It’s not often a horror movie can truly state that it’s “based on a true story.” But when you have a movie based on the most notorious homosexual-pedophile-cannibal-serial killer out of Germany, it’s easy to claim that moniker. TENDERNESS OF THE WOLVES (1973) could give any of the slashers from that era a run for their money. But this one is extra creepy, knowing the events shown actually happened.

Fritz Haarmann, a small-time criminal, is made an undercover inspector by the German police, hoping his contacts will give them an in with the criminal underworld. Instead, Fritz uses his position of power to seduce young men and boys, more often than not killing, dismembering, and eating his victims. What he cannot eat himself, Fritz sells as black-market pork. Some of the most disturbing moments of the movie comes when Fritz hosts a dinner party and his guests gush and compliment him on the quality of his pork dishes, savoring every bite. With scenes like that, it was screaming for a “Meals for Monsters” treatment.

Fritz would often visit the local bar for to sell some pork and maybe indulge in a schnapps. Straight schnapps, though, can be a little harsh, and you’ll get enough harshness with the movie. Hence:

SCHNAPPS PUNCH

DIRECTIONS

Mix equal parts club soda, cherry juice and grape juice. Mix in a shot of apple schnapps (or two, if you think you’ll need it to get through the movie). Enjoy!

To not have a pork recipe in here would be like Willy Wonka without the chocolate.

GERMAN BEER-BRAISED PORK RIBS

INGREDIENTS

2 slabs spare ribs
1 large bottle of German beer
6 cloves garlic, whole
3 tablespoons dried rosemary
3 tablespoons sage
Salt and pepper to taste

DIRECTIONS

Cut the ribs into batches with four or five ribs apiece. Put them into a roasting pan with the beer, garlic and herbs. Cover tightly, and put in a 300 degree oven for two hours. Note—after the braising, I would recommend putting the ribs under the broiler for a couple minutes on each side. It’s not necessary, but it gives the outside a nice bit of crust. Also, they’re great served with roasted potatoes. Fingerling potatoes are great, if just for the look on the plate.

For dessert, I’ve adapted a traditional German butter cake and added some apples. This is a bit time-intensive, so, if you don’t feel like waiting, you can always have a second Schnapps Punch for dessert (or a third, if you really need it to stomach eating ribs during a cannibal movie).

BUTTERKUCHEN WITH APPLES

INGREDIENTS

4 cups flour
1 pkg instant yeast
1cups warm milk
1 ¾ cup sugar, with 1/4cup set aside
10 tablespoons butter, softened
1 egg
2 tablespoons cinnamon
1 small apple, diced

DIRECTIONS

Put the flour in a mixing bowl, with a small well scooped in the middle. Inside, place yeast, milk, and a pinch of sugar. Mix together and let activate for fifteen minutes. Then add the egg, 7 tablespoons butter and 1 ½ cup sugar. Mix well (I would suggest using a stand mixer for this, if one is available). Place in a greased bowl, cover, and let rise for 30 minutes.

Start the oven preheating to 375 degrees. Flatten the dough into a greased jelly roll pan (or small, rimmed cookie sheet). Make little indentations with the tips of your fingers. Mix ¼ cup sugar and the cinnamon. Top cake with the diced apple and pinches of the remaining butter. Sprinkle with the cinnamon mixture. Allow to rest as the oven preheats.

Cook for 25-30 minutes, or until browned.

Rainer Werner Fassbinder was originally approached to direct this movie. Fassbinder, who rose to fame in Germany by making shocking films, deemed the subject matter too controversial, even for him. Instead, he produced it, hiring on one of his actors, Ulli Lommel, to direct. Rumor has it that Fassbinder is the real auteur behind TENDERNESS OF THE WOLVES. Whoever was the director isn’t important. What is important is that, as a shocking, frightening bit of cinema, it works. And while this meal might not be as masterfully prepared as Fritz’s famous dinners, at least this one won’t send you to prison.

© Copyright 2012 by Jenny Orosel

Director – Pete Walker

Cast – Rupert Davies, Sheila Keith, Deborah Fairfax, Paul Greenwood, Kim Butcher, Fiona Curzon, Jon Yule

Release Year – 1974

Reviewed by John of the Dead

Frightmare, later titled Cover Up, is an exploitation film that I expected good results from given its R rating and my love for 70s horror. Cannibal films are one of my most-enjoyed horror sub-genres thanks to the additional taboo elements that play into such flicks, and Frightmare gives us a pretty haunting cannibal tale for its time. With good horror here and there this effort does provide some good exploitation madness, but in the end I expected much more for a film with its R rating and the potential it harnessed.

After being deemed “cured” of their cannibalistic ways, Edmund and Dorothy Yates are released after spending 15 years in an insane asylum. Despite their treatments and the reassurances from officials that they would not be released with any doubts of them being cured, Dorothy succumbs to her old demons and gains the attention of an investigating psychologist close to breaking the secret hidden within the Yates family.

From the get-go this piece bleeds “exploitation”, giving me a sense early on that I would enjoy this effort. The film opens with the original sentencing of the Yates couple for their cannibalistic crimes, then fast forwarding 15 years later and introducing more characters. The story equally follows Jackie, Edmund’s daughter from a previous marriage, and the troubled teen Debbie, Dorothy’s daughter, who is now beginning to feel the same murderous demons her mother is going through. Jackie finds herself covering for her younger stepsister’s crimes, crimes that Jackie is not fully informed on the severity of, and as tensions between the two grow a psychologist, Graham, is brought in to try and counsel the troubled daughter. It is Graham’s investigation into the cause Debbie’s delinquency that leads him to Dorothy Yates (the main cause of the family’s cannibalism) and a shocking conclusion to the story. I really felt that this storyline could have provided more to the audience. Often times I found the story a bit bland and too simple for its subject matter, rarely giving us worthwhile scenes of cannibalism and only a few murders as well. Given the film’s R rating I really did expect more in regards to the horror, which ultimately came on only a few occasions aside from the flick’s shocking climax sure to leave a sour taste in the mouths of those seeking a happy ending.

Director Peter Walker did an OK job executing this one, giving us good atmosphere but suffering in his execution of the horror at times. It could have been that the story held his horror back, but with what little horror we were given I felt that the gore and brutality should have been upped a few levels. He gets good performances from his main actors, especially the from Rupert Davies and Sheila Keith as the Yates couple, but ultimately he could not do enough to save this effort from a storyline that not only held it back but did not give us much to indulge into in the first place.

Overall, Frightmare is a decent exploitation piece that should have given more and been much better than it was. The horror is good at times but comes too seldom for someone seeking an exciting experience, so this is one watch I would reserve for a night when nothing better is available.

Rating: 6/10

Since I’ve spent 99% of this column’s space talking about the experiences I’ve had at my local theaters, I figured I’d take this special 50^th installment of SUBURBAN GRINDHOUSE MEMORIES to reveal the top ten grindhouse films (that I’ve seen either on TV or video) that I WISH I could’ve seen at a seedy theater or drive-in upon their INITIAL release.  While I enjoyed the following films for a variety of reasons, I’m sure each one of them would’ve been enhanced, surrounded by wise-cracking theater patrons during a scratchy, poorly-focused screening.

10) I think I was about 10 years old the first time I saw DON’T LOOK IN THE BASEMENT (1973) on late night television.  After a surprising opening, the film drags for a good fifteen minutes, then slowly builds to a finale that (at the time) was quite intense.  This underrated gem about lunatics running the asylum is currently being remade, but there’s just no way they’re going to capture the gritty, desolate tone of this low-budget shocker.

9) SHRIEK OF THE MUTILATED is an extremely low budget 1974 Yeti thriller that goes in a direction few first-time viewers will see coming.  I saw this on TV for the first time around 1979 and couldn’t get enough.  I’d love to have seen an audience’s reaction to the twist ending.

8) Released in the summer of 1972, I’d love to have been at a rural drive-in when NIGHT OF THE LEPUS first screened.  This incredibly goofy film about giant rabbits attacking Janet Leigh, Rory Calhoun, and STAR TREK’s DeForest Kelly must be seen to be believed, and must’ve had the crowds in stitches.  What makes it so good is how serious the filmmakers took the whole thing…

7) Every cult film fan has a favorite Russ Meyer film.  Mine is SUPERVIXEN (1975), which is basically a sexy road trip chase film with a little MANIAC COP thrown in.  But what blew me away was the dazzling editing during an early sequence split between a gas station and an apartment: every film maker should watch this at least once.  There’s a good chance you’ll get dizzy trying to keep up with all the angles and shots.  It’s also genuinely hysterical.

