is a dreamer and easy victim of any get rich quick scheme. If Varney was a little older it is not entirely out of the realm of possibility the character could have been in silent movies.

We see a lot of these traits on display in "Ernest Scared Stupid". When we first see Ernest he is taking great pride in his work and shows off his latest invention to his dog, Rimshot. Naturally everything goes haywire and Ernest finds himself tossed into the back of his garbage truck about to be crushed to death. Notice the pride, the confidence, the sense of genius (his invention) and how quickly it all disintegrates under his own stupidity. In comedy this is known as the superiority theory of comedy - I may not be a genius but I'm sure smarter than that guy.

To further hit on this idea of superiority, notice how all of the adults treat Ernest as if he is a child. The characters he has the most interaction with are children. But even they sometimes look at Ernest and laugh at him. Of nearly all of the adults, except "Old Lady" Hackmore (Kitt), only Ernest believes the children about the existence of a troll. And only the children are serious about helping Ernest capture the troll. 

As I have written repeatedly, in order for a comedy / horror movie to work you must think of it as two movies in one. You have to take your horror portion of the story serious and create a plot that is truly scary and one you would find in a real horror movie. The comedy should arise naturally from the plot due to the situations the comedian is being placed in and their level of fear. In "Ernest Scared Stupid" they make a good attempt with the background story of burying the troll and the curse put on the Worrell family. The problem is the movie doesn't have any ambition. It wants to settle to be a kiddie picture when it could have been something like Abbott & Costello in "Hold That Ghost" (1941) or Bob Hope in "The Cat and the Canary" (1939). Why not make a really funny comedy / horror movie with Ernest? Maybe Ernest could have inherited a family estate, which turns out to be a haunted house. Why settle for this kiddie fare?

Scary scenes for this movie include the first time Ernest meets the troll in the children's tree house. It is a dark and stormy night. Ernest is all by himself, since the children have left him behind. Every noise, including the sound of the wind, strikes fear in Ernest's heart. The camera seems tilted. Everything in Ernest's world is now skewed. Objects start to move on their own. Suddenly, in the darkness and shadows, the outline of the troll's face appears. Ernest can't quite make it out but by now he is on the ground, trembling in a corner. In typical comedy / horror fashion Ernest shouts out "Boy, I sure hope you're from Keebler"! A reference to the famous cookie making elves that live in a tree. I must confess this line made me chuckle.

Another scary scene plays around with the idea of there's a monster under my bed as one of the children, Elizabeth (Shay Astar) is afraid the troll has followed her home. Sitting on her bed, she asks her mother if she'll check under the bed. The mother won't and becomes frustrated with her daughter's tales of troll, which are interrupting their plans to attend a Halloween party that night. After her mother leaves the room, Elizabeth slowly moves to the edge of the bed to look underneath. The anticipation builds until the reveal. It is a classic horror movie situation and it works.

I also suppose the very idea the troll only attacks children is scary - to children anyway. When the children are captured the troll turns them into wooden dolls and places them inside of a tree trunk. With each child collected the tree develops something that looks like troll eggs. Once enough children have been collected the troll eggs will hatch unleashing them on the town.

I wonder if the movie "Troll" (1986) and "Trolls 2" (1990) had any influence on the movie and making the villain a troll? The other trolls in the movie I thought resembled the clowns from "Killer Klowns From Outer Space" (1988). And speaking of clowns, I thought there were traces of "It" (1990). At the beginning of the movie, during the credits, several clips from older horror movies are being shown. It is edited in such a way as to suggest Ernest is reacting to the movie clips. It would have been nice if the movie paid homage to these other horror movies, which I thought the title sequence suggested.

Whatever lack of scary scenes or comedy the movie may suffer from, the acting may be a bigger problem. One of the first sequences - establishing the legend of the troll - has a little girl running away from the troll but the girl looks like she is going to laugh. When a couple believes their child has been turned into a wooden doll they aren't really heartbroken - exactly how bad was this kid! The best performances in the movie are given by Varney, mostly because his energy is infectious and Eartha Kitt, mostly for her delivery of the lines.

I'm really conflicted over this movie. As an adult I see a lot of faults with it but I know how I felt watching it as a child. If the core audience is children, they will get much more out of this movie than anyone else. As an adult I just don't really see the lasting appeal of the Ernest character. That said, "Ernest Scared Stupid" isn't necessarily the worst comedy / horror movie I have seen. Adults will want to watch this for nostalgia's sake. If you've never seen an Ernest movie before, I think you should leave it that way. KnowhutImean?

Film Review: The Curse of Frankenstein

 "The Curse of Frankenstein" 

** 1\2 (out of ****)

"The Curse of Frankenstein" (1957) is a British horror movie brought to us by the famed Hammer Film Productions and was not only their first Frankenstein movie but also their first foray into remaking the equally famed Universal Monster movies of the 1930s.

It begins  with a confession as Dr. Victor Frankenstein (Peter Cushing) is in prison about to meet an untimely death. A Priest has been summoned for by Victor to tell his story to. Victor claims he is not a religious man but wants to tell his story to the Priest hoping others will believe his tale if it comes from the Priest's mouth. Despite whatever Victor may say about his lack of faith this gesture provides the most direct correlation between "Frankenstein" and morality I have ever seen in a movie. Even more so than the 1931 version with Boris Karloff.  And it is further punctuated by the fact that Victor is in prison - even if for a different crime - awaiting his execution. 

Yes, "Frankenstein" is a tale of man playing God, creating life, but what of the moral implications and ultimate judgement to be brought upon a person for such an act? In the 1931 version Dr. Frankenstein doesn't die but here Dr. Frankenstein must sit and confront his actions. Yes it seemingly leads to his death but the waiting aspect is what I find most intriguing. It adds a new dimension to the story. To have time and intellectualize what you have done and to have time to face the consequences of your actions. That can be horrifying. Does it result in guilt? Regret? Or possible affirmation? These are deeper questions not always explored properly in the various "Frankenstein" movies.

It is the digging deeper aspect that I enjoy most in the Hammer horror movies. For example in "The Mummy" (1959) the issue of Westerners not respecting other cultures and holding anti-science viewpoints is brought up. It is a driving force of The Mummy origin story but I'd never heard it so directly addressed as in this version.

