Review: Kingdom of the Spiders

Synopsis: When a small Arizona town finds itself the target of millions of hungry tarantulas, can the local vet and his entomologist lover save the town from being overrun, or are they all doomed to be the spiders newest food supply?

Review: Right off the bat, you have to know going in, that "Kingdom of the Spiders" is hardly a tour-de-force effort of film-making. It's a low-budget suspense horror film, filled with 70's cheese-tasticness. That said, however, the film does manage to entertain.

William Shatner, the perennial "cool guy" every nerd-boy wishes they could be, plays Dr. Robert "Rack" Hansen, a vet who's town is soon overrun by the eight-legged fury of millions of tarantulas. It seems the destruction of their usual food supply, by the careless use of pesticides, has caused them to look into a new source of sustenance... humans!

The overall acting in the film is passable, if unremarkable. Even the usually flamboyant stylings of "The Shat" are subdued here. There's the attempt to play up some human drama, through a love triangle between Rack, the beautiful entomologist (played by Tiffany Bolling) and the widow of Rack's dead brother (played by Marcy Lafferty). You get a couple of glimpses of Shatner's typical sexual charisma from it, but little else as far as the story goes. In fact, the whole pacing of the story is quite slow for the first 45-55 minutes of the film. This is surely to help set up the film's final act, when the spiders go on their rampage, but it isn't as effective as they probably were intending.

Really, the story and drama hinges on the spider attacks. Building slowly on the creepy feeling invoked by the spiders, watching them move from killing livestock to humans, it does create a sense of eerie tension. It plays to a fear many of us have of creepy-crawly insects and their ability to overwhelm us with sheer numbers. Director John "Bud" Cardos does effectively make the spiders into not only a credible threat, but a menacing one, as well. The scene of the townsfolk running in chaotic panic when the spiders begin attacking in force, will surely make most anyone's skin crawl. And the downbeat ending of the film is, without question, one of the best parts of the film. No typical Hollywood "happy ending" here, which only helps the movie to retain it's cult status. The film's attempt at a morality tale, by showing that mankind needs to show more respect towards nature, is both heavy-handed and poorly contrived, but that's only to be expected in a b-grade piece of 70's horror.

"Kingdom of the Spiders" is a fine piece of 70's kitsch-cinema, which doesn't try to make itself out as much more than that. And while it may pale in comparison to other movies about man facing "nature's revenge" (like "The Birds" or "Jaws", just to name a couple), it certainly is worthy of it's place of cult horror status. Just make sure to keep a can of bug spray close by, as you watch it.

Rating: 2 1/2 Stars (out of 4)

Plenty to Hyde!

Here's a half film/DVD review for the low budget obscure title (unless you had cable in the early 80's) "Jekyll and Hyde... Together Again" from 1982. The film was released by Paramount Pictures in late 1982 to a few select theaters.

"Hyde" is a over-the-top wacky comedy, about a mixture of doctors and 70's drug abuse. Now the plot in a little nutshell, is about a surgeon named Daniel Jekyll (Mark Blankfield), who finds some research program that gets him hooked upon some kinda mumbo-jumbo power to make him into Mr. Hyde. Silly premise, but it involves cocaine. Yes, the white powder drug! And then, he goes mad and acts silly and really reckless, while going on to destroy video arcades/supermarkets and nightclubs, too. He's engaged to a little rich woman (Bess Armstrong from Jaws 3-D), who has no clue what's going on, or is too blind to.

Now enough of the plot, on with it's little cult classic history. At one time, I believe in 1983, late night cable had a field day with this little film. It was often talked about how funny it was. By the 90's, however, it was out of print and never to be seen again. It soon develops a cult status following all over the Internet. Now, on June 3rd of 2008, Legend Films picks up the rights to several of Paramount Pictures obscure titles and this is one of them. Released with different artwork than what your seeing here. It delivers a not too bad transfer, so for $10 I went for it, not having ever seen this on cable (and there wasn't too many I missed back then). It looked as though it could have been funny back then, but not now. It has not aged well and has become extremely dated looking. For a R-rated movie it lacks, with very little nudity and lots of drug haze humor. As far as R-rated film go, I've seen worse in Cheech and Chong movies than this. I really wanted to like this movie and laugh my head off, like everyone else was saying they did, but I just didn't get it. Sorry. And for that, I got nothing to "Hyde!" Well, except maybe the one star out of four I'm gonna give it...

