Back

Back from Sudbury.

I Drink Your Blood

I Drink Your Blood

1970

Country: USA

Alternate Titles

Blood Suckers

Phobia

La rabbia dei morti viventi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Drink_Your_Blood

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067229/

Director: Dave Durston

Staring Rhonda Fultz

Bhaskar Roy Chowdury

Elizabeth Marner-Brooks

Writing about “I Drink Your Blood” is all about back story.

The idea for the movie started when exploitation producer Jerry Gross hired director/writer Dave Durston to make him an ultra gory zombie/cannibal movie based lightly on the “Manson Family” to be shown along side the 1964 horror film “I Eat Your Skin," which he had just purchased. The two had different views on what the movie should be. Durston wanted a fun gory, twisted ride while Gross wanted a more straight up horror movie. Then to make matters worse the finished project was given an “X” rating for violence alone, meaning it would be hard to get a more respectable drive-in cut made. Since the movie's selling point was it's weird violent reality (something that doesn't come apparent till the last 20 minutes mind you) and Gross wanted to get his film in as many theaters as possible a recut was made. Then Gross told projectionists to make their own cuts to get it past any censorship in their own areas. The result is this movie now exists in just under 300 cuts.

Yes you read that right. There is almost 300 different prints and different cuts of this movie.

Some of them, done by very amateurish projectionists, exist with scenes out of order, important scenes missing, and the natural flow of many scenes severely destroyed. The result is that no matter what version you watch, including a supposed directors cut from the early 2000's, with contains much of the original humor, the movie seems very disjointed.

My particular version has most of the gore but two death scenes seem missing. So two characters just vanish half way through.

The movie itself starts when a band of Satanic hippies (is there any other kind?) attack and sexually abuse a local girl who was invited to their little ritual of lameness by one of their members. She returns to her grandfather, who is the local vet of a dying town. The town seems only to exist for the construction of a dam near by and we learn the population has dropped over the years from 400 to 40.

The hippies take up residence in a abandoned rat invested hotel where they begin to run amok among themselves, even going as far as almost killing one of their own members,

When the grandfather tries but fails to extract revenge the girl's little brother secretly extracts a little revenge of his own. He inserts the blood of a rabid dog he killed into their meat pies which causes them to turn rabid and murderous.

They then run amok in the small town; killing, sexing and spreading the virus whenever possible.

The one immediate problem you will find is although the movie is moving along for the first half it feels really slow. It's probably because scenes at first take too long to play out and it's insistence of relying to much on "Mason Familyxloitation" (I think I just made that up) prevents us in getting to good stuff. There is also a great deal of character development, which does start to seem out of place once you get into the second half.

Once this film gets going however, depending one what version you happen to be watching, it does offer what you would expect from a movie from this era and subgenre, and more. It turns into a great little cult movie of sex and violence, but one that will frustrate those who don't particularly admire this form of film making, but then why are they watching this film in the first place.

Each particular cut also has it's own frustrations, as some scenes play out to a climax which may or may not come, depending on what version of the film your watching.

The different versions range from as low as 70 minutes long to just under 100. There is that much variety. Mine is roughly 90 minutes.

One thing that may give people pause is there is some real animal death in this movie (OK it's a chicken, but still). I do agree that animals should never be killed for our entertainment and it's something I've come to terms with in watching these movies, but I have to warn those who can't.

The last thing to mention is there has been some talk about a remake for some time. I generally hate remakes - pretty much all of them. I find a lot of the creative energy is lost over the years and unless it's a remake in spirit only the remake by definition will lose the original idealistic spark. Thought at first it was tempting to be in favour of a remake for "I Drink Your Blood" since this has never been the film it should have been and the original directer/writer is filming it. On further thought I think it should be left in it's time capsule. The landscape for this form of exploitation cinema has changed greatly and a remake is likely just to become an attempt to recapture a stylistic vision that has long since died.

The Body Shop

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069811/

(1974)

Country:USA

Alternate Titles

Doctor Gore

Anitra

Shrieks in the Night

Directed by J.G. Patterson

Staring J.G. Patterson

Roy Mehaffrey

Jenny Driggens

The Body shop is infamously bad, and infamously incomplete.

