All posts by Rod Lott

The New Kids (1985)

With their parents perishing in a car wreck, military-base teens Loren (Shannon Presby, Trackdown: Finding the Goodbar Killer) and Abby MacWilliams (Lori Loughlin, Back to the Beach) move to Florida to live with their slovenly Uncle Charlie (Eddie Jones, Invasion U.S.A.). They earn their keep by helping get his decrepit, two-bit amusement park, Santa Funland, off the ground.

They earn something else, too: the ire of the local gang of high school hick thugs, led by the drug-dealing Dutra (James Spader, Avengers: Age of Ultron), all for one unreasonable reason: Abby won’t go out with them. Outraged at this affront to their rapey overtures, Dutra and his fellow detritus pledge to make the MacWilliams siblings pay — quite literally with their lives, after a couple rounds of garden-variety vandalism fail to convince Abby to put out. It all culminates as the viewer would hope: on the after-hours grounds of Santa Funland, with the villains using shotguns and our heroes using jerry-rigged carnival rides.

This late left turn into terror shouldn’t surprise anyone, seeing how The New Kids is directed by Sean S. Cunningham, he of the landmark slasher Friday the 13th. Now, James Spader is no Jason Voorhees, which is to say that while the former’s villainous turn failed to achieve the latter’s icon status, the actor is absolutely slimy to the point of serpentine — a petulant, entitled alpha male whose assholiness resonates even more today with a realism the supernatural slayer Jason can’t even hope to match (not that he would).

As intense as Spader is, treating the B movie as A material (as was his wont), Presby is nearly as magnetic – a surprise since The New Kids marks his film debut, and doubly a surprise since he never did another. In fact, his acting career — all four years of it — ended with the ’85 calendar. Slow-motion shots of his athleticism aside, presumably to showcase his package, Presby has more presence than his ultimately famous screen sister. Among the supporting cast in too-small parts are Eric Stoltz (Anaconda) as a super-dweeb and Tom Atkins (Halloween III: Season of the Witch) as the ill-fated MacWilliams patriarch.

Cunningham’s instincts have always been stronger as producer than director, so he seems mostly disinterested in Stephen Gyllenhaal’s script until the finale places him back within his comfort zone. Viewers will not only sense it, but may think likewise. —Rod Lott

Get it at Amazon.

Reading Material: Brute Force: Animal Horror Movies

If the Vanessa Morgan-edited (and highly recommended) When Animals Attack: The 70 Best Horror Movies with Killer Animals were your Intro 101 to the naughty-nature subgenre, consider Dominic Lennard’s Brute Force: Animal Horror Movies the subsequent AP class.

Part of SUNY Press’ Horizons of Cinema series (as was Lennard’s Bad Seeds and Holy Terrors: The Child Villains of Horror Film of 2015), Brute Force examines the be(a)st that Hollywood and off-Hollywood movies have to offer in depicting man’s battle against eight-, six-, four- and no-legged creatures. This type of terror resonates because, Lennard writes, it “hits us with a radical demotion” on the scale of superiority — not to mention the food chain.

He may discuss the sexual politics of 1976’s King Kong and the gender depiction of bears, but don’t mistake Brute Force as a force of boredom or wokeness; it’s a lively and spirited discussion of a particular and peculiar kind of flick. In other words, the contents contain a serious — and seriously engaging — mix of film criticism analysis that just so happens to include Sharknado — y’know, the Syfy shitnado in which, “as the film’s title promises, we see a great swirling tornado flinging sharks around its perimeter.”

Amid chapters on killer insects, snakes and dogs, Lennard takes a mid-book break to focus not on a member of the animal kingdom, but on the eyes — both for the subgenre’s use of shots from the predator’s POV (as in Michael Wadleigh’s Wolfen) and for those creatures’ propensity to pluck out our peepers (as in Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds).

Lennard’s writing style exhibits humor without snark (“Dark lord among diminutive of terrors is of course the spider”), often coming across as deadpan — a real plus. Other than Brute Force’s investment-style price, the only quibble I have with it is the author’s occasional misclassification of movies to fit the theme; never have I ever heard of The Edge or The Grey or The Ghost and the Darkness referred to as anything but adventure thrillers. Alas, I’m more than willing to throw him a bone. —Rod Lott

Get it at Amazon.

The Bellboy and the Playgirls (1962)

Something’s afoot — and abreast — in room 229 of the Happy Holiday Hotel, and a cowardly bellboy wants to see for his peeping-Tom self in The Bellboy and the Playgirls. The nudie-cutie film would have no shelf life, if not for being directed in part by Francis Ford Coppola, in one of two such pics the eventual Oscar hat-tricker helmed early in his career.