6) There must’ve been something seriously dangerous in the air during the early 70s.  Case in point is 1972’s BLOOD FREAK, about a dope-smoking guy who eats turkey from an experimental turkey farm and is turned into a turkey-headed monster who needs the blood of other drug addicts to survive.  Oh…and it also has a pro-Jesus message and stars Steve Hawkes, who had starred in a few Spanish TARZAN films (got all that?).  I can’t even begin to think what theater-goers must’ve thought of this, but thanks to the lunatics at Something Weird Video, adventurous cinephiles can obtain a deluxe DVD edition loaded with extras.  I’ve watched it too many times to admit…

5) In the late 90s I found a used VHS copy of 1975’s THE BLACK GESTAPO, a film I had never heard of despite being a life-long fan of blaxploitation cinema.  But unlike other films in this subgenre, THE BLACK GESTAPO was just downright nasty and mean-spirited throughout its entire running time: tired of their women being raped by white guys, a group of black men band together and start taking their streets back.  There’s plenty of action, classic dialogue, and violence (including a bathtub castration sequence that pre-dates I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE by four years) to keep any trash-film fan’s interest.  I’d hate to have been the only white guy at a screening of this, but then again it could’ve been a real blast!

4) While the idea behind THE CORPSE GRINDERS (1971) sounds better on paper than it translated to film, this early offering from director Ted V. Mikels is a real piece of cinematic insanity: a floundering pet food company—in an attempt to save money—begin to dig up corpses and grind them into cat food.  In turn, cats start going crazy and attack their owners.  A couple of moronic cops get on the case.  The corpse-grinding machine was made out of a refrigerator box and looks beyond cheesy, yet somehow certain scenes in the graveyard have fantastic atmosphere.  The cat attacks are unconvincing, the acting is horrendous, and I would’ve given anything to have seen this with a group of like-minded film freaks…

3) Since my initial Saturday afternoon TV viewing of SATAN’S CHEERLEADERS (1975), I’ve been hooked: a Satanist (who is also a janitor at a local high school) kidnaps four cheerleaders who get lost on a road trip.  He’s looking to sacrifice one of them in a ritual, but is killed by the Devil when he tries to rape one of them.  A shady couple (the wife played by Yvonne DeCarlo of THE MUNSTERS fame) then attempt to finish the janitor’s job, only to discover one of the cheerleaders is actually a closet witch.  In many ways this is the ULTIMATE 70s exploitation film: cheerleaders, backwoods Satanists, and four of the best looking actresses ever to grace a low budget feature add up to a true guilty pleasure.  This slice of 70s sinema ends with the cheerleaders using their newfound powers to help their football team win!  When I finally found a VHS copy of this sometime in the early 80s, I was surprised to see such a low nudity level (something most grindhouse films rely on), but the sheer nuttiness of this offering from director Greydon (BLACK SHAMPOO) Clark works well, despite its lack of skin.

2) When my family purchased our first VCR in 1983, I immediately ran to our local video store and rented 1963’s BLOOD FEAST, a film I had been reading about in FANGORIA Magazine since their fourth issue.  In the middle of watching it, my dad came home from work and freaked out.  He had seen this at a theater in Georgia a few weeks before he went to Korea with the army.  He told me people—some soldiers—actually passed out during a few of the gore scenes and most of the theater was empty by the time it ended.  NO ONE had seen anything like this at that time, and it was amazing to have first-hand proof that the accounts I had read in FANGORIA were true.  I can’t even imagine what it must’ve been like to be in a theater when something so different and ground-breaking was unleashed for the first time.  And being my old man was there, perhaps my love for this stuff was somehow passed through him to me at the time?

1) Despite the ground-breaking nature of BLOOD FEAST, I thought long and hard about what the A-#1 grindhouse film I wish I could’ve seen in a theater should be.  It might seem a bit typical, but I can think of no better film than NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1968).  I remember reading an article from film critic Roger Ebert where he recalled his first viewing: a young child sat next to him, hiding his eyes and shaking in total terror, causing Ebert to write, “What kind of a parent drops their kids off at something called NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD?”  I first saw it on late night TV when I was about seven years old, and it’s the main film responsible for my love of the horror genre.  George Romero’s low-budget classic reinvented the zombie film, and, from all accounts that I’ve read, was one of the scariest experiences since 1960’s PSYCHO for many theater-goers.  What more could any fan of grindhouse cinema ask for?

SO there you have it, folks: ten films I wish I could’ve seen in a theater from the “golden age” of the grindhouse film.  Now it’s time for me to stop dreaming and begin searching my fading celluloid memory for the 51^st column.  See ‘ya in two weeks!

© Copyright 2012 by Nick Cato

Director – Freddie Francis

Cast – Joen Collins, Peter Cushing, Roy Dotrice, Richard Greene, Ian Hendry, Patrick Magee, Barbara Murray, Nigel Patrick, Robin Phillips, Ralph Richardson

Release Year – 1972

Reviewed by John of the Dead

While searching for films directed by Freddie Francis, a classic horror director of the 60s and 70s, I came across one whose title stood out to me…Tales from the Crypt. The first film to take on the stories provided by the famed EC horror comic series, this effort was the inspiration for the Robert Zemekis-created TV show that scared scores of youngsters during its reign from 1989 to 1996. While this flick is nowhere near as scary as I would like it to be, it does provide a pretty engaging experience and consists of good horror for its time, sure to please those who love their 70s horror.

While touring a crypt five strangers become lost and stumble upon the crypt keeper’s lair where they are each told stories of how they died and wound up there.

If you know my love for anthologies, as well as the Tales from the Crypt TV series (plus Demon Knight), then you know why I just had to watch this piece, and why I enjoyed it. The story takes off right away with our five protagonists embarking on a guided tour of an old crypt and eventually losing the rest of the group and winding up in the crypt keeper’s lair, and once the first story kicks in we are given horror that would never relinquish for the rest of the film.

I could go into what each of the five stories was about, but they were quite simple and I would rather you watch the film for yourself and enjoy what I enjoyed. Some were obviously better than others, but each carried a good feeling of dread and came with positive kill sequences as well, but with this being a PG film you can only expect so much horror, therefore there was nothing too gratuitous or overly scary. Did I mind the lack of great scares? Not really, I saw the film for what it was and saw that the horror was scary in nature despite the lack of on-screen spooks. Of course, no anthology would be right without a positive wraparound story, and the wraparound closes out the anthology in the greatest way possible, and providing the most dread for the five protagonists as well.

Freddie Francis did a positive job directing this piece, giving us fantastic atmosphere and good performances by all involved, including horror legend Peter Cushing who was told to “as as himself” portraying a man who uses a Ouija board to contact his dead wife, an ironic role given Cushing had just recently lost his wife in real life (IRL for you noobs). The horror provided was well executed and came with a decent amount of gore at times for a PG film, and I applaud Francis for turning this very simple horror film into a classic that I am sure will be remembered for many more decades to come.

Overall, Tales from the Crypt is a great horror anthology that brings that awesome feel of the 70s along with good horror that did well for being a PG effort. The film’s rating may have been what held it back from providing horror that would have aided it in keeping up with other notable 70s films (Halloween, Dawn of the Dead, etc.) but in the end this is one flick worth watching merely for its original ties to the famed comic series.

Rating: 7/10

Considering his output for the past two decades, it’s easy to forget David Cronenberg was once the undisputed master of anatomical horror.  Before his more cerebral exercises like SPIDER (2002) and A DANGEROUS METHOD (2011) or his action movie dabbling like A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE (2005) and EASTERN PROMISES (2007), he made a career out of scaring his audiences with images of our flesh gone horribly wrong.  SHIVERS (1975, a.k.a. THEY CAME FROM WITHIN), his first feature, was a unique exploration into these fears, and was a sign of his greatness to come.

In urban Canada, an apartment complex stands alone on an island, an insulated haven for its residents.  There is an on-site store, dry cleaners, even a medical center.  They never have to leave, if they don’t want to.  It’s the perfect environment for Dr. Hobbs to conduct his latest experiment—a parasite that will rid humans of (what he believed to be) their false pretenses of civility, and bring out our basest instincts for pleasure.  This parasite was supposed to remain contained to one girl—his sixteen year old lover.  However, the parasite is spread sexually, and she has started the epidemic.  One by one, the residents are infected, becoming thoughtless hedonists themselves.  And, as each becomes a sex-crazed zombie, they spread the infection on to new victims, and the rate of infected multiply.  Can the one doctor stop the parasite before the entire complex falls victim?

SHIVERS is different from most horror films, because there is no killer.  People aren’t fighting any great monster or psychotic murderer, but rather their own base instincts and desires.  And what’s more frightening: losing your body or losing your soul?

That’s really a question that only the individual can answer for themselves.  All I know is a movie that steeped in the id deserves a delicious, indulgent meal with perhaps one or two aphrodisiacs.  After all, why should mindless nympho Canadians have all the fun?

Two things that can increase the libido are champagne and strawberries.

CHAMPAGNE AND STRAWBERRY COCKTAIL

Make sure the berries are very ripe (almost to the point of being over-ripe), and smash them in a bowl.  Add a couple scoops to the bottom of the glass and fill with sparkling wine.  As you drink, the bubbles will help break down some of the strawberry, mixing it in with the beverage.  After the liquid has been drunk, the berries are even tastier after absorbing a bit of the alcohol.