It was written, directed and stared J.G Patterson Jr, also known as Dr Gore, though here goes under the name of his character Don Brandon. In the movie he takes the role of a strong willed doctor, who can influence and dominate those around him - which was pure fantasy since according to all accounts Patterson was a soft, easily influenced individual. According to what information is available this characteristic seemed to have come to worked against him in the hard world of exploitation cinema. A lot of the time he found himself trying to create realistic gore effects for even less money then his contemporaries. He would also be easily deceived by charismatic, unscrupulous characters one could easily imagine being around during that era.

He died in the mid-70's with most of his projects incomplete, many came out as late as three years after his death. They would find a new life with Herschel Gordon Lewis. Lewis, a big fan of Patterson, would physically introduce many of his incomplete movies when they made it to video in the 1980's, sometimes even warning of the content... ie. bad acting, bad story lines, bad editing, ect.

"The Body Shop" movies opens with a really creepy version of “Sugar and Spice” on a toy piano. Some complain this music is lame, but I found it sufficiently creepy, and besides it's all downhill from there so take what you could get.

Through the radio we learn the great plastic surgeon Dr Brandon has just lost his wife to a car accident. He vows to bring her back. So him and his hunchback assistant dig up a body, I'm assuming is his former wife, and play Dr Frankenstein for 15 minutes. It doesn't work out so well so he orders the corpse tossed into a vat of acid.

He doesn't seem too upset over this. Well upset enough to have a smoke I guess.

So as the movie progresses (kind of) he does several poor melodramatic soliloquies, rose in hand, then goes on a quest to make the perfect woman. This means he must seduce various woman, kill them and then sew them together. Well to be fair he does order one corpse through the mail. (????)

I think it's suggested he seduces these women through hypnotism, but it could just be Patterson pretending to be someone he's not.

I hate to say it but that is the meat of the movie.

Disasters around the set, the inevitable financial difficulties and Patterson's death meant the movie was never completed. So there's no coherent climax to the story and scenes which should have been edited out, like some of the tedium of Brandon working in his lab and a scene where he talks to a cop about nothing, are left in.

The conversion with the cop is particularly funny cause Brandon is talking through a darkened doorway with the camera far behind him and the cop is filmed outside during a completely different period of day. Also the cop says he's heard something suspicious was going on (doesn't say what) then Brandon responds with "Im a doctor", which is sufficient enough for that officer to bugger off.

Once Brandon makes his “perfect” woman, who is more like a daughter/love, the movie goes into overdrive since this part was never filmed.

Dr Brandon gets a call and says he has to leave for a minute. The next time we see him he's babbling about something in a jail cell. How he got there... I have no idea. Then he listens to some country music while the woman janitor is asked out on a date by the head janitor.... what?

His perfect woman tries to sleep with the furnace repair man then we cut to the repair man crying in a bar about her leaving him... what? He really upset over this since she like his hair.... what? Then we see her wandering the roads of Carolina getting picked up by a man who drives a shady white van.... what?

The End.

I'm serious. That's how it ends.

This perfect woman is so not so much as "sweet and child-like" as completely inhuman. She has no empathy for other people beyond what she is taught by Brandon. I don't know if that is what he was going for, but there's no appeal to the character and it directly contradicts what Brandon is saying though his narration. Though her amazing pick-up line, “you're a man and I'm a woman” seems to work on just about everyone. And you thought Ash came up with that during Evil Dead 2. HA!

There's also more filler with a 5 minute country song and several montages of Brandon and his perfect woman hiking and having a boat ride.

There's quite a bit of gore in it but non of it is particularly any good (mostly due to budget restraints). It feels weird too to have all your gore on the first half of the film and then country montages on the second half.

Someone should have edited the country music during the gore. That would have been fun.

Speaking of editing.... oh boy. This is where the movie completely feels like an unfinished project. Characters stare at the camera several times, things wisp by the camera, scenes seem out of place, things are out of focus, lighting is inconsistent from cut to cut, and the clapper appears. Yes the clapper.