In the 1931 version we first see Dr. Frankenstein as a grave robber. He is immediately presented to us as a questionable figure and a "mad scientist" however in the hands of Peter Cushing his Dr. Frankenstein is mild mannered. We get to see a gradual descent into madness. We briefly see Dr. Frankenstein as a child and later as an adult with his tutor and later colleague, scientist Paul  Krempe (Robert Urquhart). Together they have engaged in experiments concerning the re-animation of dead issue. Their greatest success has been bringing a dead puppy back to life. Dr. Frankenstein believes they should go further in their research however before notifying others of their achievement. They have the power, he believes, to create life and suggest assembling a man by collecting body parts from various corpses. While this slip into madness happens a bit too abruptly for my taste it does enforce the movie's central moral theme by having the character Paul as a constant voice of reason standing as an obstacle in Dr. Frankenstein's way. That voice was absent in other movies but here it provides a clear contrast and cements the idea Dr. Frankenstein is knowingly making immoral decisions and he must be put in a position to rationalize his actions. 

However I must admit I didn't find Cushing to be a great Dr. Frankenstein. Perhaps the slip into madness happens too suddenly but there is never a contrast in the performance. Cushing is playing the same character throughout. It never felt like there was a true transformation in the character. I appreciate that he doesn't go off the deep end into campy territory but I felt as if Gene Wilder in "Young Frankenstein" (1974) and Basil Rathbone in "Son of Frankenstein" (1939) did more with their interpretations. Cushing's performance comes off as monotone. He is only really playing something different in the bookend prison sequences.

"The Curse of Frankenstein" spends more time than I remember the original - I say original in reference to the 1931 version but do want to point out there is a silent version from 1910, which is sometimes credited as being the first horror movie (!) - focused on Dr. Frankenstein collecting body parts off of dead corpses to create his man. It is all an attempt to build up the anticipation for what this creation/monster (Christopher Lee) will look like. I must confess however, I wasn't that eager for the big reveal.

To remake such a well known and classic movie like "Frankenstein" is to set yourself up for comparisons with the original - especially for whoever plays the Monster. In a side by side comparison most would have a knee jerk reaction and say Boris Karloff's performance was the better of the two. They wouldn't be open to giving Christopher Lee's performance a second look. Not because of anything necessarily Lee may have done with his performance but because we have seen Karloff's performance first and therefore it is the standard bearer. This is not to suggest Karloff's performance isn't wonderful. Lee however is doing something much different. It isn't an apples to apples comparison.

Watching Christopher Lee's performance I felt it had more of a child-like interpretation. Pay attention to how the character walks for example. Karloff had the slow, zombie-like pace but Lee's Monster seems unsure if he will be able to hold his balance while standing - exactly how does this whole walking thing work? Everything is fresh and new to his eyes. It takes the Monster a while to register what he is seeing and even then he doesn't understand what it is. This is attributed to Paul damaging the brain Victor was going to use when the two men get into a fight. This leads to great resentment on Victor's part, blaming Paul for what his creation has turned out to be. It reminded me of two parents arguing and one of them saying - "this is your fault. Your side of the family has bad genes." It also adds an element of homosexuality to their relationship. Not quite at the level suggested in "The Bride of Frankenstein" (1935) however.

Lee's performance however took away all sense of horror for me. I didn't fear this version of the Monster. The Monster doesn't have the aim of frightening the townspeople - which is now in Switzerland. This Monster is all but directly implied to be special needs. Karloff had a sense of innocence to his Monster as well but his gestures and the make-up scared the bejesus out of me as a child. The zombie walk and look had a true sense of the dead coming back to life. I felt more pity for Lee's Monster than anything else by contrast.

What I like best about "The Curse of Frankenstein" are the ideas and themes presented. It is interesting seeing different interpretations of these well known characters. But the movie lacks a true sense of horror. This material is more dramatic than horrific. To some that may be an improvement. The movie has its defenders and was a box-office success spawning several sequels and further remakes of the classic Universal Monsters. I'm slightly torn between the movie but in the end if I had to chose which version of Frankenstein I would rather watch right now, I'd have to pick the 1931 version for its impressive sets and production design, Karloff's performance and the overall atmosphere the movie creates. "The Curse of Frankenstein" has its strengths but feels just a peg below the 1931 version. 

Film Review: The Bat

 "The Bat"  *** (out of ****)

In theory Crane Wilbur's adaptation of Mary Roberts Rinehart's novel The Circular Staircase - which was adapted for the stage in collaboration with Avery Hopwood - should have worked. Or work better than it does here. This is a story of greed, murder, corruption, deceit and things that go bump in the night. It has all the trappings of an effective horror movie. Two of the previous film adaptations - a 1926 silent version, released under the same title, and a sound remake called "The  Bat Whispers" (1930), were both highly influential. Some claim the movies inspired comic book writer Bob Kane to create his most famous character - Batman!

Those movies were also visually arresting. "The Bat" borrowed from elements of German Expressionism while "The Bat Whispers" featured impressive camera work, creating a swooshing effect, as if flying like a bat. This "modern" version however doesn't improve upon what had come before it.

Than as now, could it have been someone believed the movie should have been remade simply because? Was someone in Hollywood under the misguided impression "we could remake those old movies better now"? Or could it have been someone was looking through old horror movies hoping to find one that could be remade to star Vincent Price, as was the case with "House of Wax" (1953).

The setting is The Oaks, a summer home being rented by mystery writer Cornelia van Gorder (Agnes Moorehead). It will serve as this story's "haunted house". Cornelia's servants are so afraid by the mere suggestion of entering the house, they quit. Leaving Cornelia only with her faithful assistant, Lizze (Lenita Lane). Of course the viewer can't figure out what is so scary about the place. Perhaps because it is so efficiently lit by cinematographer Joseph Biroc, whom I felt could have done a lot more with shadows and lighting to create an eerie atmosphere. As for the house itself, it looks quite comfy. Haunted house movies, like "The Bat" and the silent masterpiece, "The Cat and the Canary" (1927), work because the houses look scary and forbidding. They are old and creaky. Usually its revealed they haven't been touched since a person died. The Oaks looks like a very expensive suburban home. So, it seems out of place when everyone gets the jitters merely looking it.