The main course is where you can really fill your loved one full of mood-enhancing foods.  Some of the most popular (and perhaps most effective) are asparagus, pomegranate and scallops.  They can become a fun, wonderful meal.

SCALLOPS WITH POMEGRANATE AND WINE SAUCE

Cook a batch of plain white rice.

In a small saucepan, combine ¾ cup rose wine (such as white zinfandel), a cup and a half of pomegranate juice, a pinch of salt and a pinch of red pepper flakes.  Bring to a boil, and continue to boil at medium heat for twenty minutes.  Just before serving, whisk in ¼ cup butter, one tablespoon at a time.

Season scallops (I used smaller bay scallops, but the large sea scallops will work fine) with salt.  Sauté in olive oil until opaque.  Place on a bed of the rice.  Top with a few spoonfuls of the sauce and thinly sliced fresh basil.

For the asparagus:

Rinse the asparagus and break off the tough, woody bottoms.  Wrap them in bunches of six or seven with a slice of prosciutto.  Sprinkle with a little bit of red pepper flakes. Roast in a 375 degree oven for about fifteen minutes, or until the prosciutto is crispy. There is no need to add salt, because the prosciutto is salty enough, and since the fat renders off with cooking, you will not need to add oil or grease the pan.

For dessert, one of the most popular aphrodisiacs for women is chocolate.  Home-made truffles may sound difficult but are surprisingly easy.

HOME-MADE TRUFFLES

Put chocolate chips in a small bowl (any kind, semi-sweet, milk chocolate, even white chocolate works fine).  Heat heavy cream over medium-low heat until just before boiling.  Pour the hot cream over the chocolate a little at a time, stirring until the chocolate is melted and the cream is incorporated (it should take between ¼ and ½ cups for your standard size package of chocolate chips).  If it cools before the chocolate is completely melted, microwave for fifteen seconds at a time.  Let the mixture cool in the refrigerator until just set.  Roll the chocolate into balls (this is a VERY messy step, so if you are planning on making this a hot date, you might want to prepare these before putting on your nice shirt).  The truffles can then be rolled into any number of coatings.  I used cocoa powder and chopped pecans, but coconut flakes, rainbow sprinkles, even bacon bits can be delicious.  Keep the truffles refrigerated until serving.

SHIVERS was an amazing directorial debut, and a perfect introduction to the “body horror” Cronenberg would build his career on.  By the time he got to such masterpieces as VIDEODROME (1983) and DEAD RINGERS (1988) he had nearly perfected his sense of style and dread.  It’s a damn shame he seems to have moved away from terrors of the flesh.  If we’re lucky, he’ll come back to the genre.  But in the meantime, at least we have SHIVERS and a tasty meal to keep us going.

© Copyright 2012 by Jenny Orosel

i should really stop checking lists of ‘the best 70s horror movies’ and the like. this was such a disappointment. i mean, a girl moving into a flat that ends up being the gates of hell? it sounds amazing! however, it’s mainly boring, and when you finally get to ‘the gates of hell’ bit, it’s not that ‘gates-of-hellish’. i still fail to see the connection between  the inhabitants of hell and amputees and deformed people. why are they supposed to be in hell, excactly? maybe they are just truly evil. maybe it’s their evil nature what caused their deformities (and amputations)? a bit too old-school for me. also, it wanted to be a bit trashy, but the result wasn’t trashy enough. oh, but i liked the cat in the party hat. she was awesome. 

Rating: 5/10

“…this venerable institution has been providing young women with a quality education and an appreciation for the arts for over 300 years. Located on several acres that look deceptively Californian, this Massachusetts landmark features a small lake, treacherous woods and more thunderstorms than the Brazilian rainforest. In addition to private rooms, each student is provided with a flammable and fragile hurricane lamp in case of a power outtage, since a flashlight would be impractical for the third act.

…have been with us for years, perhaps centuries. The headmistress, called “The Dragon Lady”, seems more befuddled than mean. The head of the art department, Mr. Clampett, serves his students large amounts of wine and advises them to “hang loose.” And the professor of psychology, Dr. Delacroix, just may be an escaped Nazi scientist…

Prospective students often ask, “Why is it necessary I be an orphan?”, “Why did the last girl commit suicide?”, and “Is Satan on the faculty?”

- from the brochure for The Salem Academy for Women

 ***

SATAN’S SCHOOL FOR GIRLS is sadly not the name of the academy in this made-for-TV fun fest from Aaron Spelling, who would go on to help create horrors like DYNASTY (1981-1989), BEVERLY HILLS 90210 (1990-2000), MELROSE PLACE (1992-1999), CHARMED (1998-2006) and Tori Spelling. Aaron Spelling, whose house is about the size of Utah, also brought us CHARLIE’S ANGELS (1976-1981), which has a direct bearing on our hellish center of higher learning. (Listing Aaron Spelling’s credits would take most of the day, and there are some hugely successful shows we haven’t mentioned. Did he make a deal with the Devil? Is that why he got the Devil to do a guest spot in this movie? These are questions best left to professionals who aren’t afraid of ending up with a multi-eyed goat chasing them or having their face melt in some demonic weather anomaly… Neither of those things happen in this movie, which is too bad, but they happen with some regularity to those who piss off The Prince of Darkness, so I am going to let that sleeping three-headed-dog lie.)

We do not begin our adventure at the school, but with a pretty young girl named Martha Sayers driving a GM muscle car down a dirt road at a high rate of speed. POV shots show us she is all over the road and the tires squeal in protest. She keeps looking behind her for long beats, making me sure she was going to wrap her car around a tree or maybe one of Satan’s minions. Was this the school’s defensive driving course? Were the girls training to be chauffeurs for foreign potentates or possible GF’s for Jason Statham? The questions pile up as she passes a pay phone outside the standard “gas station in the middle of nowhere.” She stops, considers the phone. “Keep driving, you idiot!” I yell at my screen. She ignores me (they always do) and parks next to the phone. She tries to reach someone, but the party she is calling does not answer. She tells the operator that “Elizabeth” promised to be there. Before the operator can tell her this is not the phone company’s problem, our girl Martha sees a disheveled man lurch toward the phone. She tosses her cigarette and screams, runs to the car and peels out. He picks up the cig and takes a puff, and shakes his head in that world-weary way the TV homeless do.

Terry Lumley is a scream as Martha Sayers in SATAN'S SCHOOL FOR GIRLS.

Martha reaches a lavish house next to a lake, and pounds on the front door… No one is home. She looks through the windows, growing more and more frantic. An old man walks up carrying a sickle. Confirming that Martha is Martha, he tells her her sister had to go out to the grocery store and left the house keys with him… Martha, displaying more courage than sense, moves in close enough to take the keys… Ah, turns out he is old Mr. Red Herring, the caretaker. Martha lets herself in and does not get filleted. The old man shakes his head in that world-weary way that TV caretakers who are not murderers do.

It’s a nice home —just what does her sister do for a living? —and Martha is relieved. She looks out at the lake, thinking everything just might turn out all right… Then, she realizes something is standing behind her. She turns, and her eyes go wide and she screams —the actress, Terry Lumley actually looked crazy, which was unnerving.

NOW Elizabeth comes home. She’s played by Pamela Franklin, who was also in THE INNOCENTS (1961), NECROMANCY (with Orson Welles! 1972) and THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE (1973). She finds the caretaker and two cops at her front door. The caretaker heard her sister scream and called the police. Although Elizabeth is standing there, the cops try to break down the door—she pushes past them and unlocks it with her key. But the skimpy chain has been drawn—Elizabeth asks the cop to break in… In one of my favorite moments, he does not slam into the door, but SHOOTS THE CHAIN —had I made this movie, Martha would already have died, but now have a bullet wound, as well. Alas, this does not happen —although we never learn just where that shot went. Everyone barges in and we find that Martha has hanged herself. It’s one of the worst reunions ever.

Elizabeth is sure her sister was murdered, because she was so happy. No one has a clue that she was unhappy… Except the caretaker, who no one bothers to talk to… The little fact that he was the last person to see Martha alive seems to have been forgotten… But when cops are trying to break down doors and using bullets as keys, a lot must get lost in the shuffle.

Elizabeth decides she will find out what happened to her sister. In true 70’s transition, we see a jumbo jet take off and wing eastward. First stop, Martha’s BFF Lucy, played by Gwynne Gilford of BEWARE! THE BLOB (1972) and MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE (1987). Lucy serves sherry but keeps trying to get Elizabeth to drink some vodka… It’s a weird bit that never goes anywhere. When Elizabeth decides she will visit the school, Lucy freaks out and begs her not to tell anyone they talked. Elizabeth seems to take this is stride and leaves Lucy and her liquor cabinet for the gentle, rolling hills of Hell U.

