On Her Bed of Roses (1966)

onherbedWTFAlbert Zugsmith’s On Her Bed of Roses begins with a wordless, 15-minute prologue that rivals the surrealism of Vincent Price’s drug-fueled dream sequence in Zug’s own Confessions of an Opium Eater from 1962: In his backyard, the handsome, but shy Stephen Long (Ronald Warren) grabs a rose so hard that its thorns pierce his skin. With bloodied fist wrapped around that plucked flower, the totally clothed, totally dazed young man walks into a swimming pool and emerges at the other side, then retrieves an instrument case from the garage and gets behind the wheel of a car. Paying no attention to the rules of the road and still clutching that rose — hey, hands at 10 and 2, son! — he drives willy-nilly until he comes to a hillside, removes a rifle from the case, and picks off a few wrong-time-wrong-place motorists from his perch. When the police arrive, Stephen turns the gun on himself.

Annnnnd scene!

onherbed1What, pray tell, triggered this college dropout (“I didn’t fit in with the rah-rah boys”) to zonk out and exercise his trigger finger? We learn the answer through flashbacks as Melissa Borden (a breathy Sandra Lynn, Zugsmith’s 1966 Movie Star, American Style or; LSD, I Hate You), tells her shrink. Not only was she Stephen’s nymphomaniac next-door neighbor, but also his kinda-sorta girlfriend. Theirs is the oddest of romances, if Roses can be called that — after all, its alternate title comes from the psychology text from which it is loosely based, Psychopathia Sexualis. That classic 19th-century study on deviant sex was written by Dr. Richard von Krafft-Ebing, here portrayed by actual psychologist Dr. Lee Gladden (who plays himself in 1965’s The Incredible Sex Revolution, also written and directed by Zugsmith), to whom Melissa spills all secrets.

Those include sexual abuse by her father (“A Taste of Honey” songwriter Ric Marlow) and having her mom (Barbara Hines, The Three Stooges Meet Hercules) steal the boys Melissa brings home to bang. Stephen has “mother troubles” of his own, being smothered by his domineering mom (Regina Gleason, Revenge of the Cheerleaders). Melissa tells the doctor it’s her belief that she and Stephen could have saved one another, and the funny thing is, you want to see them do just that. However, going into the film at Stephen’s suicide, we know that’s futile, so we settle for wanting to see how events A and B and C led to the tragic Z.

Now, don’t mistake that engagement for eminence; we’re still talking about a Zugsmith production — one whose narrative halts in the middle to make way for extended scenes of nude dancing just for the sake of nude dancing (similar to his “hot” cut of 1960’s Sex Kittens Go to College). His dialogue, when he gets around to it, remains histrionic and hysterical, such as the lines exchanged between our Cupid-struck teens during their meet-cute:

Melissa: “Do you like peanut butter?”
Stephen: “Gosh, how’d you know? I like it best on apples!”
Melissa: “I like grape jelly on mine!”

That’s true love. —Rod Lott

Get it at dvdrparty.

House of the Long Shadows (1983)

houselongshadowsWhile on a book tour in Great Britain, author Kenneth Magee (Desi Arnaz Jr., 1977’s Joyride) is challenged by his publisher, Sam (Richard Todd, Alfred Hitchcock’s Stage Fright), to write something different from his string of bestselling political thrillers: something epic and all human conditiony, like Emily Brontë’s Wuthering Heights. No prob, says Magee, who bets the Englishman $20,000 that he can turn around a complete manuscript within 24 hours. Ever the gentleman, Sam even offers his client conducive solitude in the House of the Long Shadows, aka Baldpate Manor, a Welsh estate in which no one has resided for 40 years.

Magee arrives, predictably, on a dark and stormy night. But for an abode so empty, there sure are a lot of creepy old people lurking about its unlit hallways and stairwells. None should be there; all reek of sinister motives. With so much distraction and danger, the bad news is that Magee looks to lose that bet; the good news is he won’t notice the financial impact, because he’ll be dead.

houselongshadows1More prestigious than the average Cannon Films release of the early 1980s, this House finds inspiration in the oft-adapted Broadway classic Seven Keys to Baldpate. It also represents the one and only big-screen meeting of fright-film titans Vincent Price, Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee and John Carradine — sort of like an Avengers for the Famous Monsters of Filmland generation. That alone makes Long Shadows worth a look, but don’t expect much to come of your stay.