Also putting the fright in everyone is the threat of being the next victim of The Bat - murderer prowling around. Naturally, the killer looks nothing like a bat. He merely wears a black mask over his face - resembling an executioner more than anything else. This is the complete opposite of what the character looked like in the silent version. The character in this version also wears a glove with long claws, at best resembling a cat or lion. Was the Executioner Cat already taken as a title? Or would that sound ridiculous as a title and lack the realism of one like The Bat?

Further ingredients being stirred into the pot include a bank president, John Flemming (Harvey Stephens). He is the owner of The Oaks and admits, while on a hunting trip, to have embezzled one million dollars from the bank. His confidant is Dr. Wells (Vincent Price), whom he would like to help produce a body they can claim is the corpse of Flemming, to ensure he would not be a suspect. The question I had is why? Why did Flemming steal the money? It seems he did it for kicks. Why not lay into some old cliche like he was broke and in desperate need of money to keep his home, family and standing in the community. In the silent version this part of the plot is implied to have happened months after Cornelia has rented the home. The story however lingers in the air, causing everyone's fear. Here the two events - Flemming's death and Cornelia's renting of the house - seem to happen simultaneously.

Some of this material from Wilbur's screenplay is meant to be played for comedy. That's the purpose of the Lizzie character. I never found the performance quite funny however. Lenita Lane is no Bob Hope - who starred in "The Cat and the Canary" (1939) - a sound remake. Even the silent version of "The Bat" added moments of humor. The cast here doesn't seem able to project the humor and is better at playing this material semi-serious. Moorehead seems in on the tongue-and-cheek nature of what is going on here and gives one of the movie's best performances.

Although considered an icon in the horror genre by us old-timers, Vincent Price was establishing himself in the genre at this time. Prior to 1950s Price was coming off of "legitimate" acting in serious movies - "The Song of Bernadette" (1943), "Leave Her To Heaven" (1945), "Shock" (1946). In the 1950s he was appearing in "The Ten Commandments" (1956) and even found time to play Casanova against Bob Hope in "Casanova's Big Night" (1954). By the time "The Bat" (1959) was released things were a changing. Price had already appeared in "The Fly" (1958), "House on Haunted Hill" (1959) and "The Tingler" (1959). After "The Bat" he began his collaboration with filmmaker Roger Corman on the Edgar Allan Poe adaptations. To the extent the movie is watched and remembered today it would be largely because of Price. 

Director Crane Wilbur had a long career in the movies, dating back to the early 1900s. He was not known for the horror genre and "The Bat" was his last credited movie as a director. He wrote his final screenplay for "House of Women" (1962) but went uncredited as director. Perhaps a lack of understanding about the genre explains why he didn't get more from his performers and didn't create more scares. He seems to have no real flair for the genre. Much of "The Bat" functions as a mystery not a horror movie - given the movie's poster and the fact it was released on a double-bill with "The Mummy" (1959) - this was most certainly not the intention of the studio.

Even as a mystery "The Bat" is a bit of a disappointment and does a sloppy job in the way it tries to cast suspicion on a group of the characters. We never really suspect any of the "suspicious" characters. It feels kind of force.

Still there is a part of me that finds "The Bat" to be a silly lark, a piece of harmless entertainment. I realize that's not the best way you would want to describe a mystery/horror movie. I like watching Price and Moorehead on-screen as well. Price isn't anywhere near as campy as he would be in later movies. He plays things straight here. It is Moorehead that is the more animated between the two. Some may also find it interesting to note Darla Hood appears in this movie. She was best known for her role in the Our Gang comedy series.

"The Bat" is a well meaning unambitious lark. It could have been a really effective horror movie but instead settles for being a light diversion. Watch the movie for Vincent Price and Agnes Moorehead. You should however watch both the silent version and the sound remake to see this material done right.

Film Review: Dementia 13

 "Dementia 13"

*** (out of ****)

[This review is in reference to the original theatrical cut not director Francis Ford Coppola's more recent re-edit]

A woman goes to a pond with a bunch of dolls she has tied on a string, that she has poured acid on. She takes off all of her clothes and dives in. When she gets to the bottom of the water she sees a perfectly preserved body of a little girl.

According to director Francis Ford Coppola this was the scenario he described to Roger Corman as part of a movie that would eventually become "Dementia 13" (1963), Coppola's feature-length directorial debut.

With Corman's approval now all Coppola had to do was come up with a story. With such humble beginnings, it would be conveniently easy for the general public and the sheep ("movie critics") to look down upon "Dementia 13" as a cheap exploitative movie - something akin to the theatrics of William Castle. Note the "D-13" test advertised on the movie's poster. But to merely view the movie as such is to purposely ignore everything else the movie has to offer.

The movie's opening sequence of a married couple (Luana Anders and Peter Read) bickering out in the middle of a lake in a row boat introduces themes of murder, greed, deceit and social class as the privileged John (Read) has a heart attack but not before we are informed his mother plans on leaving her fortune to charity. Louise (Anders) believes there's still a chance to convince the mother to change her will. But with John's death she stands to inherit nothing. Her plan is to dispose of John's body and hide his death from the family.

Louise, an  American, is visiting John's family in Ireland as they commemorate the death of the mother's youngest child, Kathleen. Louise will inform the family John had to go away on business for a few days as she will stay behind. This, she believes, will allow her the needed time to warm up to her mother-in-law. If it sounds like I've given away the entire movie, rest assured. What I have described all occurs within the first 10 minutes of the movie.

With her cover-up of John's absence seemingly not meeting much resistance Louise begins to exploit her mother-in-law's grief, claiming she hears whispers of a child's voice calling out for its mother. Naturally the mother-in-law, Lady Haloran (Eithne Dunne) interprets this as her daughter trying to contact her. This presents the timeless theme of calling out those that try to capitalize on our fears and grief (i.e. televangelists and politicians).

But Louise soon becomes a woman who knows too much as events leads us to Coppola's first envisioned scenario as she must avoid being on the receiving end of an ax swinging murderer. What secrets are the Haloran family concealing? And who will be safe from the chopping block? 