See...

There are some edits of the movie which edit the clapper out, in fact it's a scene where two characters never seen before talk about going out on a date to watch some wrastling. It's ill-conceived at best.

One neat thing about the movie is there is a character introduced early in the film when Brandon is out on his killing spree. It's a woman he meets at a restaurant whom he snubs in order to kill a different woman for her hands. That character reappears during the jail scene to gawk at him and show off her new boyfriend in a sort of moralistic twist. But in some ways it's a little stranger then that... you see she was played by Nita Patterson, Patterson's real wife. If Brandon is part of what Patterson could never be then that scene plays out on a different level. It's almost artistic.

If my assumption is correct (and it may not be) then in some ways “The Body Shop” is a small window into Patterson. Trying to be someone he wasn't, trying to a create not a woman that didn't exit but a world that didn't exist. This interpretation would also explain the semi-kind hunchback who is dragged along with promises of redemption and is ultimately destroyed.

Through all the gore, the horrible acting, and the unedited product there is something sweat and noble about the movie once you think about it for a bit. In some ways Patterson needed a little of Brandon in him. It was precisely that he contained non of that character that doomed the project. He was forced to work in an environment which could easily take advantage of his trusting nature, with almost no budget, and having to do more then his little talent could manage.

Well that and dying didn't help.

Terror on the Menu

Terror on the Menu

1972
Country USA

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069362/

Alternate Titles: Terror House

Club Dead

Secrets Beyond the Door

Terror at Red Wolf Inn

The Folks at Red Wolf Inn

and probably many others

Directed by Bud Townsend

Staring Linda Gillen

John Neilson

Arthur Space

Mary Jackson

Margaret Avery

Well it's time to write a little about one my favourite low-budget 70's horror films, "Horror on the Menu", or "Terror House", or "insert alternate title".

The movie opens with a young college student, Regina, going to her room after class and finding out she won "something"... she goes onto the balcony and yells a few times, “I won! I won!” No one seems to care.

After a short plane ride she gets into a car to drive out to Red Wolf Inn, where she won a small vacation. During the ride her driver, Baby John, asks her if she likes to drive fast. Then he precedes to speed down the highway, dodging the police as he goes. After a small chase he hides in a darkened yard until the police drive by unaware. He then turns to Regina and says, “your Ok you know.” Regina is quite pleased by this revelation. “Im Ok?” She smiles.

At Red Wolf Inn (A sort of Bed-and-Breakfast) she meets an elderly couple, the grandparents of Baby John. They are to take care of her and two other girls, feeding them, as if they were fattening them up.

It doesn't take a horror genius to see where this movie is going.

One interesting thing about this movie is it's focus on it's characters. The first half of the movie is purely development with some sinister undertones, for example the large freezer the girls are forbidden to enter, or the phone with it's line cut. There's even a budding romance.

It does have one of the greatest scenes in cinema history, where Baby John professes his love to Regina while he's fishing on the shore. Not to give anything away but it starts with an awkward kiss then goes starts to go downhill when he catches a shark, and it falls into complete hilarity.

This is also the sign that the real movie is about to start. With very little on screen trills by this point the foundation is set for the chase to begin, mild by today's standards sure but still effective if, like me, you've come to like the main character.

Everything hinges on how much you like Regina.

It just so happens that Regina is probably one of the most charming characters this subgenre has produced, but she is played with such innocence that it begs the question; is Regina as psychologically damaged as the villains? She sure is socially awkward, and reacts a if she's lost in a fairytale... ironically that is also how the two villains are portrayed. There is a clear difference in Regina and the elderly couple when compared to the other two girls. The two other girls are clearly concerned with things outside of the happenings of the Inn. Regina allows herself to become part of Red Wolf Inn. Her complete disconnect with the outside world becomes apparent when we learn that her own mother had no clue where she was all this time.

The lead actress only went on to play a few bit parts, which is unfortunate. Veteran B-movie/TV actors Mary Jackson and Arthur Space portray the old villainous couple and their experience will be noticeable to fans of exploitation. Future Oscar nominated actress Margret Avery (The Colour Purple) appears in one, if not her first, motion picture role as one of the other girls.