Also from 1962, Tonight for Sure was the other. Both starred Don Kenney in his only acting credits, here playing the titular bellboy — and, by today’s standards, also an incel, since he admits not knowing how to act around the girls for whom he madly lusts. He’s taking a correspondence course titled How to Be a Hotel Detective and Be Liked by Women, which we know because he flat-out tells the audience; one could say he breaks the fourth wall, but it looks like the production couldn’t afford more than two. His dual studies come in handy when he grows suspicious and aroused over 229’s group of beautiful ladies, whom he wrongly assumes are prostitutes and/or porn stars, because that’s comedy. Right?

Either scantily clad or nude, the women are led by the bountiful June Wilkinson (Frankenstein’s Great Aunt Tillie), who — surprise of all surprises, given her Playboy popularity at the time — is the only one not to appear naked. The bellboy dons a number of disguises, drag included, in order to penetrate the room so he can take the ladies’ measurements and see them in the altogether, resulting in burlesque-ready exchanges like this:

“Get out of here!”
“I can’t.”
“Why not?”
“You’re standing on my foot!”

All of the scenes with Wilkinson’s crew appear in eye-popping color, with the final 10 minutes (with perhaps cinema’s only cold-cream fight) in eye-popping-er 3-D. Most of the rest of the film actually comes from another: 1958’s Sin Began with Eve, a German black-and-white snore about a stage director (Willy Fritsch, Adventure in Rio) schooling his über-prudish actress (You Only Live Twice Bond girl Karin Dor) on the history of sex, with fanciful flashbacks to the likes of ancient Greece and gay Paree, all rendered on cardboard sets. In a poor attempt to tie this repurposed footage to his own, Coppola shot monochrome transitions of the bellboy as a side-gig stagehand.

Surprisingly progressive in some ways and astoundingly conservative in others, The Bellboy and the Playgirls is consistently terrible, and yet less embarrassing than Coppola’s Jack. —Rod Lott

Get it at Amazon.

Greener Grass (2019)

When committing to a viewing of Greener Grass, it’s important to know what you’re in for: Not even four minutes in, the lead character gives her baby away to her admiring best friend. This on-a-whim ceding of parental rights is played for laughs.

If you don’t find any humor in that (much less the incontinent grade schooler to come), I offer these irrefutable, inconvenient truths:
1. Greener Grass is most decidedly not for you.
2. You are wrong.

Expanded for the better from its creators’ 2015 short, Greener Grass is not only the funniest film of the year thus far, but destined to grow in estimation as the right audiences find it (versus the other way around) and a fervent cult forms. Much like David Byrne’s initially ignored, now-celebrated True Stories, its loose vignettes form an absurdist whole that redefines deadpan.

Written and directed by its stars, Upright Citizens Brigade alum Jocelyn DeBoer and Dawn Luebbe, this satire of the suburbs posits an upper-middle-class middle America covered in a puke of pastels — a neighborhood where golf carts have replaced cars, children bear names like Citronella, and all the adults wear braces on their teeth. Those smiles may be forced, but the movie’s humor isn’t. Lines such as “Do people like my peas?” aren’t read as jokes, because the cast — including current Saturday Night Live utility player Beck Bennett — exudes confidence in knowing viewers attuned to Grass’ admittedly narrow wavelength of peculiarity will catch them.

The ostensible plot — a yoga-teacher neighbor is murdered by the local grocery store bagger — is, much like the characters DeBoer and Luebbe so skillfully skewer, just for show. That both ladies very much look the part makes their pic all the more deliciously subversive. —Rod Lott

Get it at Amazon.

The Amityville Horror / The Amityville Curse: Fact & Fiction

It is one of horror’s most classic premises: “George and Kathy Lutz moved into 112 Ocean Avenue on December 18. Twenty-eight days later, they fled in terror.” We speak, of course, of Jay Anson’s The Amityville Horror. If there’s one good thing about the less-than-successful film remake starring Ryan Reynolds, it’s that its 2005 release finally put Anson’s 1977 novel (?) back into print.

My first exposure to the book was shortly after its debut, when the young woman babysitting me and my brothers for the night brought it with her to read. I was creeped out by the illustration of the houseflies that occasionally dotted its pages (sadly missing from Pocket Star’s reprint edition). I read it a few years later, before I saw the 1979 movie, and – what with all the unexplained voices, toilet goo, evil faces, telephone interference, loud noises, dead Indians*, levitation and flaming red pig eyes – it scared the bejeezus out of me.