From it's opening sequence to it's ending Coppola combines a melting pot of inspirations ranging from "A Place in the Sun" (1951), Dreiser's An American Tragedy, Edgar Allan Poe to Alfred Hitchcock and "Psycho" (1960) and even Corman's own Poe adaptations.

Despite the movie's small budget and Coppola's lack of proficiency in the horror genre he does display a knack for this type of genre filmmaking. Notice how in the first scene Coppola creates an eerie tone with a less than minimal set and production design comprise of nothing more than a boat, water, a radio and a pitch black background. Coppola foreshadows later plot revelations concerning the importance of water. This scene is followed by the movie's title sequence which also emphasizes water. The credits are played over an effective score by Ronald Stein, who had scored prior Corman movies.  

As mentioned Coppola is drawing inspiration from many sources and the young filmmaker is able to visually reference different movies and styles. Take for example his clever nod to Orson Welles' "Citizen Kane" (1941) - Welles directorial debut as well. As Louise begins to devise her plan to bring Lady Haloran into her confidence by her manipulating methods, she searches the deceased Kathleen's room. She finds a wind-up toy baby doll which begins moving over pieces of a jig-saw puzzle. Both movies use the jig-saw as a metaphor for trying to assemble an individual's mysterious life and death. While the baby toy is a reference to Kathleen. Coppola does even more foreshadowing as Louise next encounters another wind-up toy. This time of an animal chopping wood with a ax.

And notice how Coppola draws comparisons to Hitchcock's "Pyscho" in the scene with Louise by the pond with the dolls. She is wearing black clothes and as she removes them is left in white underwear. The same device Hitchcock used for Janet Leigh with black signifying evil and white for purity. When Leigh meets her end she is in a shower as here Louise is by a pond - again the emphasis on water. When the ax murderer first attacks we never see his blade touch a body. The same device Hitchcock used in the shower scene. Coppola keeps on-scene violence to a minimal while still creating suspense.

Luana Anders gives the movie's best performance as a kind of Hitchcock blonde. She plays both sympathetic and villainous - hence the black and white. Her character is sharp and quick on her feet and really makes the screen come to life when she is on it.

At a mere 24 years old Coppola explores themes in "Dementia 13" he wouldn't tackle the same way again. Louise's disillusionment with her life could be compared to Coppola's "Rain People" (1969). A family dealing with murder and secrets can bring to mind "The Godfather" (1972). The guilt associated with the possibility of being responsible for a person's death was explored in "The Conversation" (1974).

"Dementia 13" may not be the greatest of directorial debuts or anywhere near Coppola's best but there is an amazing display of talent and knowledge of film history shown here. The movie is suspenseful and well acted and hardly as exploitive as one may think.

Film Review: The Strange Vice of Mrs. Wardh

 "The Strange Vice of Mrs. Wardh"

** 1\2 (out of ****)

Blood has a strange effect on her we are told. "It both excites and repels her at the same time."

It is a line said approximately one hour and twenty minutes into this one hour and forty minute movie. Depending upon your level of enjoyment, you may miss the line or not think anything of it. It is however a key line into understanding this piece of giallo cinema, "The Strange Vice of Mrs. Wardh" (1971)

Italian director Sergio Martino has given us an entire movie built around sex and violence and their (seemingly) correlating nature - "it both excites and repels us at the same time."

It has been noted for decades the blend between sex and violence in horror movies. Some believe these movies are cautionary tales about premarital sex as it is usually the sexually active, attractive female characters that seem to always meet the blade. It can be a disturbing topic but is worthy of a discussion. In American cinema we saw this on the rise in the 1980s - movies focused on teenagers being chased by serial killers. When reviewing "Slumber Party Massacre" (1980) I noted this seems to have been an unfortunately distinct  American trait. In prior years, yes females were often the victim of the killer but they were adults. This can be attributed to the Hollywood Production Code which would have prevented such violence against children to be shown on-screen.

The difference is while those American slasher movies of the 80s featured gratuitous nude scenes of the female characters, "The Strange Vice of Mrs. Wardh" is a piece of erotic -ish cinema. It kind of, sort of, can be compared to 1970s soft core pornography (according to my friend that is. I of course have no knowledge of such things. This is a respectable blog!). 

The woman we are talking about of course is Mrs. Wardh, referred to as Julie (Edwige Fenech). She was involved with a man named Jean (Ivan Rassimov), who either introduced Julie to this fetish of mixing blood and sex or was introduced to it by Julie and merely played along (I couldn't figure this part out). Julie is now married to a diplomat, Neil (Alberto de Mendoza) and when they return home to Vienna, Julie begins receiving flowers from Jean with notes suggesting the two are meant for each other.

As Julie deals with this marital dilemma a serial killer is on the loose killing prostitutes. In fact in the very first scene of the movie, we see a man in a car driving down a side alley where rows of prostitutes are waiting to be picked up. After the man selects one of them they find a secluded spot. The woman takes off her shirt, exposing her breasts and is slashed with a razor. Our immediate introduction to the movie's theme of titillating us and then introducing violence. At a certain point I assume we meant to ask, which is turning us on in the first place?

Eroticism and violence is also perfectly illustrated in the movie's poster. Julie lies down in lingerie, exposing cleavage, while in the back ground, slightly above her is the image of a killer attacking a woman. We can interpret this as the woman fantasizing about violence. Hence why it is important the image be slightly above Julie's head. Kind of like a thought bubble. Either way we are confronted with the movie's theme on the poster.

The lingering question in "The Strange Vice of Mrs. Wardh" becomes who is the killer? Could it be Jean? Julie begins to suspect him after she receives a phone call blackmailing her. The caller states he saw Julie with another man engaging in sex acts he is sure would shock her husband.

When American audiences hear the term "giallo" something very distinct may pop into their heads. Most likely they are thinking of gory movies directed by Dario Argento - considered the master of the genre. Outside of a few instances here and there Argento's movies weren't of a sexual nature. As such this may lead some to consider "The Strange Vice of Mrs. Wardh" as a poor example of the genre. Giallo movies did however often have themes dealing with sexuality. I wouldn't compare this movie to Argento's but would instead suggest comparisons to the work of another master of the genre, Mario Bava and "Blood and Black Lace" (1964), where models are being killed this time. It's a highly influential movie in the slasher genre. Stylistically these two movies are different. I don't recall Bava's movie being erotic but narratively they are similar and similar in their display of violence, which compared to today's standards, these movies are rather tame.