On the negative side the movie is sloppily made; scenes play themselves out twice (sometimes in reverse), the boom mike noticeably appears in one scene, everything seems overly exposed, there seems to be missing dialogue, there's a lack of lighting occasionally, the script is incoherent in some places, it's poorly paced, and it hasn't aged particularly well.

To say it is predictable though would a mischaracterization. Predictable to what? Perhaps movies that came afterwards. Yes "I" can predict where this movie is going from the second scene onward, but it's forgivable cause this form of horror movie was in it's infancy and, much like Baby John's infantile speeding down the highway, it still turns out to be a fun ride. It's far more fun then most of what will precede it.

But the biggest problem with this film is how the subgenre was miring itself down at the time. It's become a casualty of the environment which allowed it to flourish.

Although my video says it's the uncut version it is clearly the cut version made to a deceptive length with trailers. It is common for movies like this to have several cuts under several titles, also severals cuts under the same title, or even several titles for the same cut. This actually has it roots back during it's creation. Basically the film makers would be showing a version of the film in one city until they were "run out of town" and then they would have to repackage the movie and move to another city. Almost like carnies. I suspect some of that happened with this movie, though I can't be sure. Plus there is the whole mess with these movies having several cuts made specifically for the drive-in theaters.

I don't even know if the uncut version is even available right now and I wonder if the original had some good old 70's gore, something lacking in the version I watched.

The DVD era actually has been even less kind to this movie, despite it's exposure. It's become a chore to see some of these films as the directors intended them to be seen thanks to several public domain cuts masquerading as uncut versions. This is a left over of the video craze in the 80's, where the public would watch just about anything that was in focus – and some things that were not. In the spirit of the old carny grindhouse/drive-in films video companies released several cuts of the same movie under different titles, sometimes the movies were even reedited out of order.

Exploitation cinema's creativity was able to flourish out of the studio system, but in a way it was exploitation's very roots that would bog these movies down and sink them into the void.

Two Thousand Maniacs

Two Thousand Maniacs

1964
USA

Directed by Herschell Gordon Lewis

Staring Connie Mason
William Kerwin
Jeffrey Allen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Thousand_Maniacs!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058694/

Herschell Gordon Lewis had one really good idea.

Show people's limbs getting hacked off.

It seems so standard now, but at the time no one thought of showing it. He didn't do it to make any grand artistic statement or purge his psyche. He did it simply to make money.

An exploitation director in the 60's he made a series of rough sex flicks until he became curious if someone would pay to see pure gory violence. It turns out, he was right.

His first “gore” film “Blood Feast” was huge success on the grindhouse circuit and it inspired an attempt at a much better movie; “2000 Maniacs.”

Herschell “discovered” playboy playmate Connie Mason and she stared in both “Blood Feast” and “2000 Maniacs”. Filmed in a 2 week period “2000 Maniacs” would become one of Herschell's most celebrated “films”, inspiring cult status, and a Robert Englund remake.

The “plot” is simple. Two “Yankee” couples, Connie Mason's character and a hitchhiker are diverted off the highway into a small southern town celebrating a centennial. They become guests of honor and the town people go about delivering that world famous southern hospitality - by breaking up the couples and then killing them. The hitchhiker and Connie Mason start a romance of sorts and find out that the town was destroyed by Yankee soldiers at the end of the Civil War (the war of the States as the movie calls it occasionally) and the centennial is that of the destruction of the town. This is a sort of revenge upon the northerners plot.

Plot aside the real reason for watching this is to be caught up in the silliness of it all and be entertained by gore and violence. A sort of pre-slasher slasher. Although the gore is rather silly, for example Lewis was still experimenting on making convincing blood, the death scenes are far more “inspired” then most modern slashers, or even slashers of the 70's and 80's.

Most of the extras and “actors” were basically inhabitants of the Floridan town which they were filming at, making their whole deliverance really bad and kind of silly.

But that's all in good fun.