Revisiting it today, I’m not sure why. Anson’s documentary-style approach prevents it from approaching real terror. There’s simply no tension. Anson will be describing some utterly mundane activity for several paragraphs and then throw in an exclamation like “Father Mancuso returned to his apartment to find a stupefying odor of human excrement pervading his room!” It’s not shocking, because it comes from nowhere, but every time you spot an exclamation point, know that Anson wants goosebumps to follow.

Even though Anson’s you-are-there prose isn’t exactly lively, the story remains compelling after all these years. Even people who’ve neither read the book nor seen the movies can relay freely at least some details surrounding the Amityville legend. But even the initiated probably don’t recall how clunky the book actually is, like this doozy of a sentence, which would be laugh-out-loudable in any book: “Regardless of the weakness he still felt in his loins from the diarrhea, George wanted to make love to Kathy.”

And that mental image, my friends, is far scarier than any poltergeist or possession.

Parapsychologist Hans Holzer really hates Jay Anson’s The Amityville Horror. He refers to it as “sensational” – and not in a good way – and won’t even name its author. After all, Anson’s book is considered fiction, but Holzer believes in the spirits that reportedly have plagued the famous Long Island home. So he wrote his own version.

Long out of print, that nonfiction study from 1979 has been combined with Holzer’s two all-but-lost Amityville fictional efforts from ’82 and ’85 for Barnes & Noble’s three-in-one collection The Amityville Curse: Fact & Fiction. When it comes to competition from Holzer, Anson had nothing to worry about.

It opens with Murder in Amityville, a factual examination not of the Lutz family’s experience in the home (as depicted in the blockbuster ’70s movie) but of Ronald DeFeo, the 22-year-old man who took a shotgun to all six members of his family one night in 1974 (as depicted in the fiercely underrated and unjustly derided Amityville II). The reason? Spiritual possession!

“The only logical explanation for such behavior seems to be the transference of knowledge or skills from an outside source — an outside entity functioning in another dimension.” Why is this the “only” logical explanation? Because Holzer says so. “In all this uncertainty,” he writes, “only one thing is certain: No ‘demons’ are involved, because, unlike spirits, they are strictly figments of the imagination.”

And that’s the way it goes: His way or the highway, as every dig at Anson and others’ work is tinged with a palpable level of “I’ll show them!”-style arrogance and jealousy. It’s all for nothing, because Murder is terribly boring – a true-crime compilation of court transcripts and psychiatric interviews, which is hardly the interesting part of the Amityville story.

But at least it’s competently written compared to the abomination of his would-be novel The Amityville Curse. You can tell how ridiculous it is just from the setup: Three couples who know of the house’s horrible history decide to buy it, move in together and don’t leave once bad shit starts to pile on, even when that includes death. Even hiring an American Indian (named Black Eagle; good one, Hans – that’s not patronizing at all) to cleanse the spirits doesn’t help.

Holzer provides one Shocking Event after another, but because he cannot build suspense, it’s all rather pedestrian. Consider this supposedly terrifying passage of supernatural phenomena:

“The flour bin moved to the edge of the shelf, its top jerked open, and the contents poured out on the stove, creating a large white cloud. … The stove was completely covered with flour, and had to be washed. Undoubtedly, their meal would have to be cold.”

Not exactly pig eyes in the window, huh? Notice how that last line bursts with unintentional humor, as does “Good. Then I must tell you that building houses on Native American burial grounds is not the greatest of ideas.” Or, after a woman’s father is impaled to death by an “Oriental dagger,” “Well, it looks like we paid that medicine man for nothing.”

The narrative is repetitious; witness a doctor’s advice of “Or rather his curse, like a guided missile, will follow you,” and then, a mere 12 pages later, “You see, Mr. White, a curse is a little like a guided missile.” But laziness is Holzer’s greatest sin, like when the character of Frank accidentally kills the spouse of Lucille. Thank goodness it was only a spouse: “Lucille had refused to leave her room or even talk to anyone. … She was not angry with Frank, and when he came to talk to her through the closed door, she forgave him.” Whew! Glad that’s settled! Now who wants dinner?

Ready for more ludicrousness? Turn to The Secret of Amityville, which serves as a prequel to explain the Native American angle. Initially set in 1717 at outfits like The Pig and Whistle, it’s a tale of lords, Scots, buccaneers and wasted ink. If he couldn’t write a modern-day story, what made him think he could do historical?

The only thing remotely scary about this anthology? I paid for it. –Rod Lott

Get them at Amazon.

*Anson’s word, not mine.