Now, mind you, Elizabeth does not fill out any applications or go to some shady back alley for fake ID, transcripts, etc. She seems to have merely called ahead and is accepted that day for classes. This sort of thing only happens in bad movies and commercials for trade colleges. Elizabeth drives another GM muscle car (can you deduce who provided vehicles for SSFG?) and is met at her parking spot by two angels and a head case. Actually, that would be Roberta (Kate Jackson, an original Charlie’s Angel), Jody (Cheryl Ladd, the “cousin” of Farrah Fawcett’s Angel) and Debbie (Jamie Smith-Jackson), who we know is artistic because she wears a bandana on her head. Various ominous comments are made about the headmistress, who the girls call “The Dragon Lady.” To get Elizabeth ready for her first encounter with this gorgon, they give her a brandy snifter full of chardonnay —this is the sort of glass that serves as a fish tank in romantic comedies, but here it is just filled with wine, albeit, enough wine to get everyone in Hrothgar’s great hall drunk.

Pamela Franklin as Elizabeth and future Charlie's Angel Kate Jackson as Roberta in SATAN'S SCHOOL FOR GIRLS.

Elizabeth goes off to meet the headmistress, Mrs. Williams. She’s played by Jo Van Fleet who was in great films like EAST OF EDEN (1955), GUNFIGHT AT THE O.K. CORRAL (1957), COOL HAND LUKE (1967) and THE TENANT (1976). She welcomes Elizabeth to the school and gives her a schedule of classes that start immediately. I kept yelling at Elizabeth that it was a trap, but it didn’t matter —no one discovers Elizabeth’s subterfuge until she herself admits it much later.

We meet her first teacher, art instructor and department head Dr. Clampett, played by Roy Thinnes, who did a whole slew of roles, but is best remembered by us at the Outpost for his turn as David Vincent on THE INVADERS (1967-1968). Clampett is good-looking and all the girls are gaga over him. He reviews a couple of paintings by the girls, including Debbie’s. Debbie’s painting is of Elizabeth’s sister Martha in an ancient room, looking terrified. Elizabeth makes a mental note to grill the artist later… which is probably what the school founder (hint: horns, tail, pitchfork) is also planning.

Dr. Clampett encourages them to “hang loose,” and reminds the girls he is having a wine party that evening… Can we trust him? He certainly is the sort the magazine was thinking of when they asked “What sort of man reads Playboy?” —he has the groovy clothes and one can only imagine a state-of-the-art stereo and NaugahydeÔ furniture… Probably a GM muscle car, too (maybe a Barracuda or a Road Runner), but we never see anything but his classroom.

Elizabeth questions Debbie in the hall —who was in the painting, why did she paint it, was she influenced by Seurat at all? (Sorry, that last was just me showing off.) Debbie can’t remember much, but is pretty sure she was in that room at some point, which is “down under the building.”

Next, it’s off to Behavioral Psychology… Why they are teaching this course in a fine arts college, I don’t know. It may be that the rats in the class were all they could afford for a “creep factor,” though domesticated rats are pretty low on the spectrum. The instructor here is Dr. Delacroix, played with stern intensity by Lloyd Bochner, who seems to have guested on every TV show ever made, including the role of “The Old Vampire” in THE ADVENTURES OF SUPERBOY (1988-1992), which I must rent immediately, and THE DUNWICH HORROR (1970). Delacroix is teaching rats to run a maze and find food behind a red door. When they master that, he’ll switch to a white door, and then back again—over and over and over. While we puzzle over who is supporting such questionable research (my money is on Monsanto or McDonald’s), he demands the girls explain why he is torturing rodents. Only newcomer Elizabeth knows the answer, to “make them passive.” Delacroix takes this metaphorical ball and runs with it, saying such minds would become pliable and could be made to do anything. He’s like a Bond villain without the budget, and you kind of feel sorry for him.

After class, Debbie starts raving and freaks out, collapsing in the hall and going on about rats and red doors. Do the girls call the nurse? Do they call for a teacher? Nope, and don’t expect one to show up, either. Either the staff is deaf or students go mad with some regularity. It’s off to bed with a cold washcloth on her forehead. Roberta says they’ll watch her —if she’s not better by morning, they’ll tell the Dragon Lady. As if on cue, Debbie rouses and wants to gnaw on… a vegan snack. Or granola.

Clampett’s wine party does not, I am sorry to say, take place in his groovy bachelor pad. Just in the art studio. He is, however, the only adult and the only male. This is the sort of situation that either becomes a sitcom, a Police song or an episode of Law & Order SVU. The girls drink, Clampett leers, and a good time is had by all…

Idyllic campus life is interrupted by the news that alumni Lucy has committed suicide. Debbie remarks, “That’s two of us,” and Elizabeth pumps her for more info. During a storm of epic proportions (thunder like Thor’s hammer, doncha know), Elizabeth steals Debbie’s painting of Martha from the art studio and goes searching for a room that matches it… She goes down into the basement with just her hurricane lamp and the painting, past a room full of creepy theatrical props. Going through an empty wine cellar (no wonder, with the way everyone on campus is swilling the stuff), she finds an ancient-looking door. Beyond that door is the room in the painting. Elizabeth is scanning the room for signs of what killed her sister (cabalistic symbols, demon spoor, a hoof print or two) when she sees someone in the shadows with a straight razor. Not being a fool, Elizabeth hightails it out of there, fast.

Elizabeth goes to Roberta since she seems the most level-headed. She tells Roberta what she has seen and says that Debbie is terrified of the room in the sub-sub-basement. Roberta tells her that’s because a group of girls supposedly hung themselves in a basement room during the time of the Salem Witch Trials. She agrees to help investigate the spooky room with Elizabeth, who is now certain she saw Delacroix with the razor.

The next evening, poor Debbie makes a break for it, running off campus. Later, Elizabeth and Roberta find her in the secret room, strangled with pantyhose. They go to the Dragon Lady, and tells her it looks like Debbie is another suicide… Eh? Dragon Lady mutters she must call the sheriff. She does the old “dialing while I have my finger on the disconnect bit.” She tells the girls to wait. They look for files on the girls who committed suicide —they are missing, including Debbie’s… So is Delacroix’s file. Elizabeth tells Roberta that she is actually Martha’s sister. They search for the missing files in Delacroix’s classroom and find them conveniently placed next to his rat maze. Delacroix confronts them, sure they are in league with you-know-who. He panics at something unseen and jumps out a window.

Enter heroic and handsome Dr. Clampett. He learns Elizabeth’s true identity and tells the girls to stay put. Rather than wait for the sheriff who isn’t coming, he is sure he can talk Delacroix into giving himself up.

Delacroix runs through the woods, tripping over every root, rock and shadow. He then blunders into the lake. In a mildly creepy scene, he is nearly surrounded by girls on the dock and on shore who poke at him with long poles. In case you were wondering, none of the girls is wearing a PETA shirt, since that organization won’t be founded for another seven years.

Clampett goes to the Head Mistress and tells her he wants the school evacuated. While Roberta and Elizabeth wait patiently, all the other girls are being loaded onto buses and a van… Only eight girls are left, but Clampett assures the others he will see to them. Elizabeth, hearing the buses leave, runs out to see what is going on. Seeing that everyone is being evacuated, she goes to her own car, only to have dead and soggy Dr. Delacroix spill out of the driver’s seat.

Elizabeth goes back to Roberta, who lures her back to the secret room. She shoves Elizabeth in, where Clampett (in a black robe) waits with the other girls (all in white). Roberta, of course, is one of his girls. In a rather cool aside, she tells Elizabeth that he is “Malleus Maleficarum,” or “The Witches’ Hammer”—I had to look this up, and it’s a famous medieval treatise on witches designed to help priests and magistrates identify witches. Not sure how Clampett came by the title, but it does sound kind of cool, especially if you don’t know what the Malleus Maleficarum really is.

Clampett then explains that he “lost” his girls a long time ago, and it’s taken him “many years” to find replacements. All I can say is, this particular Son of Darkness is a real underachiever —it’s taken him over 300 years to find the right girls? Dude’s been spending too much time drinking chardonnay and listening to bebop.

Elizabeth now takes her trusty lamp and throws it at the ground. It shatters and flames spread quickly. Elizabeth makes a run for it, and no one stops her. Clampett tells his comely disciples to wait, that soon they will all be together. Elizabeth manages to get Mrs. Williams out and throws another unsafe lantern into Clampett’s path. He smiles, and goes back to the secret room, now an inferno. With no more concern than stepping into a tepid bath, he walks on in…

Elizabeth watches her brief alma mater go up in flames, sure that the guilty have been punished. On a nearby hillside, Clampett watches the fire and smiles, then fades away, leaving a patch of scorched earth with a little wisp of smoke… If you were hoping for even a cheesy devil head or man-in-a-rubber-demon-suit, I am afraid this is the only evidence you get that Clampett was indeed Satan, or, at least, one of his more suave minions.

A few burned matches pretty much covers the effects budget for SATAN'S SCHOOL FOR GIRLS.

For all my carping and sniping, this is not a horrible movie. True, the constraints of television at the time (1973) mean no nudity and almost no gore. Budget constraints were probably the reason we do not get a cool reveal of Thinnes as the Devil—even some modest horns and bad skin would have been fine, but alas… However, the acting is all good across the board, and Pamela Franklin’s Elizabeth is brave, committed and strong —she is proactive and every bit the heroine, never wimping out or seeking help from (the admittedly small pool of) males.