The final bow for UK cult director Pete Walker (House of Whipcord), the PG-rated production means well in its old-fashioned adherence to the creaky Old Dark House subgenre and all the Gothic trappings that accompany it. Good intentions do not automatically translate into a good movie, and such is the case here, with a mystery that doesn’t try hard enough to pique audience interest and elements of horror defanged enough for telling ’round a Webelos campfire. It’s as if Walker, never one to shy away from sex or violence, was so out of his element with being inoffensive that he overdid the undercooking. Overall shoddy construction is to blame for the “twist” ending being obvious by the film’s second scene. —Rod Lott

Get it at Amazon.

Fantastic Four (2015)

fantasticfourIn the X-Men films, you know when the opening 20th Century Fox logo fades to black, how the “X” is held for a fraction of a second longer? Well, Fantastic Four pulls the same trick, except it calls out a different letter: yep, the “F.” I couldn’t help but take that as a grade.

Following 2005’s Fantastic 4 and its 2007 sequel with Silver Surfer, this franchise reboot from Josh Trank (Chronicle) errs from the start — not necessarily by giving us the third screen telling of the quartet’s origin as much as by recasting our heroes as mopey, obnoxious, entitled teens. Reed Richards (Whiplash’s Miles Teller, toning down the smug) is the genius kid scientist who’s been toiling on teleportation since the fifth grade, with the aid of blue-collar pal Ben Grimm (Jamie Bell, Snowpiercer). Their work brings them to the attention of the Baxter Foundation, which recruits them to help the institute crack the riddle of interdimensional travel.

fantasticfour1With further assistance from fellow student Victor Von Doom (Toby Kebbell, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes) and Storm siblings Johnny (Michael B. Jordan, Creed) and Sue (Kate Mara, The Martian), they succeed and make a unsanctioned trip to “Planet Zero,” where these supposedly intelligent youngsters take Instagram selfies and touch mystery goo. This mutates all of them into, respectively, a living Stretch Armstrong doll, a pile of talking rocks, a crispy-burnt mummy, a flying fireball and an invisible woman who digs the trip-hop tunes of Portishead.

“We can’t change the past,” says Sue, who can create a force field, yet not a smile, “but we can change the future.” And so can you, by avoiding this needless iteration of the Marvel Comics mainstays, infinitely more of an embarrassment than Roger Corman’s infamously unreleased The Fantastic Four adaptation of 1994. Gripe at the aforementioned pair of mid-aughts adventures if you must, but at least they got the tone of the source material right, with bickering and in-fighting abound. Trask’s switch to making the team members morose and gloomy benefits no one; in fact, it compounds the movie’s problems, because in aiming for realism, the foursome’s realization of their changed bodies strikes viewers as worthy of ridicule. And it is.

Even before this Fantastic Four do-over opened, the clock struck clobberin’ time. Is it as bad as you’ve heard? No, but also yes — “no” because the sci-fi superhero tale is far from unskilled garbage, and “yes” because it is astonishingly leaden and as dull as it is expensive ($120 million). —Rod Lott

Get it at Amazon.

Shriek of the Mutilated (1974)

shriekmutilatedIn Shriek of the Mutilated, one of the few films in which director Michael Findlay does not indulge his psychosexual kinks, college professor Dr. Prell (Alan Brock) takes four of his students on a field trip to Boot Island, in hopes of finding and capturing a yeti. Seven years earlier, a similar sojourn ended in tragedy, but in the immortal words of the great philosopher Shoeshine Boy, aka Underdog, if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.