What also is in good fun is the soundtrack which is a rocking hillbilly hoedown, some of the music actually performed by Lewis himself.

I think the worse thing to say about “2000 Maniacs” is also it's greatest strength, and that is that “2000 Maniacs” is “pure” exploitation. It exists only to show you a form of sleaze you can't get from the mainstream.

It does try to slowly move at first, as if to create suspense, but since we already know what is going on it turns the first half of the film into a overly goofy black comedy.

There is also a padded on ending. It's almost as if he didn't have enough material to full out an hour an 20 minutes so he kept the movie, which had already ended, going in an attempt to deliver one last bit of weirdness. It doesn't work.

There's a scene in “2000 Maniacs” were a woman gets her finger cut off from a pocket knife. It looks cheap and silly, but it's there. There's a scene where the same woman gets tied down and has her arm hacked off with an axe, It looks cheap and silly, but it's there. There's a scene where a boulder crushes a woman's who is tied to slab. It looks cheap and silly, but it's there. They couldn't even find a way to shot the scene of a man being torn apart by four horses so they only suggest that it happened. These archetypes seem standard now but at the time Lewis was making everything up on the spot.. The point I'm making is that “2000 Maniacs” for better or for worse was blazing new ground of acceptable film making, and people were watching it. Giving it a well deserved place in movie history.

So pick up a copy and next time you have a friend who really enjoys to "descant" and "contemplate" the great classic movies over fine wine and import coffee you'll know which one to show him/her.

The Child (1977)

The Child

Alternate Titles: Kill and Go Hide
La casa degli zombi
Zombie Child

1977
Country: USA
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075838/

Directed by Robert Voskanian

Staring Laurel Barnett
Rosalie Cole
Frank Janson

By the end of 70's the grindhouse theatres where starting to the plod down to their eventual decline and disintegration, thanks in part of the video craze of the 80's. Drive-in theatres where playing similar material, but much of the same forces were working behind the scene to also bring that era to an end. "The Child" came out in late 70's and it was basically a low budget zombie gore film with a nod to “The Turn of the Screw” (the 1898 Henry James novella) in the setup.

Alicianne Del Mar is brought in as a care giver to a troubled young girl named Rosalie. Rosalie has just lost her mother and since her father is distance and quite frankly insane she becomes prey to the will unexplained supernatural forces, or possibly the other way around. People she holds responsible for the death of her mom start getting picked off at the mid point of the movie. Interestingly the mother's death is left slightly ambiguous, but the woman's former mental state seems to be a prime concern.

Made on a “questionable” salary “The Child” is shot almost entirely with short cuts and edited together, much like “Manos the Hands of Fate,” though here there is much more skill on display.

“The Child” in many ways is almost a perfect display of the late 70's American splatter movies. The world, situations and characters constructed are at best illogically surreal. Atmospheric dreamlike imagery precedes any form coherent storytelling. Everything from dancing scarecrows, to a constant barrage of cemetery fog, to moving Jack-O-Laturns take up the screen time until the zombies arrival in the final 20 minutes. This should be enough to appeal to a certain segment of viewers and repulse the rest.

I have developed quite a fondness for the movie, but in no way could anyone pretend it's a good movie. An entertaining movie perhaps for those looking for the kind of illogical atmosphere you felt as a child roaming the dark streets on Halloween night in search for hardened corn syrup.

The acting is horrendous - with some exceptions - and although the heroine strikes the perfect state of lovely 70's womanhood for most of the movie she breaks down into annoying screaming and weakness by the end. To be fair this more due to her dubbing then her acting.

The climax while really good has very little pay off and the music is a mix mash of piano and synthesizer notes. Some of the most effective moments of the movie break down into full on silliness, ie. the death of a certain neighbour.

Despite all these concerns this is an interesting movie in it's lack of coherency and it's focus on the kind of nightmarish unreality one would write in their dream journal (I would not be surprised if that is where the script was actually developed). Also despite some slow parts it does deliver what would be a very excellent climax if it wasn't for the annoying screaming.