The movie was remade in 2000 with Shannen Doherty, another Spelling favorite. Kate Jackson returned to play the Head Mistress, now called the Dean. It looks like the remake is much more centered around a mini-coven of five witches who want to rule the world. I wanted to compare and contrast the movies, but only snippets of the remake seem available at this time. If I can hunt down a copy we may revisit these not-so-hallowed halls again.

One last note: I am not sure I understand the motivation of Satan finding seven orphan girls only to have them kill themselves—seems like the guy should have plenty of souls by now (almost as many as hamburgers served by McDonald’s). Why not train them to go out and spread misery and malice around the world, corrupting and terrifying the populace—wouldn’t that be more devilish and hellish? I guess when you spend all your time looking cool for teenage girls and finally manifesting your demon side as charred grass and less smoke than a Camel cigarette, our expectations of you as a The Fallen One should be very, very low.

Remote Outpost… out.

© Copyright 2012 by Mark Onspaugh

(Mark Onspaugh is currently editing an anthology entitled The Forsaken with Stoker Award winner Joe McKinney for 23 House. His essay, “Evilution: A Short History of Monsters from Black & White to Blood Red” appears in “Butcher Knives and Body Counts: Essays on the Formula, Frights and Fun of the Slasher Film” edited by Vince A. Liaguno for Dark Scribe Press.)

Director – Gus Trikonis

Cast – Richard Crenna, Joanna Pettet, Andrew Prine, Cassie Yates, George O’Hanlon Jr., Lynne Moody, Mary Louise Weller, Robert Viharo, Victor Buono

Release Year – 1978

Reviewed by John of the Dead

My recent search for more haunted house films lead me to The Evil after watching the awesome  supernatural flick Superstition, both of which were produced by Ed Carlin.  I had heard of The Evil previously but always had a very hard time getting a hold of this rare film given most copies are on VHS, but sure enough my time came and I took the opportunity with the biggest grin I could display across my sometimes-handsome face.  Haunted house films have always been a favorite of mine, so naturally I really wanted to enjoy The Evil, and I am glad to say that this piece was as good as I expected/wanted it to be.  The atmosphere is great and despite a low budget there is no shortage of good horror and scares, making for a very worthwhile haunted house film that has remained off the radar for decades.

After purchasing an old mansion, CJ and Caroline Arnold invite their psychology group to join them in cleaning up the home and making it livable.  Soon after entering the old Vargas Mansion Caroline begins to suffer what appear to be haunting delusions, but soon enough the true evil residing within the home will manifest itself and wreak havoc on all who have stepped foot in the plagued estate.

I don’t care when it was made, a haunted house film will always intrigue me because it allows me to envelop myself given I have been fortunate enough to reside in a home my entire life and can imagine my own home suffering the hauntings in the films.  So long as you get a few essentials right, like atmosphere and scares, then you can pretty much tell any haunted house story and come away with a good flick, and The Evil gave us atmosphere, scares, and more.  Writers Galen Thompson and Gus Trikonis did a swell job giving us an engaging storyline that while employing the usual haunted house template still managed to keep my attention throughout.  For starters we are given an awesome opening sequence taking up the first 10 or so minutes of the film, drawing out the tension and giving us a taste of the great horror that would soon erupt as the story continued.  I loved the idea of the Arnolds buying the home and bringing their friends over given I am a big fan of haunted house films where the new homeowners take on a home with a dark past that they had no idea of, and of course suffer the horrific consequences of their decision.  The Arnolds bringing their friends over just provided more characters to be killed off by the evil force in the home, and I was very glad to see that we were given many memorable kill sequences in this story – a big reason behind why I never once looked away from this piece.  Some of the kill sequences were not as gruesome as you may want them to be, but considering the low budget I was very happy to see a good number of kills period.  The majority of the film plays off of our characters slowly succumbing to the evil force around them, eventually finding themselves barricaded within the home and forced to fend off an attacker that can take on many killing forms.  The low budget also results in some “what you don’t see is scary” horror, which I never balk at given it comes with its own spookiness that I enjoy and respect.  Naturally there are faults with most horror films, and while this one did not have any major ones I did find some fault during the final sequence.  The final sequence was a bit silly and came seemingly out of nowhere, and according to what I have read there was an alternate version shot to alleviate the complaints regarding the scene in question, but the version I saw was not the re-edited one and regardless I was very pleased with the end result.

Co-writer Gus Trikonis also served as the film’s director, and I must applaud him for doing a lot with what little he had to work with.  His atmosphere and sets are excellent and provided a great background for the film’s numerous spooks, and his execution of the horror itself was great and shot in a very full-frontal and shocking manner.  We are not given much as far as gore goes, but the kills were still enjoyable and actually came with pretty good special FX for the time the film was released.  The acting performances are standard for 70s horror films, and each of the numerous actors involved sold their roles and played their part in this great haunted house film that I found so darn enjoyable.

Overall, The Evil is a great and vastly under-appreciated haunted house film that despite a very low budget still managed to deliver a good story, awesome kills, and good spooks.

Rating: 7/10

Just before the home video boom of the early 80s, there was a minor outbreak of 70s horror films being re-released theatrically, usually on double bills with a new feature.  Before most of us had VCRs, I was lucky enough to see the original TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (1974) and a host of others on the big screen in glorious re-releases, and I still wonder if this wasn’t some kind of testing stage for upcoming home video companies to see what forgotten trash they could repackage for VHS.  Or something.

I can’t recall what new slasher epic was the main feature (I’m thinking it was HOUSE ON SORORITY ROW (1983)?), because my excitement was for the opening film, DRIVE-IN MASSACRE, a 1976 or 1977 (depending on who you believe) oddity that was promised to be released soon on VHS within the pages of FANGORIA magazine.  Having no idea what to expect, the title alone got my juices flowing, as did the TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE-type opening sequence.  But it wasn’t long before the suburban audience in attendance at the (now defunct) Amboy Twin Cinema were openly insulting the talentless cast of this nearly gore-less slasher flick (but now that I think about it, considering this was originally released in 1976/7, just before the outbreak of “slasher” films, perhaps the producers of this dreck were looking at it as a murder mystery?  Who knows?)

For some reason that’s never explained, a psycho is stalking people at a California drive-in theater.  For another unknown reason, the killer’s weapon of choice is a long sword, which he uses to decapitate his (or her, we’re never told) first victims, one as he leans out of his car to adjust the volume box (NOTE TO KIDDIES WHO NEVER WENT TO A DRIVE IN: volume boxes were located outside your car’s window, although they usually attached right to the window itself.  Perhaps not in California?).  I’m thinking the killer could’ve been an escaped schizophrenic ninja?  Nah…whoever “wrote” this screenplay didn’t bother with a standard plot, let alone something as cool as a schizophrenic ninja.  For gorehounds, this is the only kill in the film that even shows a bit of sauce; otherwise, DRIVE-IN MASSACRE has about as much on-screen violence as CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG (1968).

Thank goodness for the two hefty cops who are on the case.  The comic relief they provide is the sole reason any exploitation completest might even bother to seek this out (unless you get off on the sight of an ugly janitor with big, fake jewelry and a sports coat that’d make Bozo the Clown commit suicide).  The detectives get nowhere after questioning the theater’s owner in what has to be one of the worst dialogue exchanges ever captured on film.  The theater owner also offers a few laughs, as he HATES everyone he’s asked about: I’m assuming the Klan themselves would deem him too hateful to join their organization.  In-between a couple of lame kill scenes, our pudgy officers decide to dress in drag in an attempt to find the killer: just WHY they decide to do this is anyone’s guess, but it leads to a couple of giggles and filler chase scenes.  WHY do all these low budget films pad themselves with chase scenes?  And WHY are they never exciting (one chase takes place inside of a dimly lit warehouse and is shot so slowly several audience members took the opportunity to refill their sodas or visit the restrooms.  I’m thinking a few just gave up and left).

Along with a horrendous soundtrack (including an opening soft-rock song that was too lame to be included on any old K-TEL compilation album), DRIVE-IN MASSACRE ends with an attempt to scare us by claiming the killer has never been caught…and that he might be in the theater you’re currently in…sitting right next to YOU!

Good grief…why do I continue to be fascinated with this junk?

(WARNING: Horror of horrors!  DRIVE-IN MASSACRE is slated for a remake with filming to commence in the fall of 2012.  Ut oh…)

© Copyright 2012 by Nick Cato

Robert E. Pearson stars as Austin, the funkiest janitor in horror film history. Robert went to that Drive-In in the sky in 2009.

(THE SCENE: A castle in rural Scotland. L.L. SOARES and JENNY OROSEL stand in front of group of locals. LS is wearing jeans, a jean jacket and a cowboy hat and JO is wearing a colorful May Queen’s dress)

LS: Howdy folks. So I guess we’re here to review the movie, THE WICKER TREE (2010).

JO: (smiles)  Aye, we are.

