The Snorkel (1958)

snorkelHammer Films’ The Snorkel opens with a long, silent sequence in which black widower Paul Decker (Peter van Eyck, The Thousand Eyes of Dr. Mabuse) methodically sets up an elaborate death trap for his wife, apparently drugged into unconsciousness on the couch. After sealing the room shut, he rigs it to flood with natural gas while he lie safely in the crawlspace, accessible via secret door underneath the carpet. He’s in no danger of asphyxiation, thanks to the scuba gear he wears, from which this psychological thriller takes its utterly silly-sounding name. (Even sillier? The credit that reads, “John Holmes’ dog ‘Flush’ as ‘Toto.'”)

The deliberate precision Decker takes suggests these steps have become a routine. He has done this before; he knows exactly what he’s doing. And so does director Guy Green (The Magus), for The Snorkel is a superb Hitchcock imitation.

snorkel1The dead woman’s gangly teenage daughter, Candy (Mandy Miller, The Man in the White Suit), immediately accuses Paul as the killer, beyond a Shadow of a Doubt. She still suspects him of killing her father, too, in a boating “accident” several years prior. Thus, at the core, we have a locked-room mystery in which, privy to the solution from frame one, we’re just waiting for the other characters to catch up.

How Green manages to wring suspense from that, I’ll never know, especially since we know those characters will, given the times. In ever-noble black and white, The Snorkel presents one of the more perverse methods of murder the screen has seen to date, and that uniqueness — the posters classify it as a “gimmick,” which sounds too William Castle-esque — goes a long way in appeal. It also grants instant menace to van Eyck, who looks so evil and creepy sitting quietly in that apparatus, no acting is necessary. —Rod Lott

Buy it at Amazon.

Brain Dead (1990)

braindeadAdam Simon’s Brain Dead is engineered to mess with your head. It undoubtedly will succeed if you have trouble telling Bill Pullman apart from Bill Paxton, since both men star in the loftier-than-usual Roger Corman production.

Pullman (Spaceballs) is neurosurgeon Dr. Rex Martin, cajoled by hospital administrator Jim Reston (a visibly grease-slicked Paxton, Weird Science) into determining if mental patient Jack Halsey (Bud Cort, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou) is faking his clinical paranoia. A mathematics genius believed to have killed his family, Halsey has important numbers in his head that some very important people want retrieved.

braindead1Entering his findings into what appears to be a MacPaint knockoff, Dr. Martin finds Halsey to be the real deal. Our good doctor then helplessly bounces between realities in which he is not the physician, but the patient; in which he is a doctor, but under Halsey’s name; in which various people — including his wife (Patricia Charbonneau, Manhunter) — are found murdered, their eyes stabbed free of their sockets.

So often does Brain Dead leap from level to level, with Dr. Martin jolting “awake” in a sweaty panic, I couldn’t help but think of The Kids in the Hall‘s classic sketch a year earlier in which “I had the pear dream again.” Simon’s movie is like those three minutes, if extended to a feature length. It would function better as an episode of The Twilight Zone — which makes total sense since Charles Beaumont, a regular scribe for that landmark TV series, shares screenplay credit with Simon — especially since they do not have the budget necessary to pull off their collective ambition.

Is it “the most terrifying film of the decade,” as the posters claimed? No. It’s not terrifying at all, yet at least one cannot fault the movie for overflowing with ideas. Whereas Simon went on to bigger things, notably Corman’s Carnosaur, Beaumont remained deceased, having passed away in the late 1960s. Another nugget of trivia: Paxton’s Martini Ranch band provides the club-ready, Dragnet-era Art of Noise-esque end theme. —Rod Lott

Buy it at Amazon.

The Unholy Rollers (1972)

unholyrollersWTFSick of being sexually harassed by the boss, cat-food factory worker Karen Walker (Claudia Jennings, Gator Bait) impulsively quits and parlays her hot temper and hot bod into a career as a professional roller-derby skater. Despite never having played the sport before, she proves a natural. Despite proving a natural, she provokes jealousy as she zooms right past her fellow orange-jerseyed Avengers, literally and figuratively.

The Unholy Rollers is an odd-duck mix of the sports drama and producer Roger Corman’s hick-underdog comedies. Scripted by Corman regular Howard R. Cohen (Saturday the 14th), it asks us to believe that Karen could not only become a citywide star, but make “lots of money,” which she drops on new furniture, family and friends, and a car with a zebra-print hardtop. Yet we kind of believe it because director Vernon Zimmerman (Fade to Black) trusts viewers will topple head over heels for Jennings. She possesses such an all-American beauty and confidence, it’s difficult not to, even while taking note of the third-rate arena.

unholyrollers1As depicted in this flick, roller derby is pro wrestling on wheels, complete with costumed heroes and villains, all of whom clutch cans of Coors as if water had yet to be invented. The skating sequences bring a real snap to the two-bit proceedings, and it is here that first-time editor Martin Scorsese demonstrates a touch of the genius to come.