This may be the first time I have discussed Edwige Fenech. Some have given her the nickname "the queen of giallo". She most likely won't be known to American audiences but she had quite the career appearing in these Italian erotic movies with titles like - "Erotic Exploits of a Sexy Seducer" (1977), "The Schoolteacher Goes to Boys' High" (1978) and "Confessions of a Lady Cop" (1978). Most of these movies have not been distributed in America though audiences can see her in another giallo movie, "The Case of the Bloody  Iris" (1972). It doesn't take much effort but director Martino emphasizes Fenech's beauty and exceptional figure, making it a main focal point of the movie.

And I guess that explains my dissatisfaction with the movie. Martino is introducing this theme to us but doesn't have much to say about it. He pushes sex and naked women on us but doesn't make a full blown erotic movie in the tradition of Tinto Brass, best known for "Caligula" (1979) but watch something like "La Chiave" (The Key, 1983) with the equally beautiful Stefania Sandrelli. "The Strange Vice of Mrs. Wardh" is like a tease. It's a little bit of this and a little bit of that and in the end I find I still have a craving. It feels like the sex is compensating for an otherwise weak story.

It also feels like too much is being tacked onto the ending to attempt to provide some explanation to the events we have seen. Martino wants to channel Hitchcock - I won't reveal from which movie because that would give it all away - but it feels rushed and opens up too many additional questions. Causing it to be a disappointing mystery story as well.

In the end what are we left with? "The Strange Vice of Mrs. Wardh" is somewhat erotic, featuring female nudity and shows off Edwige Fenech's beauty. It has some death scenes which aren't very suspenseful and most certainly not scary. It has what I felt was a disappointing, rushed ending - cheating audiences out of the opportunity to guess what is happening for themselves. Am I missing something? If we took all of the eroticism out of this movie and left everything else, would it be a highly enjoyable movie or a ho-hum middle of the road Italian mystery story? It's the not so strange case of believing sex sells and nothing else matters.

Film Review: Dark Glasses

 "Dark Glasses"

*** 1\2 (out of ****)

How easy it is to forget how good the great ones are.

That's an odd but true statement. We tend to take for granted great artists, thinking they will always be around to entertain us. The Hollywood movers and shakers meanwhile try to distract the public by shoving the latest flavor of the month in our faces. We forget the new kids on the block owe something to the great ones. And then comes the sad time the great ones are completely forgotten and have fallen out of fashion. We say things like "I remember so-and-so. He used to make good movies" or "is he still alive"? 

Sadly it happens to the best of them and it has happened to the famed Italian maestro behind "Dark Glasses" (2022), Dario Argento. They say he used to make good movies but not anymore. In some circles "Dark Glasses" - debuting on the streaming platform Shudder - is being eagerly heralded as a "comeback" for the director once referred to as "the Italian Hitchcock". In other circles, where the "sheep" ("movie critics") travel, it is further vindication Argento has lost his touch and his best days are behind him. In a way it is a kind of groupthink. I find it amazing how they all come to the same conclusions (!).

Admittedly, Argento hadn't done much to make criticisms entirely unwarranted. There was a period of time - which is hopefully over - when Argento was making campy movies - "Phantom of the Opera" (1998) and "Dracula 3D" (2012), the last movie Argento released (I saw it at the Chicago International Film Festival with Argento in attendance for a Q&A). So it became both easy and fashionable to dismiss him and his work.

Movie politics being what they are, it is hard to imagine "Dark Glasses" will change this perception. I haven't read every review for the movie but what I have read has been negative. The damage has been done and the young sheep writing about movies will take the path of least resistance and continue their bashing. I mean geez whiz, all their friends are doing it! But is "Dark Glasses" worthy of being labeled  a "comeback"? Is this a return, a "recovery" from Argento's previous films?

On paper one would think it is. "Dark Glasses" most directly recalls Argento's earliest films - "The Bird with the Crystal Plummage" (1970), "The Cat o' Nine Tails" (1971), and "Four Flies on Grey Velvet" (1971). It seems to be paying homage to 70s cinema and Argento himself. "Dark Glasses" doesn't reinvent the wheel but it gives it a good spin. What more can we expect? 

And it is those expectations "Dark Glasses" plays around it and tries to use to its full advantage. It wants audiences to recall those earlier movies. It wants us to react to scenes with a certain sense of nostalgia for how Argento is going back to his roots. It is a strange balancing act but in a bizarre way "Dark Glasses" wants us to take delight in its bloody scenes and say to ourselves, that's the Argento I know! The film's first death scene definitely reaffirms we are in Dario Argento's hands as blood violently gushes out of a young woman's mouth and throat after being attacked by a serial killer victimizing prostitutes.

But the movie isn't a rehash of earlier movies as Argento tries to do the unthinkable - give the movie heart! "Dark Glasses" attempts to establish an emotional friendship at its center around a blind prostitute (Ilenia Pastorelli) and a young Chinese boy (Andrea Zhang). The prostitute, Diana, was nearly killed in a car crash caused by the serial killer. The crash however did result in the death of the boy's parents. Consumed with guilt, Diana feels it is her responsibility to take care of the boy, named Chin, Chin, in return, becomes Diana's eyes.

Unlike other Argento movies - "The Cat o' Nine Tails" for example, which also centered on a blind character, "Dark Glasses" isn't a mystery. Diana doesn't become an amateur sleuth, hoping to find out the identity of the serial killer. She is having enough trouble learning how to adapt to blindness even with the help of an aide, Rita (Asia Argento, Dario's daughter). That may be one of the flaw's of the movie and would have most certainly contributed to the film's nostalgia factor and recall works like "Deep Red" (1975) and "The Bird with the Crystal Plummage".

One of the film's other flaws is Argento doesn't give us much of a motive for the killing spree. In the old days Argento's killers were triggered by childhood trauma. That was always the weakest link in Argento's work. A kind of pseudo understanding of psychology. Here Argento doesn't even bother to explain.