Their mission’s HQ is the home of Prell’s fellow academic, Dr. Werner (Tawm Ellis), who employs a mute and “harmless old buzzard” American Indian, Laughing Crow (Ivan Agar, 1968’s Behind Locked Doors), to do his bidding. (His tasks include the preparation of meals; one Laughing Crow recipe is human head stew.) With Prell barking orders, the armed students venture into the woods to rustle up a yeti; I am spoiling nothing by noting that not only do they find their prey, but become the prey.

shriekmutilated1Shriek will make you do just that, with the kind of delight only offered by the well-meaning Bs. While I’m not sure what was up with the decapitation prologue since it has no bearing on the film that follows, Findlay lucked into an actual story — not his usual playing field — but it’s still rife with goofiness. For example, scored by Hot Butter’s novelty hit “Popcorn,” an early party scene has Spencer (Tom Grail), a survivor of Prell’s previous yeti hunt, flip the fuck out when he learns his old prof is still obsessing over such an abominable quest. So naturally, Spencer goes home, slits the throat of his wife (Luci Brandt) and, still clothed, hops in the tub with a can of Coors. While he soaks and scrubs and burps, his not-quite-dead spouse manages to crawl into the bathroom and toss a plugged-in radio in with him. Why this sequence merits inclusion is not worth pursuing.

Anyhoo, that yeti: Despite initial camera tricks (Findlay’s wife, Roberta, handled cinematography) to keep him obscured, Shriek of the Mutilated gives viewers plenty of plain-sighted views of the creature with “a rank, foul odor,” so worry not about being gypped. (Worry plenty about amateurish performances, since few cast members have a filmography that goes beyond a credit of one.) The monster looks like Disney’s Shaggy Dog standing upright. The uncredited man within the hirsute suit is producer Ed Adlum, who co-wrote with his Invasion of the Blood Farmers partner, Ed Kelleher, and the two deserve some sort of recognition for their laughable twist ending. I mean, how often can one say it would satisfy the disparate fan bases of Martha Stewart and Herschell Gordon Lewis? —Rod Lott

Get it at Amazon.

Hitchcock/Truffaut (2015)

hitchtruffautHowever one pulls off a successful documentary about the making of a book, Kent Jones has done it with Hitchcock/Truffaut. Borrowing its title from the now-seminal film text published in 1966, the feature chronicles the unprecedented week of interviews between the two filmmaking giants (and their unheralded interpreter) and examines the volume’s unprecedented decades of influence ever since.

On one side of the table, we have Alfred Hitchcock, the undisputed “master of suspense” and arguably regarded today as cinema’s greatest director — thanks in part to the man at the other side of the table: Francois Truffaut. The French New Wave pioneer questions Hitch at great length about each of his pictures, which, of course, comes to extend to the broadest scope of cinema as a whole. At the time, Hitch had only a few films left in him, whereas Truffaut was just getting started; while at different points in their respective careers, they found equilibrium in their love of the movies, which Jones renders infectious.

hitchtruffaut1Although film cameras ironically were not present for the men’s talks, an audio recorder was; Jones lucks into having their actual voices at his show-don’t-tell disposal, along with a smattering of behind-the-scenes photographs. Without these, the doc would lose what makes it special. He doesn’t rely solely on his subjects, either, opening the floor to such celebrity admirers as Martin Scorsese, David Fincher and Wes Anderson, all avowed fans of the classic book, which has inspired and informed work of their own.

The middle stretch of Hitchcock/Truffaut ceases to be about the book per se and becomes about Hitchcock’s films and his style. That’s not a knock against the doc, as such exploration is on-topic. Naturally, a wealth of clips is employed — with a heavy emphasis on 1958’s Vertigo — so the audience can see exactly the points being discussed; the result is like a crash course in Introduction to Film Theory. (Hitch’s stated position on an “erect” James Stewart as Kim Novak emerges from the closet is priceless.)

All of these tools grant Hitchcock/Truffaut a significant coat of polish; the film exhibits more flair than the Hollywood documentary for which Jones (an ace critic for Film Comment and elsewhere) heretofore was best known: 2007’s Scorsese-produced and -narrated Val Lewton: The Man in the Shadows. That said, there is something Hitchcock/Truffaut’s construction that gives it the feel of being made for cable or a Blu-ray box set vs. the big screen; however, that does not make the hour and a half any less absorbing or delicious. —Rod Lott

Random Genre & Cult Movie Reviews