LS: Well, let’s not keep these people waiting much longer. Why don’t you tell these fine folks a little about the movie.

JO: There was a chunk of time in the 60s and 70s where British horror was like the perfect date—it didn’t take itself seriously and only wanted to show you a good time, with a little bit of naughtiness thrown in here and there.  The Hammer studios were masters of this genre, with Amicus tagging closely behind, and this era brought us the wickedly fun THE WICKER MAN (1973), a tale of Paganism on a remote Scottish island.  Now, almost forty years later, director Robin Hardy returns to that lovely heathen isle with THE WICKER TREE (2010), with all the affection for pure entertainment he carried in his heart during the original.

LS: There has been talk of a sequel for years now. Seeing THE WICKER TREE, I was just glad that this movie finally got made. Robin Hardy based it on his novel “Cowboys for Christ” (which was the original name of this movie). Hardy directed the original film, too, which was “inspired” by the novel “Ritual” by David Pinner, and Anthony Shaffer wrote the screenplay for WICKER MAN.

JO: THE WICKER TREE opens with dancing shirtless men that look straight out of a party at the Burning Man festival.

LS: How apt!

JO: Then we cut to a small Texas church, and the caricatures begin.  Folding chairs are filled with jean-clad, cowboy-hat-wearing folks about to send off two missionaries, country singer Beth Boothby (Brittania Nicol) and her boyfriend Steve (Henry Garrett), to Scotland where “they don’t even believe in angels!”  Or chastity, as is later brought up.  So we start with two people totally unaware that, in fact, Scotland is a predominately Christian nation.  Their enthusiasm and ignorance might not serve them well for the rest of the movie, but it will serve the plot well.

LS: Caricatures is right. They’re pretty goofy characters. And there weren’t many instances when they seemed like real people to me. Although Beth does kind of redeem herself by the end.

JO: When they first arrive in Scotland, Beth performs for sold-out houses.

LS: Yeah, Beth is a singer back in the States whose career is just starting to take off. I thought it was odd that someone who is just on the cusp of becoming a star would suddenly leave the country to perform missionary work. Then we find out that this isn’t her first time in the spotlight.

JO: Yes, a local reporter uncovers her previous career as a secular country-western singer whose biggest hit was “Trailer Trash Slut.” (subtlety is not this movie’s strongest point).  She and Steve retreat to a small village off the coast, lured by the notion that, although not Christians themselves, the villagers will be open to the messages of Jesus and chastity.

LS: The “Trailer Trash Slut” video is actually pretty funny. But another big reason why Beth and Steve head to the country is that, when they going knocking on doors in the more “citified” parts of Scotland, all they get is doors slammed in their faces. The couple who actually hosted their visit, Sir Lachlan Morrison (Graham McTavish) and his wife Delia (Jacqueline Leonard), suggest they might have more luck in the country, and bring them out to an island where the Morrisons pretty much own everything.

JO: I can’t imagine the experience of watching THE WICKER TREE without having any knowledge of THE WICKER MAN.  Part of the suspense for the next forty-five minutes is knowing what happened in the first movie, and knowing what the villagers like to do to Christian outsiders.   During this time we get to know the villagers, we find out that due to a nuclear accident, the men of the island are sterile and we see Steve fail at his chastity vows the moment he’s faced with a beautiful woman named Lolly (Honeysuckle Weeks – what a name!) bathing in the nude in the local pond (after first noticing her horse.  Having lived in Dallas for the past four years, I can say that is the most realistically Texas part of the movie).

LS: So much for Steve’s purity ring!

(A MAN in the crowd before them stands up)

MAN: And when will we be eating the haggis!

LS: What are you talking about?

MAN: The haggis, man! I’ve got me a mighty hunger, don’t ye?

LS: I don’t think I’ll be eating any haggis. That stuff sounds gross.

MAN: How dare ye insult the official food of Scotland! Off with his head I say!

(The rest of the crowd bursts with noise and the people argue)

JO: Sit down, sit down. We’re not done with our review yet. Don’t you want to see where this goes?

MAN: I suppose so. (he sits back down and the crowd grows quiet again)

JO: The first part of THE WICKER TREE was rather unexciting, but the actors made it interesting to watch, and knowing what happens in the WICKER world, the tension built.  Plus, Christopher Lee made a cameo and he’s like bacon—everything is better with Christopher Lee.

LS: I didn’t find the first part of the movie that unexciting. I thought it was pretty watchable, actually. And yes, if you didn’t see the original WICKER MAN, then you won’t fully appreciate this one. You don’t have to see the first one to understand THE WICKER TREE – it is completely self-contained – but if you saw the first movie, there’s a different level of suspense throughout, as you anticipate what is going to happen to these two naïve Americans.

As for Christopher Lee, it’s nice to see him here, especially since he played the pivotal role of Lord Summerisle in the original movie. But it’s definitely a case of “blink and you’ll miss him.” Lee is only in one short scene, (the credits call his role simply “Old Man”) and it’s a flashback, so don’t turn this one on expecting to see Lee in a major role here. I know he’s pretty old and not as active as he once was, but I was still disappointed he didn’t play a bigger part in THE WICKER TREE.

JO: During the last half hour, it suddenly turns into a horror movie.  Our missionaries meet with their inevitable fates.  Steve’s was especially shocking, both in what they do to him and the style in which they filmed it.  For that brief sequence the movie hovered somewhere between 28 DAYS LATER (2002) and HOSTEL (2005).  It definitely jarred me out of the movie for a little while.  I’m still not sure if that was a good thing or not.

LS: Oh, I thought it was definitely a good thing. The movie is pretty much all leading up to that part, and you want it to have some impact – and it does. By the way, the way the pagans get the Christian missionaries to take part in their annual festivities is to make Beth their May Queen, for the feast of May Day, the rite of spring. She gets to wear a fancy gown and everything. And Steve gets the symbolic role as her “Laddie.” What exactly he has to do as the Laddie is explained as the movie goes on, culminating in the jarring scene Jenny mentioned.

JO: Once we return to Beth’s plight, the movie goes back into fun mode.  In fact, the end shot looked straight out of some of the best Hammer moments.

LS: Yeah, the last half hour or so of this movie is the best part of it. But the very end seemed a bit rushed – we’re treated to several short scenes and are left to make our own deductions. I know it was the case where the viewer has to fill in the blanks themselves, but it would have been nice to get a little more information. Of course, I can’t explain that further, since I don’t want to give anything away.

JO: THE WICKER TREE is not without its faults.  As I mentioned earlier, it is far from subtle.  The characters tend to be over-the-top stereotypes, from Steve’s ever-present cowboy hat to the gratuitous kilt usage.  The gags are broad and blatant.  Other than the level of horror in Steve’s demise, there are no surprises.  But rather than try to hide its flaws (think TROLL 2 (1990)), director Hardy revels in them.  It fully embraces the campiness it was destined to have.  As long as you realize going into it that THE WICKER TREE is more humor than horror, you can have as much fun watching this little flick as they seemed to have while making it.

LS: Here is where I kind of disagree with you. I don’t think THE WICKER TREE needed to embrace a campiness at all. The original WICKER MAN played it completely straight and serious and the ending was all the more powerful for that. This time around, Hardy makes THE WICKER TREE so silly in spots that the movie does come off as a comedy for most of its running time. Making fun of the dumb missionaries who think they’re there to do God’s work. But I thought this was the completely wrong tone for a sequel. There was no reason why THE WICKER TREE couldn’t be as serious as its predecessor, without the broad stereotypes and the inside jokes and the winks to the audience. The only scenes I really liked were when the movie stopped playing around and got down and dirty. It’s almost like Hardy was trying to make a parody of his original movie at times, and I just don’t understand why.

(Another man jumps up. This one is holding out his arm upon which sits a raven)

LS: Oh no, it’s that annoying guy Beame from the movie! He’s always carrying around that raven and he’s always talking in rhymes.

BEAME: Ye’re right that Beame be’s my name, and that I stand here so. But bored of your review I very am, and I suggest you go!

LS: Get bent! We’re finishing this.

JO: Yeah! Give us a chance, won’t you.

BEAME: I shall hold my tongue for a minute more. But then I’ll be compelled to show you the door.

LS: Sit down, you village idiot!

(BEAME sits down)

LS: Where was I?

Oh yes. THE WICKER MAN is a genuine classic, and that’s mainly because of its power to surprise you. There really aren’t any surprises in THE WICKER TREE. You know something bad is going to happen to these two bumpkins, and it’s just a matter of how. If Hardy wanted to be truly subversive, he would have given us a twist we didn’t see coming, and completely surprise us in a totally new way. I mean, he’s had 40 years to come up with something fresh!

JO: That makes sense, but I can also see where Hardy was coming from.  The big reveal was such an integral part of the original, and he probably figured audiences wouldn’t fall for it a second time, and tried for something completely different.  I’ve seen a lot of people angry at the tone of this one because they were expecting THE WICKER MAN again.  Perhaps if he’d stuck with the COWBOYS FOR CHRIST title, it would have gone off better.