Review: Swamp Thing

Synopsis: A scientist is transformed into a creature of muck and mire, after his experiment is stolen from him by a man bent on world domination. Now, the Swamp Thing stalks the swamps!

Review: "Swamp Thing" isn't what one might call a standard horror picture. It tries to play it a bit lighter than what you would expect, given the mechanics of the story. What you end up with is a fun and campy film, that sometimes lessens it's darker edge by trying too hard for a bit of humor.

Based from the comic series from DC Comics, the tale is about a scientist, Dr. Alec Holland (played by Ray Wise), who is transformed into a marsh-layered creature of immense power, after his experiment to create a way to make a more abundant food supply, causes him to run afoul of a man bent to use it for his own ends... a man named Arcane (played by Louis Jourdan).

I've noted before I am a big time comic reader, so I'm quite well versed with the history of the title character. Wes Craven, who both wrote and directed this film, takes quite a few liberties with the characters and their source material, but still manages to keep it true enough, so that they are easy to relate to and familiar. I liked Ray Wise's approach to the character, as he brought a great deal of altruistic idealism to him, which rang true to the character from the comics. Also well cast is Louis Jourdan as Arcane, as he gave him just the right amount of arrogant egotism and flamboyant self-aggrandizement, like the typical madman who thinks they know how to rule the world would have. Of course, Adrienne Barbeau is the real standout here, not just for the obvious physical attributes (which were obviously one of the reasons she was cast in the role of Holland's/Swamp Thing's love interest), but she manages to elevate herself from being more than just the usual damsel in distress, as watching her fight off attackers and shoot a gun, shows she's no weak-willed school girl. But it was her ability to make you believe that the chemistry she shared with Holland, was strong enough for her to accept him after his change into the Swamp Thing (which was played wonderfully by Dick Durock), that really cinched her performance with me. And let's face it, she don't look bad in soaking wet clothes, either. In fact, almost all of the cast do very good jobs with material that, at times, comes off a bit overly cheesy.

If there were any negatives to the film, I'd have to say that it was in the pacing and dialog. Granted, this isn't Shakespere, but the script sometimes seems to just strive too hard to stay closer to humor than horror. It results in some scenes losing some of the dramatic punch they might have had, if they would have allowed things to go just a touch darker. The pacing of the film is quite quick, though a bit too quick, in some cases. We never really got to see Holland actually transform into Swamp Thing, nor did we get much time spent on him trying to adjust to his new situation. I would have liked to see more of a struggle for him in dealing with what he had become and his loss of his physical humanity, as he just seems to accept it too quickly. The special effects aren't very special here, although the Swamp Thing outfit does pretty closely resemble the character in the comics, so long as you don't focus on the close-ups, when the rubbery look is very obvious. Of course, this is just a limitation of the times and can't really be counted as detriment to the film.

"Swamp Thing" is like a film that bridges the gap between the old 50's-60's horror films, with their poor special effects and unintentional cheesiness, and the more modern horror films that were to come. It does feel a bit like a throwback in a lot of ways, but the film has got a lot of heart and I think its charm ultimately won me over. It's not a very scary horror film, but it is an enjoyably fun film, nonetheless.

Rating: 2 1/2 Stars (out of 4)

Since it's Halloween and all...

Happy Halloween, everyone! Unpleasant dreams!

From your pals at The Video Drones Reviews!

Review: Eaten Alive

Synopsis: Guests who come to stay at the Louisiana motel of a mentally unstable inn keeper, soon find themselves being served up as the main course to his large pet crocodile.

Review: As a bit of a horror film buff, I'm always looking to check out some of the older b-movie horrors of the past, both to learn more about what makes for a good scare, as well as to get interesting insights into exactly how and why those things have changed over the decades. And I can safely say that "Eaten Alive" provided none of that for me.

This is the third film from Director Tobe Hooper (known mainly for his cult classic "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre"). Once again, the film revolves around a mentally disturbed person, living within the southern part of the United States. This time around, the story is about a deranged inn keeper who, for reasons never explained, keeps killing the guests who come to his motel and feeding them to the large crocodile in the swamp next to it.

Those who are familiar with Hooper's style, will see a lot of similarities between this film and his most famous work, "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre", which was the film he made directly preceding this one. It is filled with the kind of strange and oddball cinematography, with weird neon lighting and close-up focusing shots on weird images throughout. But unlike the previous work, it doesn't really gel here. What once might have been directorial excess, is simply pointless and unintelligible nonsense. It is obvious he's trying to set an eerie and creepy atmosphere, but it is just so poorly crafted and lacking in any sense of commonality, that what is meant to feel bizarre and surreal, feels completely unbelievable instead. The script for this must have been about one page long, as that is how bad the plot and storytelling here is.