When "Dark Glasses" works however, it works. Despite being age 82 Argento creates moments in "Dark Glasses" that feel alive and energetic. Hardly the work of a tired old filmmaker. It is the work of a filmmaker with cool, confident hands. The work of a filmmaker that knows his craft and the genre he is working in. Playing into the nostalgia, the movie is at times shot with lurid colors and a musical score similar to the ones by Goblin - the rock band that scored Argento's most celebrated film, "Suspiria" (1977).

Lets take for example the aforementioned first death scene, approximately seven minutes into the film. The music reaches a fevered pitch as the violence compliments the music, jolting us by its audaciousness and frenetic nature, all capped off by Argento's fetish nature for blood. The blood is excessive and it seems as if the camera is taking delight in it. It is not the work of an old man by any stretch.

Pay attention to how Argento shoots Diana's crash sequence and the moments leading up to it as she leaves a hotel room. Again, notice the music and the overwhelming sense of danger Argento is creating with framing. Diana quickly paces away from a hotel after the encounter gets out of hand. Argento keeps things in a long shot with Diana in the forefront and in the background is the corner she has come from. Will someone follow her? Our attention is on Diana and the background with the musical score resembling a rapid heartbeat. The sequence continues to build and build a level of suspense. Not what you'd expect from an 82 year old man. Again, not reinventing the wheel but showing us, the old tricks, if done right, never go out of style.

There will be questions of how well does this movie fit into the Giallo genre of film and how scary is it. It lacks in the mystery department, a key component in the genre, but does contain slasher elements and some crime fiction. I don't know how scary the movie is but I found it more suspenseful than frightening.

I wasn't familiar with actress Ilenia Pastorelli but originally thought the lead role would have been play by Asia and it would have been if Argento had released this movie 10 years ago. If you aren't familiar with Asia's screen persona she usually played a badass not afraid to challenge convention. Here though she gives the most delicate performance I may have seen her give. It seems completely out of place and yet feels right. 

Pastorelli is quite sexy in the role as Argento has her wearing very short skirts but she never fully develops the character as real or a woman in danger. We suspect Argento is going after a "Wait Until Dark" (1967) kind of vibe with the blind woman in peril but Pastorelli at times plays for comedy (intentional or not) with an exaggerated portrait of a blind woman, as she can never quite tell where sound is coming from and looks in the wrong direction. At times she is too animated in her performance. 

One of the best moments, towards the end of "Dark Glasses", takes full advantage of the dramatic tensions created because of Diana's situation and handicap, playing into the "Wait Until Dark" vibe, as Diana is by herself unsure of her surroundings. Her fear level is high as we panic she will hit the wrong button or make too much noise. Still, Argento and Pastorelli play this sequence too broad at times with Diana's wild hand gestures. Plus, if you are truly afraid, speaking so loudly as to announce your presence, probably isn't the best way to stay safe.

In the end though, yes "Dark Glasses" does seem to be a return to form for Dario Argento. I wouldn't say this is his greatest achievement, in a class with "Suspiria", "Deep Red" or "The Bird with the Crystal Plummage" but it is the best movie Argento has directed since "Sleepless" (2001) and is one of the best movies I have seen this year. 

p.s. - it is just me or does the movie's poster resemble John Carpenter's "They Live" (1988). This can't be a coincidence.

Film Review: The Return of the Vampire

 "The Return of the Vampire"  

** (out of ****)

If it wasn't obvious to someone prior to watching Columbia Picture's "The Return of the Vampire" (1943) we see how inextricably linked actor Bela Lugosi was to his performance as the immortal vampire, Count Dracula in Universal's classic horror movie, "Dracula" (1931).

That connection along with the possibility it could translate into financial box-office success accounts for the existence of "The Return of the Vampire". This movie however isn't the only movie guilty of this greedy cinematic sin. There was "Mark of the Vampire" (1935) and "Vampire Over London" (1952). Lugosi didn't even have to necessarily play a vampire. He merely needed to appear in formal wear and our imagination did the rest. In "White Zombie" (1932) for instance, Lugosi isn't playing a vampire but he sure looks like one and by gum, he even sounds like Dracula (!).

And so here we have a horror movie starring Bela Lugosi with the title, "The Return of the Vampire". Did you notice what Columbia Pictures did there? The Return of the Vampire. Lugosi is in the movie once again playing a vampire. The vampire returns! When you think of a vampire, you think Lugosi (well, at least at one time you did).Yes, narratively the title fits in with the movie's plot but surely someone could see the marketing potential given the star and the title. Columbia Pictures couldn't flat out call the movie "The Return of Dracula" so this was the next best thing.

"The Return of the Vampire" is also indicative of what happened to horror movies in the 1930s and 40s. After Universal Pictures introduced audiences to these Monsters they quickly ruined them. Yes, the original "Dracula", "Frankenstein" (1931), "The Mummy" (1932) and "The Wolf Man" (1941) are all classics and each a cinematic treat in their own way but the movies were soon shoved aside by Universal and downgraded to "B" movie productions. How many of you know of the seemingly endless unnecessary sequels created? To name a few there was "Dracula's Daughter" (1936), "Son of Dracula" (1943), "She-Wolf of London" (1946), a complete do over of the Mummy, creating a new series of movies beginning with "The Mummy's Hand" (1940). Universal even began combining multiple monsters into one movie - "Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man" (1943) and "House of Frankenstein" (1944). Universal even fed the Monsters to Abbott & Costello - "Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein" (1948) and  "Abbott & Costello Meet The Mummy" (1955)! Yet despite Universal's best efforts, the legacy of these Monsters continues.

I mention all of this to provide context. It was within this environment "The Return of the Vampire" was released. Horror movies were on the down swing. No movie studio, not just Universal, were treating horror movies with their proper respect. Everyone followed Universal's example and yet all horror movies from this era will be compared against Universal's, as the ultimate Gold Standard. As such "The Return of the Vampire" doesn't quite make a lasting impression. In fact much of the movie's plot reminds me of "Dracula's Daughter" and "Son of Dracula". 

