horror

Dracula’s Children

/ swampflix / 8 Comments

Like all corners of the creative arts, Universal Picture’s classic horror period was overrun with nepo babies.  Carl Laemmle, Jr. kicked off the studio’s Famous Monsters brand by producing 1931’s Dracula after Carl Laemmle, Sr. passed down his studio-head executive position to his son instead of a more qualified protégée.  Lon Chaney, Jr. changed his name from Creighton Chaney to cash in on the name recognition of his early-horror legend father, making him a more credible, marketable Wolf Man.  Then, of course, there’s the case of Dracula’s children, who waltzed into power in Universal’s most prestigious sequels after their father’s untimely second death at the end of the first film in their franchise.  While The Wolf Man fathered no cubs to take over his sequels, and Frankenstein’s Monster only made it thirty seconds into his own marriage before burning down the lab, Dracula’s progeny did a good job making the most of their family name.  The Dracula kids don’t appear to have met or crossed paths, but their polygamous father did have multiple wives in the first film, so I suppose that doesn’t undermine the series’ narrative continuity.

Much like the goofier Frankenstein sequels from this early Universal period, 1936’s Dracula’s Daughter is an absurdly direct follow-up to the Tod Browning original.  The film opens with Van Helsing being arrested for Dracula’s murder at the scene of the crime, and then spending the rest of the film convincing his jailers that actual, real-life vampires are afoot.  Dracula’s immediate replacement is his angsty goth-girl daughter, who is reluctant to continue the family business of draining innocent civilians of their blood despite it being the only thing she’s trained to do.  She’s rebelled by moving to the big city, where she stalks the streets as a bisexual vamp, picking up hungry artists’ models and lustful playboys to drain back at her spacious parlor.  Foretelling a lot of the later Famous Monster sequels, she feels incredibly guilty about this blood-addiction vice and spends most of the film seeking a medical cure for the family legacy that has shunned her from polite society & daylight – ultimately to no avail.  Inevitably, like all nepo babies, she ends up not being able to strike it out on her own after all and moves back to the family castle in Transylvania for some super traditional Dracula kills, meeting the same tragic end as her father.

Like the direct sequel to James Whale’s original Frankenstein movie, Dracula’s Daughter has earned more critical respect in recent decades than the film that precedes it.  Its reputation has largely risen due to the sexual transgressions of its lesbian seduction scene, in which the titular vampire convinces a young woman to expose her bare neck for the sucking by telling her she’s going to pose for a nude portrait.  Likewise, Bride of Frankenstein‘s gender politics have drawn a lot of attention with modern viewers for the concluding scene in which the titular monster takes one look at her assigned undead groom and decides she’d rather be dead (again) than mate with her “man.”  Of the two films, Bride of Frankenstein is the better direct sequel overall, since Whale was given unprecedented creative freedom to play up the stranger, campier elements of his original text in an anything-goes horror comedy free-for-all that doesn’t even bother to deliver on its central premise until the final three minutes of runtime.  By contrast, Dracula’s Daughter has the generosity of affording its titular villain plenty screentime & pathos, which is invaluable in the Boys Club of Universal’s Famous Monsters.  Like the Monster’s bride, she effortlessly, tragically cool, so it’s nice that we actually get to spend time with her beyond a few quick frames of celluloid.

While Dracula’s Daughter exemplifies the Famous Monsters sequels’ penchant for direct, narrative continuations set seconds after their preceding films’ endings, 1943’s Son of Dracula exemplifies their penchant for wildly recasting the central villains from film to film.  The most hilarious example I’ve seen is Bela Lugosi’s miscasting as the Monster in Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man, a performance so laughably unconvincing that studio executives decided to remove his heavily accented dialogue from the final cut, fearing audience mockery.  Lon “Wolf Man” Chaney, Jr. made more visual sense as the Monster in the previous picture, Son of Frankenstein, but could not be tasked with sitting in the makeup chair for two separate monster performances in the same picture (not to mention the narrative contrivance of Lugosi/Igor’s brain being transplanted to the Monster’s body at the end of Son of Frankenstein).  Appropriately enough, that film was made the same year Chaney got his own laughably bad Famous Monster miscasting as the mysterious “Count Aculard” in 1943’s Son of Dracula.  The reason Chaney works so well in his tyepcast roles as The Wolf Man, Frankenstein’s Monster, and Lennie from Of Mice and Men is that he looks like a sweet, lumbering oaf who doesn’t know his own strength.  That image doesn’t translate especially well to playing a debonaire European vampire who seduces women to their doom.