COWBOYS FOR CHRIST was the original title of THE WICKER TREE.

LS: Maybe you’re right. But I think THE WICKER TREE was a missed opportunity. Robin Hardy had a chance to make a movie every bit as memorable as THE WICKER MAN, and instead he gave us something that was more of a light comedy in comparison. I was disappointed.

(FIRST MAN jumps up again)

MAN: What are ye wearing pants for! Here in bonny ol’ Scotland, men wear kilts! Get a kilt on ye, I say!

LS: We’re in the middle of a review here. Stop interrupting, please. Besides, I’m not interested in wearing one of those funny skirts.

MAN: A funny skirt? Ye call a kilt a “funny skirt?” HOW DARE you insult the official garb of the Scotsmen! Off with his head, I say!

(Rest of the audience begins arguing again)

JO: Please, please, let us finish. There is no reason to be rude.

MAN: Okay, I’ll let it go now, for your sake, lassie. But there is only so much a Scotsman can tolerate!

(MAN sits back down)

LS: Ahem.

I guess we should also mention that THE WICKER TREE is not really a sequel at all. It’s kind of a “reimagining,” since it involves completely different characters and a completely different outcome. It simply takes the basic premise of an unsuspecting “innocent” finding themselves among a group of pagans with a hidden agenda, and does a variation on that theme. And THE WICKER TREE is in no way even close to being the movie THE WICKER MAN was.

If anything, I found another recent British movie, KILL LIST, to be more in the spirit of the original WICKER MAN, in the way it sets up a story to shock us with a completely unexpected ending. And it plays it completely for chills. KILL LIST is a totally different movie, but it sets out to jar us in a way similar to the way THE WICKER MAN did, and THE WICKER TREE doesn’t even come close to doing that.

JO: Well, I really enjoyed THE WICKER TREE for what it was. I give it three bloody knives.

LS: I didn’t hate it, and it was a fun flick, but it wasn’t the movie I was hoping for when I heard they were making a sequel to THE WICKER MAN. I wish they’d gone the serious route. I wanted a good meal, and they gave me a snack. I give it two bloody knives.

(The crowd gathered before them claps. LS and JO bow.)

(MAN jumps up again)

MAN: Are ye finished, finally?

LS: Yeah, yeah, we’re finished.

MAN: Well, goodie for ye. Ye go around spouting on about bloody knives. Well then, we’ll very well give ‘em to ye!

(Everyone in the crowd is now holding either a knife or a hatchet. They proceed to chase LS and JO around the castle in fast motion, as the “Benny Hill” theme plays)

-THE END-

© Copyright 2012 by L.L. Soares and Jenny Orosel

L.L. Soares gives THE WICKER TREE ~ two bloody knives!

Jenny Orosel gives THE WICKER TREE ~three bloody knives.

Director – Gilberto Martínez Solares

Cast – Cecilia Pezet, Enrique Rocha, Delia Magaña, Clemencia Colin, Sandra Torres, Adarene San Martin, Patricia Alban, Yayoi Tokawa

Release Year – 1975

Reviewed by John of the Dead

I first heard the words “Satanico Pandemonium” while watching Robert Rodriguez’s From Dusk Till Dawn, as that was Salma Hayek’s stage name during her infamous snake-dance striptease scene at the Titty Twister. A dear friend of mine who delves into rare and obscure horror films gave me to opportunity to view this mid-70s “nunsploitation” piece, and I am glad to say that I was pleased with the end result. While not as exploitation-fueled as I wanted it to be, Satanico Pandemonium provided the goods in simple fashion and made for a positive experience despite leaving me wanting more in the end.

Sister Maria, a young nun, one day finds herself bombarded by Satan’s temptations in the form of forbidden sexual fantasies as he lures her to his domain.

One reason we love horror films so much is the fact that the elements often associated with horror, killing and debauchery, give us pleasurable shock value, and that shock value is increased when a “good” person like a nun is involved in a negative fashion. From the get-go the story takes off with Sister Maria approached by a naked man, presumably (and inevitably proven to be) Satan, and from then on our he bombards her with temptations to destroy her purity and sanctity. On one occasion she is approached by a fellow “Sister”, who (as a trick from Satan) “make the moves” on her and “turns” her into a sexually deviant being with a desire for the sins of the flesh. Of course, she cannot allow this secret to be made known to her cohorts, and that is when her character worsens as she must kill to keep her secrets secret. Watching her transform from dedicated servant of Christ to the monster she became was great, and it came with plenty of sleaze (as expected) although nothing too graphic. The kills were simple and so were the characters involved, and while I did not find a problem with that I did find a problem with the usage of Satan. I personally wanted more action regarding him, as he really only served as a man showing up every now and then to speak to Maria about the temptations, and that is about it. He never really came off evil or scary in any way, leaving much to be desired regarding his character.

Gilberto Martinez Solares serves as the film’s director, and overall he did a pretty swell job. From the moment the film gets going you will see that it is of an obvious low budget, but that was not enough to keep Solares from delivering good execution of the horror, although the horror was (as mentioned earlier) fairly tame. He manages to provide a decent amount of shock during the kills, which despite their tame nature and lack of gore managed to at least come quickly after some tense development. The acting performances were positive as well, as I watched a subtitled version and not a dubbed one, which I recommend for those who wish to see/hear the actors in their truest form. 70′s horror films are known for their great atmosphere, and while I found Solares’ sets OK his atmosphere could have been a bit spookier, but it seems the film was not really going for scares but just shock value in general.

Overall, Satanico Pandomonium is a cool flick that provides a unique storyline rarely used in the horror genre, a storyline with a nun as the source of its horror. The story moves a bit slow and the direction suffers at times due to that, but overall Solares’ direction provides fair horror and in the end makes for a positive watch, just don’t expect any good scares.

Rating: 7/10

First,I want to take a little time to fill you in about myself and where I’m coming from.

I must have been four or five years old when I changed the channel on the television and caught a few minutes of my first horror movie. I didn’t know it at the time but it was an anthology of three separate stories. I had started watching during the end of the last one. A woman,frantically scrambling around her apartment. Someone was after her. Some”thing” wanted her dead.

It was an African Zuni Fetish doll with some of the nastiest teeth ever.

It carried a spear and it made these gutteral “YEEE-AA YEEE-AAA” snarling noises.

I was watching Trilogy Of Terror.

I was horrified.

But I was also intrigued. Something felt right.

Like years later when I got my first Cindy Crawford poster.

Anyyyyway….

My parents had a bunch of horror movies on VHS and they let me start watching the Universal ones. Frankenstein,Dracula,The Mummy. As much as I liked horror movies,they still scared me. My parents TOLD me it was “make-believe” but it wasn’t until I SAW “Making Michael Jackson’s Thriller.”

Make-up.

Normal people. Made into monsters.

It wasn’t real!

For the next twenty one years I watched as much horror as I could get my hands on. As I got older I was allowed to watch certain ones. My parents were cool but not that cool. I will always remember saving up 9.99 and secretly buying Dawn Of The Dead

Seriously. I rented everything.

And now I want to talk about it.

William D. Carl

This Week’s Feature Presentation:

THE BABY (1973)

Welcome to Bill’s Bizarre Bijou, where you’ll discover the strangest films ever made.  If there are alien women with too much eye-shadow and miniskirts, if papier-mâché monsters are involved, if your local drive-in insisted this be the last show in their dusk till dawn extravaganza, or if it’s just plain unclassifiable – then I’ve seen it and probably loved it.   Now, I’m here to share these little gems with you, so you too can stare in disbelief at your television with your mouth dangling open.  Trust me, with these flicks, you won’t believe your eyes.

Don’t you miss the Seventies?  Movies were made and distributed to theaters and drive-ins all over the country that were shocking, icky, monstrous, fun, and morally ambiguous, usually all in the same film.  You couldn’t make a movie like these today, let alone find a way to get them shown to people in real cinemas.  At least, not without being arrested.  And we’re only talking about the PG rated ones!  Such a film is 1973’s THE BABY, a psycho drama / black comedy / social issues film / horror / slasher / camp-fest.  Let’s face it; the damn thing’s not going to fit into one labeled box.  And that’s part of what makes me love it so much!