Even if one doesn't like the movie it should be interesting to them as a time capsule for a style of guerrilla horror films who's unseen decline was starting to close in.

Yeti: Curse of the Snow Demon (2008)

Yeti: Curse of the Snow Demon


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0896585/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeti_%28film%29

Directed by Paul Ziller
Staring Marc Menard,
Carly Pope,
Peter DeLuise

Country: Canada, USA


Oh Where to start.
First I gotta start watching these Sci Fi channel movies on the television rather then having the embarrassment to have watched this via video.

We open with an explorer (of sorts) looking for the Yeti in the Himalayas, though judging from the foliage it's obviously Vancouver. He manages to pin it down in it's layer and his gun proves to be completely unreliable when it freezes over. Cue Credits.

The main story occurs in “Present Day” where a group of college football players are traveling via plane to Japan for the first “Pro Bowl” played in that country. What Bowl is this... who cares... the "Yoshi-Island Bowl"?.
Also why are they flying over the Himalayans rather then the Pacific ocean?
Most stop brain from thinking.

We get just enough introduction to realize the characters are annoying shits, who we can't wait to see get eaten by the Yeti.
Of course that could be a bonus for this kind of a movie.

The plane crashes in all it's Sci-fi channel CGI glory. So there are a few survivors and rather then gathering around the flaming debris to keep warm they stand around in the middle of the cold, not covering their heads with their hoods, and start bickering. They bicker about how their cold, they bicker about how who's on charge, they bicker about how they have to go back in the wreckage to look for matches (probably stepping over some flaming wreckage to get there)... this doesn't help the stereotype that football players aren't the smartest people in the world.
So rather then make a shelter from all the Canadian pine trees around them, or the tons of debris they spend 2/3rds of the movie bickering and whining (as already stated) about everything. A good source of bickering comes later in the film when they start to bicker about how they are low on matches. I guess it never occurs to them that more wood, actually a constant amount of a wood, could be added to the fire. This would keep the fire going for 24 hours and also.... urghhh most stop brain.
Then they bicker some more when it comes more and more apparent that they may have to eat the bodies of their friends. Luckily the movie takes a moral twist when one of the characters burns all the bodies for the greater good – condemning them to starve to death.
This little bit of moral message on cannibalism is made completely pointless when you have already seen earlier in the film that our leader and his romance interest has already caught and killed a rabbit (which they call a rodent for some reason). This means there's rabbits out there. Why don't they go hunt some more? Was there only one rabbit in the whole Himalaya's? How is it that with that one death they have caused a mass extinction that left only them and some Yetis alive?

I gotta stop thinking.

There's also two (what also turns out to be pointless) subplots.
Two of the young adults/teens travel off to find the radio located on the tail of the wreckage and stumble on the Yeti's layer. One gets torn to shreds and the other breaks his leg. He then has to use his dead friend's severed arm to make a sling and escape the layer. Didn't know that was possible.
This is all so he could stumble around in the snow for a few scenes only to get immediately shot in the face by his friend – making that whole sequence pointless.
The other subplot is two rangers, once American (?) and one Russian ? (can't place the accent), who apparently work in the Himalayas and sent out to find the survivors. Apparently they have binoculars which are super powerful cause it takes them days to travel from the point where they see the survivors in the binoculars and they could meet up with our cast. Unless they were just walking 10 meters a day. But who care's anyways?

There's on important thing anyways. The Yeti. He's a guy a suit, who occasionally turns into bad CGI model and hopes around like a little kid playing hop-scotch. He's cheesy, but he's fun. Unfortunately he takes too long to get involved in the story and by that time there has been too much WTF's to care.

It picks up for a bit at the climax when one guy gets his leg turn off then beaten down with his own leg.
Buuuuuut the end is so.... ugh. Nothing like a like a little romance to cheer everyone up after a deadly plane crash, cannibalism and Yeti attack.

I guess the best you could say is that everyone is trying their hardest and theres a strong cast here led by Carley Pope, but others like Crystal Lowe and Peter Deluise are completely underused, dare I write... pointless.
No one sinks this film, it just wasn't built with buoyant materials to begin with.