Don’t mistake The Unholy Rollers for genius. Narratively, it’s a mess, braking for joke-tellling sessions that remind one of the opening spreads of Mad magazine’s movie parodies. The story threads abruptly culminate in a strange, downbeat ending of self-destruction that, like any of Karen’s brutish teammates, comes from nowhere to knock you out. It’s an easy watch, however, and it becomes clear that the film has more on its mind than exploitative elements; it checks through those as quick as it can in order to settle into a parable about the price of fame. —Rod Lott

Buy it at Amazon.

Dreamscape (1984)

dreamscapeBaby-faced Alex Gardner (Dennis Quaid, Innerspace) is a gadabout psychic specializing in extreme telekinesis, perpetual womanizing and dim-witted snark: “Who’s your decorator? Darth Vader?” He’s “recruited” for an extended stay at Thornhill College to participate in a top-secret project; over a pitcher a beer at a proto-Hooters pub, Dr. Paul Novotny (Max von Sydow, Flash Gordon) lays it all out: The doc is researching how to psychically project a person into another’s dream and have that person actively participate with — and protect — the REM-phase sleeper.

Having succeeded in the how-to portion, Novotny wants Alex and his considerable mind powers to join the team. Being on the run from gambling-related goons, Alex accepts, and Dreamscape works best when depicting his lab sessions of the surreal and nonsensical. Years away from CGI, director Joseph Ruben (1987’s The Stepfather) has to rely upon cut-rate green screens and matte paintings, but these effects are nonetheless effective. Besides, dreams are imperfect, so having the seams show seems appropriate.

dreamscape1For the first two-thirds of the film, the dream sequences differ wildly in tone. The one set atop an under-construction skyscraper is riddled with high-anxiety suspense, while one involving infidelity is funny. Viewers are served one that is genuinely scary (with a Snakeman lurking among Caligari-esque corridors) and one that is genuinely sexy (as Alex enjoys train-car copulation with a project researcher played by Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom‘s Kate Capshaw in her prime).

If only Dreamscape didn’t collapse in its final act, when the focus shifts from Alex to the President of the United States (Eddie Albert, The Devil’s Rain). Plagued by visions of a nuclear holocaust, the leader of our free world just wants “these damn nightmares to end!,” while others wish to end him. On the whole, the movie is like a ’70s conspiracy thriller wrapped in an issue of EC Comics’ Weird Science. I loved it without question or criticism upon its premiere, when I was 13; I like it fine today. —Rod Lott

Buy it at Amazon.

Stephen King Films FAQ: All That’s Left To Know About the King of Horror on Film

skingfaqBeing born in 1971, I’m just the right age to have experienced the dawn of Stephen King. My middle-school love for his books extended to the movies based on those books, and I have fond memories of so many of them, including:
• renting George A. Romero’s Creepshow over and over (on big-box VHS!) from Sound Warehouse,
• lining up at the Northpark Cinema 4 for the opening weekend of the anthology Cat’s Eye
• and catching Brian De Palma’s Carrie one weeknight on some local UHF channel, only to be jolted into fright by that last scene — one of the rare times a film genuinely has scared me.

All these memories and more came flooding back while reading Stephen King Films FAQ. It’s the first in Applause Theatre & Cinema Books’ ever-growing FAQ series for author Scott Von Doviak, but not his first for the publisher; he wrote the best-so-far entry in its other pop-culture series, If You Like, so my high hopes here were not dashed.

Let’s get my one problem with the book right out of the way, because it resides at the beginning: The first 40 pages offer a brief history of the horror-movie genre at large. If this were Horror Films FAQ, that would be fine, but it’s not and that book already exists, so here, it just seems like stalling, like those advertisements that run in theaters before the real fun begins.

And the rest is real fun for fans. Von Doviak covers the wide territory chronologically (saving sequels and spin-offs for later chapters of their own), weaving a well-researched narrative that’s informative, thorough and not lacking in his own opinions. As shown in his two prior film books, especially 2004’s Hick Flicks: The Rise and Fall of Redneck Cinema, the author exhibits a boisterous sense of humor, and I don’t think I laughed louder than his summation of the made-for-TV miniseries It: “The cast could have been confused with that of a 1990 Hollywood Squares episode. … How seriously can we take an ensemble comprised of Jack Tripper, Venus Flytrap, the wacky judge from Night Court, and John-Boy Walton in a dorky ponytail?”

I love that Von Doviak isn’t blindly fawning over King, as I can see lesser writers doing; he loves what he loves, hates what he hates, and isn’t afraid to share those thoughts, no matter to what degree they are shared by the collective audience. (While we’re on the subject of objectivity and bias, I should note that one of my pieces of film journalism — an interview with Children of the Corn director Fritz Kiersch — is quoted on page 88, of which I had no prior knowledge and alters my opinion of this book not one iota.)

One of the greatest chapters finds Von Doviak hosting an all-night Corn marathon, painful sequel by painful sequel, and the book deviates from the King features to include looks at the “Dollar Baby” shorts, adaptations that never made it out of development hell, the Marvel comic books and the occasional Broadway fiasco. The paperback comes packed with photos and poster art, although not as fully as Stephen Graham Jones’ enjoyable Creepshows: The Illustrated Stephen King Movie Guide, a 2002 release in serious need of an update it’s unlikely to get, so consider this FAQ that. —Rod Lott

Buy it at Amazon.

Random Genre & Cult Movie Reviews