Anjanette Comer (THE LOVED ONE-1965, FIVE DESPERATE WOMEN-1971, DEAD OF NIGHT-1977) stars as Ann Gentry, a fresh-faced, enthusiastic welfare case worker who has begged to be put on the ‘Baby’ case.  When she goes to the run-down house to investigate for the state, she finds a young man simply called Baby who has, in his twenties, gone far beyond being mentally challenged,.  He can’t talk, can’t walk, can’t feed himself, and Ann believes he is being kept in this advanced stage of retardation by negative reinforcement doled out by his mother, Mrs. Wadsworth (the great Ruth Roman of STRANGERS ON A TRAIN-1951, THE WINDOW-1949, THE FAR COUNTRY-1954, and numerous television credits.)  Mrs. Wadsworth is an odd duck, all right.  Boozily flouncing around, she proudly informs Ann that the whole family lives on the welfare checks Baby earns for them.  If you think the mother is a nut-job, wait till you meet the two adult daughters.  Marianna Hill (Cleo Patrick on the 1966 BATMAN TV series, MESSIAH OF EVIL-1973, and BLOOD BEACH-1980) is Germaine, a statuesque gal with crazy piled up hair that makes her look as though she’s on her way to a midnight meeting of the local coven.  She also has Sapphic tendencies toward Ann and likes to sneak into Baby’s room to breast feed him at night.  Ewww!  The other daughter, Alba, is played by Suzanne Zenor, who had small roles in films as varied as PLAY IT AGAIN SAM-1972, THE WAY WE WERE-1973, and the Joan Rivers/Billy Crystal fiasco RABBIT TEST-1978.  She always has an odd facial expression, as though she smells something rotten in the room, and she likes to “discipline” Baby with a cattle prod.  Yes, there’s definitely something nasty going on in the Wadsworth domicile.

Marianna Hill as Germaine in THE BABY.

Ann is determined to get Baby out of the hands of these three clearly insane women.  First, she attempts to prove that Baby has normal musculature and tries to get him to walk.  She then attempts to get Mrs. Wadsworth to take Baby to a psychiatrist or a group home.  “It’s not like an asylum,” she chirps.  “It’s more like a spa.”  Mrs. Wadsworth stands firm, finally tiring of Ann’s snooping around.  So, she reports Ann to her boss, claiming some horrible action that gets Ann thrown off the case.   By now, our chipper little case worker is completely obsessed with Baby, to a point where you begin to wonder who the craziest person in the room is.  After all, Ann is living in a huge mansion with her manly mother-in-law and she claims that her husband has had a terrible accident.  Where’s the husband?  What happened to him?  And why does the mother-in-law look and dress like a prison matron?

Baby has a birthday bash in THE BABY (1973)

Mrs. Wadsworth invites Ann to Baby’s birthday party, so she can see for herself how the family interacts in a typical social environment.  Well, if this is typical, I was brought up all wrong!  Everyone is smoking doobies, everyone is disco dancing to wild wah-wah guitar music, everyone is collapsing onto sofas in groups of two or three and kissing, all while Baby crawls around their gyrating legs with cake icing on his face.  At one point, Germaine is hit on by Dennis, a party guest, who then switches his fixation to Alba.

Dennis-“You have beautiful skin.”

Germaine-“Are you a dermatologist?”

Dennis-“No, just a skin freak.”

Dennis is played by the wonderfully sleazy character actor Michael Pataki, who graced such films as THE RETURN OF COUNT YORGA-1971, THE BAT PEOPLE-1974, DRACULA’S DOG-1978, THE ONION FIELD-1979, and ROCKY IV-1985.  He’s hilarious in this scene.  All the time he’s flirting shameless, Mrs. Wadsworth and her girls drug Ann and drag her into another room, where they tie her up and plot how to kill her.  Dennis remains oblivious.

Ann escapes, and she takes Baby with her, kidnapping the young man, taking pictures of him standing on his own, and sending the photos to the Wadsworths.  The women are infuriated, and they arm up and head off to Ann’s mansion where the final showdown – and the final secrets of the plot – will all unravel.  Will Baby end up with Ann or the Wadsworths?  Why has Ann been so obsessed with this case?  And what’s up with the weird masculine mother-in-law?  The ending is shocking and horrifying in a way the rest of the movie isn’t.  In the final scenes, when we discover exactly what is really going on, we are forced to question everything we’ve seen thus far, and the final shot is one haunting freeze frame.

Mama loves her baby! Ruth Roman in THE BABY

Yes, THE BABY is a freaky movie that will simultaneously delight and disturb you.  On one hand, the movie is campy as all get-out, filled with great one-liners you want to immediately repeat.  But no one can say these lines like Ruth Roman.  Rolling her eyes, gnashing her teeth, her cigarette always in the corner of her white-trash cussing mouth, and her hair always getting higher and higher, she is the poster child for Munchhausen Syndrome.  Or Joan Crawford Acting School Syndrome.  She gives it her all, growling, barking, screaming, and petting Baby in an entirely inappropriate manner.  She really makes the movie horribly hilarious.  But, on the disturbing side, we can’t forget Anjanette Comer, who creates a very disturbing character, one who has her own set of issues and a horrifying agenda, all masked by a beautiful face and a great set of gams.  The battle over Baby between these two formidable women makes the movie fun in a way that may make you want to take a shower later.  You won’t easily get the movie out of your head.

The director, Ted Post, made a name for himself in television, directing episodes of 1960s and 70s shows like GUNSMOKE, COMBAT, RAWHIDE, and THE TWILIGHT ZONE.  He also made great creepy TV-movies like DO NOT FOLD, SPINDLE, OR MUTILATE (1971) and DR. COOK’S GARDEN (1971).  He also directed the very good BENEATH THE PLANET OF THE APES in 1970.  THE BABY relies on his television roots.  It looks flat and the color palette pretty much seems like sun-washed California, all quite serviceable if a bit pedestrian.  It has the subdued look of an ABC MOVIE OF THE WEEK.  It’s the script by Abe Polsky (REBEL ROUSERS-1970) that brings this one to life.  You have to wonder what kind of crazed mind came up with this sick plot.

Despite the obvious budgetary constrictions, THE BABY emerges as a taut thriller, a campy twisted comedy, a horror film, and a disturbing look at what people will do when they are desperate.  God, I do miss the Seventies!

THE BABY gets three and a half giant hair-dos out of four.

© Copyright 2012 by William D. Carl

THE WICKER MAN (the original 1973 version —not the 2006 root canal of a remake) is a rarity among movies.  There’s a sense of playfulness to it, a little absurdity, Christopher Lee in a dress, a couple musical numbers…then an ending that completely blindsides you.  You can have as much fun the second time around watching, if not more.  Thus, it’s perfect to invite friends over for a flick and some food.

A police sergeant is called to a small Scottish island to investigate the disappearance of a young girl who may or may not even exist.  He finds the tiny village is run by gleeful pagans.  Being a devout Christian himself, he is immediately suspicious of them and knows their sacrilegious ways must mean a horrible fate awaits the child.  But can he discover what they’re up to before it’s too late?

WARNING—THE FOOD PREPARED HERE INCLUDE SPOILERS.  TRUST ME, DO NOT CONTINUE IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THIS MOVIE, OR HEARD ABOUT THE ENDING!

This time around, I will not be including a cocktail.  Just about everything drunk during THE WICKER MAN was ale.  A recipe for ale would be a bit boring: get bottle, open bottle, drink, repeat.  So instead, grab your favorite ale, and enjoy a two-part main dish.

As the harvest festival grows closer in the movie, there are loaves of bread made to look like a Sun God.  Why not have your own for the meal?

SUN GOD BREAD

All you need is a tube of refrigerated crescent dough.  If you find one that is uncut, simply unroll and get to work.  If not, simply unroll the whole thing and seal any perforations.  Preheat the oven to 375 degrees.  Cut a circle from the dough, place on an ungreased baking sheet, place triangles of dough around the circumference for the sun’s rays and create a face from any leftover dough (the amount of detail in the face is directly related to whatever artistic talent you may have).  Bake for approximately 13 minutes, or until golden brown.

#

I did some research into Scottish stews, and it seems there are two ingredients that separate it from other countries’ stews: red currant jam and oatmeal.  Sounds like breakfast, but, in fact, it makes for a tasty meal.

SCOTTISH BEEF STEW

Ingredients:

1 pound beef stew meat, cut into 1 inch pieces
1 pound tiny potatoes
4 carrots cut, into bite size pieces
4 stalks celery, cut into bite size pieces
1 onion, cut into large chunks
1 pint mushrooms, quartered
¾ cup red wine
2 tbsp tomato paste
1 tbsp red currant jelly
2 tbsp oatmeal
1 carton (32oz) beef broth

Directions:

Brown the meat in a large pot.  Add the red wine and bring to a boil.  Once it is boiling, add the jelly and tomato paste.  Stir until they are melted together.  Add the rest of the ingredients.  Bring to a boil.  Cover and simmer for two hours.  Enjoy with a slice of the Sun God bread!

#

Now, dessert is where the fun begins.  There is no better way to end this meal than with a Wicker Cake, and it’s rather simple.

WICKER CAKE

Prepare a box of cake mix (I used Duncan Hines Butter Cake) as directed on the package, and bake it in a 13×9 pan.  Have a baking sheet with sides ready.  Once the cake is cooled, cut into six pieces: a large rectangle for the body, four narrow rectangles for the limbs (cut an angle for the arms so they hang slightly at the body) and a small square for the head.  Arrange them on the baking sheet, trimming as needed to fit.  Congratulations—you now have a Wicker Cake. 

THE WICKER MAN is a truly scary movie that still has a sense of humor about itself.  There’s no reason not to share that good-natured fun with your meal as well.

© Copyright 2012 by Jenny Orosel