Our story takes place in London near the end of World War 1 as an off-screen voice reads from what we assume is a diary of Professor Walter Saunders (Gilbert Emery) as he details his encounter with a vampire! Professor Saunders is brought to a clinic run by Lady Jane Ainsley (Frieda Inescort) to help with a patient that seems to be in a trance and has lost a lot of blood. There are also two puncture wounds on the patient's neck, which no one pays attention to. Unable to help the patient, Prof. Saunders begins to read the work of Armand Tesla, a man who has studied vampires and became one. The Professor convinces Lady Jane the patient was the victim of a vampire and together they must find it and kill it.

It's not a spoiler to reveal they do kill Armand and through a series of events I won't disclose, the vampire eventually returns (hence the title). Suspiciously the return happens 23 years later, during World War II. This aspect of the movie reminds me of "Son of Dracula" which was also a contemporary story of a vampire coming back in modern times. The difference is "Son of Dracula" takes place in America during WW II. Both movies can be interpreted as symbolically tying the vampire to Germany and Nazis in particular. That most certainly was the implication in "Son of Dracula" - a commentary on the threat of foreign invaders entering the country. It says a lot that "The Return of the Vampire" tells its story using both World Wars as its backdrop. "The Return of the Vampire" however doesn't make this connection strong enough. At it's best the movie becomes something of a morale booster claiming good will always triumph over evil. Does that mean Germany won't win the war?

Outside of the WW II references, "The Return of the Vampire" is practically a rehash of "Dracula" with similar plot beats. There's no Lucy and Mina characters but there is Nicki (Nina Foch) and John (Roland Varno). Nicki was Prof. Saunders' granddaughter and for that reason Armand sets his sights (or teeth) on her. John is Lady Lane's son and for that reason another potential victim. There's no Renfield but there is Andreas (Matt Willis), Armand's werewolf looking slave. Interactions between Andreas and Armand are unintentionally funny. The sight of a werewolf speaking with a perfect British accent made me smile. To a degree that makes Lady Jane our Professor Van Helsing. There are no other surprises here.

By the time Lugosi appeared in this movie he was more than 60 years old. As much as I love Lugosi (did I mention we are both Hungarian?) he was too old to play a suave, ageless vampire able to lure young women into allowing him to bite their necks. He looks old and tired here. Around this point in his career, Lugosi's best performances came from playing colorful supporting characters - Ygor in "Son of Frankenstein" (1939) and Joseph in "The Body Snatcher" (1945) - his final pairing with Boris Karloff. Nothing here inspires fear in the viewer. I understand to today's movie fans a movie like "Dracula" wouldn't scare you. I mean not one person is dismembered by a chainsaw in vivid detail on-screen! But watch Lugosi in "Dracula". He has a commanding presence on-screen and gives the best performance of the movie. You can't say that here and truly compliment the performance.

The rest of the cast seems incapable of creating dramatic tension. Lines are said in a matter-of-fact kind of way. The only time when actors deviate from their blandless delivery of lines is to attempt humor usually by becoming aghast at the mention of vampires and werewolves.  

If that weren't enough little is done to create a proper scary atmosphere. Initially I thought an early sequence in a cemetery with a heavy fog showed promise but than I noticed that was the only trick the movie hand up its sleeve. No creative use of cinematography. No use of shadows. Too many things are shot in long shots when a close-up or medium shot may have been more effective. And while it is nice lighting is played around with to create darkness, too much is dark not creating a contrast. "Scary" scenes and non-scary scenes are shot the same way. This may have a lot to do with the fact the people behind the movie had no real experience working on horror movies. In fact, some worked on Three Stooges comedies, which were also released by Columbia Pictures. The movie's producer was Sam White, brother of Jules White, who directed tons of Stooge comedies. One of the two credited cinematographers, John  Stumar shot a few Stooge comedies - "Nutty But Nice (1940), "Boobs in Arms" (1940) and "Three Little Twirps" (1943). The other cinematographer, L. William O' Connell shot the classic, "I'll Never Heil Again" (1941). 

The movie's director, Lew Landers, wasn't all that more experienced with the horror genre either though he did direct "The Raven" (1935) with Lugosi and Karloff and his final movie was "Terrified" (1963). The screenwriter however worked for Universal, Griffin Jay, and was behind those awful Mummy do overs from the 40s. At Columbia he wrote "Cry of the Werewolf" (1944) taking the Wolf-Man story but centering it around a woman instead (they were even woke back than!). I don't exactly consider it horror as it functions more like a mystery or detective story.

"The Return of the Vampire" was an unnecessary movie. It feels like a cheap attempt to cash in on Lugosi and his association with Dracula. If Columbia threw a little more money into production and put more creative and talented people behind it, it could have worked. Nothing here though feels inspired. At 69 minutes a lot feels edited out but at the same time the movie feels kind of long. There's not much here to sink your teeth into! 

Film Review: April Fool's Day

 "April Fool's Day"  

** 1\2 (out of ****)

Is "April Fool's Day" (1986) a prank worth falling for?

The 1980s are considered by some - mostly those that lived through the decade and bask in nostalgia - to have been a creative peak for the horror genre. The decade brought us a seemingly endless supply of slasher movies featuring Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger, arguably the three most iconic movie villains of the decade. But to quote Charles Dickens, "it was the best of times, it was the worst of times". The best meaning, the genre enjoyed great popularity. The worst meaning, the movies weren't very good and the various franchises quickly became tiresome. The market place became over saturated, as often happens in the greedy hands of movie studio executives and producers - cash in quickly on the latest fade!

For some that makes "April Fool's Day" stand out among other horror movies from the decade. The movie has earned a kind of cult status. Much like a full decade later, when Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson gave us "Scream" (1996), here is a movie that wanted to be hip and in on the joke. While there aren't exactly big laughs in the movie it does have a playful quality to it, at times. It would seem screenwriter Danilo Bach, perhaps best known for "Beverly Hills Cop" (1984), wanted to play around with horror movie conventions and infuse some new blood into the genre (a deliberate choice of words).

I can't say the experiment is a resounding success but it's not a failure either. It falls somewhere in a murky middle. I've watched the movie a few times and each time my reaction has been the same. It doesn't succeed as a comedy or as a horror movie. It's not fair to compare the movie to "Scream" because contemporary critics wouldn't have been able to at the time, unless of course they were clairvoyant but "Scream" is the template for how this hybrid can be pulled off correctly. "Scream" was smart and hip. It commented on the genre while also working within the genre's conventions. "April Fool's Day" doesn't seem as ambitious. Even Craven's own "New Nightmare" (1994) was more genre defying than "April Fool's Day".