The acting is, also, very much below par, even by low budget horror film standards. It is shown that the inn keeper (played by Neville Brand) is out-of-his-mind, but we never come to understand why or what it is the guests do that sets him off. This lack of context makes it almost impossible to be scared by his crazy (re)actions and leaves you more inclined to scratch your head in puzzlement, than to feel any sense of dread or menace. None of the other characters really gets enough development for you to care about them, save that of Buck (played by a then unknown Robert Englund). His performance is the only one to have any real resonance at all and even that isn't very much.

Perhaps Hooper thought he could capture lightning in a bottle for a second time, like he did with "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" a couple years earlier (even going so far as to bring back Marilyn Burns to play the part of a victim once more). But as this film shows, it isn't something you can force or easily recreate. As a result, "Eaten Alive" never really comes to life or finds it's own voice (a point only belabored, by the fact this film has been renamed many different times). It just stagnates and meanders, providing no real thrills, scares, or even the macabre tone of TCM. If you are a Hooper completist, you might derive some kind of enjoyment or interest from this outing. Otherwise, you are best just to skip on this uninteresting and plotless bomb. The reason this film is highly overlooked, isn't because it was ahead of it's time. It is because efforts this poor are better off being forgotten.

Rating: 1 Star (out of 4)

Review: Motel Hell

Synopsis: A horror-comedy movie about the seemingly nice Smith family, proprietors of both a motel and a smoked meat company. But what is the terrifying secret behind the special flavor of the "Farmer Vincent" pork products?

Review: "Motel Hell" is quite a difficult film to gauge. It is referred to as a horror-comedy, but that description isn't very accurate, as it is more weird than funny and more macabre than scary.

The story revolves around a couple of hoteliers (played by Rory Calhoun and Nancy Parsons), who have a side business selling fine smoked meats. But what makes the meats so good is the terrifying secret ingredient of human flesh.

I have to say, going into this film, I wasn't quite sure what to expect. With cannibalism being a factor in the film, you might be expecting a lot of gruesome scenes. Yet, surprisingly, there is very little in the way of graphic gore to be found. The story is also a bit odd, in that there are some scenes that seem to drag on, yet give you little in the way of a pay-off. Also, most of the acting is fairly poor. Whether this is due to the lack of skills of the actors, or a case of a script that gives them little to work with, I can't really say. The side drama about the love triangle involving Terry (played by Nina Axelrod) and the brother of the cannibal farmer, who is also the town's Sheriff (played by Paul Linke), is little more than a strained (and sometimes dull) attempt to set up the final conflict between the brothers. Although, the film can boast of being an early work for actor John Ratzenberger (who would go onto heights of television fame on the series "Cheers"). Unfortunately, he gets very little to do in the film (including not a single piece of dialog) being nothing more than a victim to be killed. Director Kevin Connor never really seems to bring the story to life, until towards the very end. And if you haven't found yourself engaged long before that point, it probably won't much matter to you. The cinematography is fine, but it feels like it would play better on an old drive-in screen, than on your television, which is probably only fitting, as the film was obviously geared for such a venue.

The only things that save this film from the scrap pile, are the last 20 minutes of the film and the solid performance of Rory Calhoun as the cannibalistic farmer. He manages to make you believe both his down-home country manners and his twisted psychotic reasoning in killing people for food. His performance stands high above anyone else in the film. And the final battle at the film's end also brings a spark of life to what, up until this point, has been a very strange and slow-moving tale. When Calhoun's character comes out wearing a pig's head and wielding a chainsaw, it is truly a sight to behold.

As I said at the start, "Motel Hell" is a hard film to figure out. It's not really good and looks extremely dated today, but neither is it total crap and completely uninteresting. Die-hard horror buffs might want to check this one out, but I highly doubt many others would have much interest in this cult film. It really is an enigma in the world of horror cinema.

Rating: 1 1/2 Stars (out of 4)

Happy Birthday to Me is remastered and restored!

This October 13th, Anchor Bay is set to re-realese this film on DVD with the original soundtrack that was altered in 2004 when Columbia added some other score. This is great news, as the original soundtrack score is, not only superior in quality, but also more fitting to the times in which the film debuted. Good news, indeed, for every fan of this classic slasher.