A big problem for "April Fool's Day" is it shows us its cards too quickly leaving viewers fully aware of what to expect. This takes away any and all suspense. The opening shot of the movie looks like a home movie or fake documentary as a pretty young female, with a phony Irish accent and exaggerated Irish name, explains who she is to the camera and her interests. She then quickly makes a vulgar joke and declares "April Fool's"! If that doesn't explain everything to you, the movie goes for a one-two punch as the movie's credit sequence features a home movie of a young girl's birthday party. Sweet, tender music plays in the background, creating a sense of nostalgia, as the young girl opens one of her gifts. It is a jack-in-the-box toy. Her family looks around her as she winds up the toy and instead of a Jester popping out a monster does. The girl screams while the family laughs. And there you have it. The entire set-up of "April Fool's Day". Everything is a prank. It's all fun and games. From that point forward how can we take anything we see in the movie serious? The movie's formula has been established after two sequences (!). It is all set-up and prank. This is done repeatedly in the movie, reinforcing the concept nothing is to be taken serious. 

The young girl grows up to be Muffy St. John (Deborah Foreman) and perhaps because of the birthday party incident turns out to be a prankster and an apparent lover of April Fool's Day as she invites a group of friends over to her wealthy estate to celebrate and spend the weekend together. Those friends include sex kitten Nikki (Deborah Goodrich), horndog Arch (Thomas F. Wilson), social climber Harvey (Jay Baker), the studious Nan (Leah King Pinsent), amateur filmmaker (?) Chaz (Clayton Rohner) and the committed couple; Kit (Amy Steel) and Rob (Ken Olandt).

The group catches the last ferry on the island to the secluded St. John estate. While en route a prank seems to have resulted in a near deadly accident when one of the ferry boat workers jumps into the water, to rescue one from the group, and gets hit by the ferry when he is unable to move out of the way in time. Though the worker is immediately rushed to the hospital the friends can't help but feel guilty and responsible. They will soon begin to question if the worker will seek revenge.

Fun and games continue however as everyone is on the receiving end of one of Muffy's pranks and events soon take a bizarre turn when each guest finds mysterious items awaiting them in their rooms. Harvey for example finds a newspaper clipping about a car accident. Do each of these guest have a hidden secret from their past that someone is trying to expose? Could it be the ferry boat worker behind all of this?

This premise alone, if somewhat predicable, could have made a more interesting, scary and suspenseful movie. Fast forwarding into the future again, it could have been a kind of precursor to "I Know What You Did Last Summer" (1997). Ironically, the movie's director, Fred Walton, would go on to direct "I Saw What You Did" (1988) about two girls that make a prank call to the wrong man which was a definite precursor to that movie. Unfortunately, it is not an avenue the movie fully explores. In fact it is the avenues the movie doesn't explore that could have made this a better movie.

The fact that "April Fool's Day" doesn't completely work may be somewhat shocking to some movie fans. As I mentioned the movie's director, Walton, was also behind "When  A Stranger Calls" (1979). It has been stated by many that the opening sequence from "Scream" was inspired by the opening sequence from that movie. It would have been better if Walton directed a straight forward horror movie instead of getting involved with this tongue-in-cheek material that never elevates itself.

Besides not exploring better plot options, what the movie does do, it doesn't do entirely well. One of the movie's big mysterious reveals regarding one of the characters and their childhood is absolutely ridiculous because the slow build to the revelation isn't done properly and what exactly is it all suppose to mean to the overall context of the plot? When did the character's switch happen? They seemed fine in one scene and suddenly their demeanor changes. Huh? 

Another downside to the movie is the lack of character development. Not enough is done to make each character distinguishable and seemingly relevant to the story. What does each character contribute to the plot besides becoming an eventual number to the  dead body count total? There is a moment when one character describes another as having only two emotions - collar up and collar down. That pretty much sums up these characters. There is nothing original and/or interesting about them. They don't have characteristic traits about themselves other than collar up and collar down. One guy carries a camera with him and another female looks good in a bikini. This would indicate the characters were an afterthought. They are merely pawns in the gears of the plot and no attention needs to be paid to them. One is just as forgettable as the next. That seems to have been a staple of 80s horror as well. Simply collect a group of attractive teenagers, throw in some brief nudity and kill them off one by one.

However, to the movie's credit it is light on gratuitous violence, playing around with the slasher movie horror conventions. Each death scene occurs off-screen making "April Fool's Day" something other than a blood-and-guts movie, which I've never found scary to begin with. Disgusting? Yes but not scary or suspenseful. There are also no nude scenes, just the suggestion of sex. Again, playing around with the conventions of the genre.

The overall inspiration for the movie seems to be a horror movie trend, still going on, that I find rather distasteful. Taking something innocent and twisting it to become perverse and/or frightening. For example, Christmas. Leaving aside the religious connation associated with the holiday it is seen as a time of generosity and good will. There is the innocence associated with it as children await gifts from Santa. How many horror movies have taken place around Christmas? "Silent Night, Deadly Night" (1984), "Silent Night, Bloody Night" (1972), "Christmas Evil" (1980), "Krampus" (2015) and "A Christmas Horror Story" (2015) just to name a few. April Fool's Day has an innocence associated with it, to a lessee degree. It is a time of pranks and good natured fun. In the twisted mind of horror movies, that would make it a ripe subject to explore. What if those pranks turned deadly? That may or may not happen here (no spoilers) but the connection is the same. Take something innocent and twist it. 

"April Fool's Day" may be iconic to some and cult worthy but to me there is a lot missing from this story. There was material here to make a better straight forward horror movie. The attempts at humor don't work. The movie isn't as genre defying as some may think it is. With modern eyes we've seen better examples of horror movies trying to be hip and relevant. Yes, you can consider "April Fool's Day" a first step and inspiration to those later movies but this is really more of stumble. It is an early draft that would later be improved upon. I doubt many people could watch this and be truly scared. Unless of course, they are pulling a prank on you!