Despite Count Aculard’s ridiculous appearance and name (which registers among the all-time goofiest horror pseudonyms, like Dr. Acula in Night of the Ghouls, Jack Rippner in Red Eye, and Louis Cyphre in Angel Heart), Son of Dracula is a surprisingly solid supernatural melodrama.  Unlike his rebellious daughter, Dracula’s son has enthusiastically taken to the family business of seducing young women to death, moving to a Southern plantation to hypnotize & marry its recent heiress.  Dracula’s daughter-in-law is a bit of a gloomy goth herself, and she attempts to manipulate the power of the Dracula dynasty for her own wicked profits, but the inevitable tragedy of the undead couple’s Southern Gothic surroundings makes a happy ending impossible.  For his part, Count Aculard adjusts to the Southern atmosphere incredibly well, literally becoming a part of it by materializing as swamp gas in his nightly rises from the coffin.  The movie carries over a lot of classic spooky set dressing of the original Dracula film despite this new locale, including a return to the flapping rubber bats that were missing from Dracula’s Daughter.  Still, it’s visually accomplished in continually surprising ways, including an early version of the double-dolly shots from Spike Lee’s playbook as Count Aculard glides over the marshes to drain his victims.

Pumping out cheap-o sequels to Universal’s most successful horror films was obviously more about doing great business than it was about making great art.  Through the tougher stretches of The Great Depression & WWII, the Famous Monsters that made Universal a major player in the first place were a near bottomless well for immediate cashflow.  Frankenstein & The Wolf Man got stuck with the goofiest, trashiest end of that rushed-to-market schlock production, and by the time their many crossover sequels brought an off-brand version of Dracula into the fold (in John Carradine), the character was so far removed from Bela Lugosi’s performance in the original that it could do no real damage to the Dracula brand.  Meanwhile, Dracula’s more direct sequels about his undead children are both very stately, handsome productions that hold up on their own among the best of Universal’s early horror run.  Dracula’s Daughter is certainly the cooler of the pair and has rightfully been reappraised as a great work by modern critics.  Son of Dracula would likely earn its own reappraisal too, if it weren’t for the goofy miscasting of Lon Chaney, Jr. as the titular vampire.  Unsurprisingly, nepotism is a double-edged sword, one that can open opportunities you’re not always the best fit for.

-Brandon Ledet

Podcast #197: The Wolf Man (1941) & Other Wolf Men

/ swampflix / 4 Comments

Welcome to Episode #197 of The Swampflix Podcast. For this episode, James, Brandon, and Hanna discuss four horror movies about werewolves, starting with Universal’s genre-defining classic The Wolf Man (1941).

00:00 Welcome

04:29 Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987)
09:50 Saw X (2023)
11:52 They Shoot Horses, Don’t They? (1969)
18:02 The Royal Hotel (2023)
20:07 Hotel Coolgardie (2016)

22:06 The Wolf Man (1941)
40:05 An American Werewolf in London (1981)
56:03 Dog Soldiers (2002)
1:10:06 Wolf Guy: Enraged Lycanthrope (1975)

You can stay up to date with our podcast through SoundCloud, Spotify, iTunes, TuneIn, or by following the links on this page.

-The Podcast Crew

Beyond Dream’s Door (1989)

/ swampflix / 3 Comments

Most of my favorite art tends to get labeled as “Bad Movies” outright, as if “Bad Movies” were a legitimate, defined genre.  Snarky mockery of low-budget genre films accounts for a lot of movie-nerd culture in a post-MST3k world, without much thought to what the “Bad Movie” label even means.  Friends will gather for regular, celebratory Bad Movie Night rituals, and then log the films watched on Letterboxd with a half-star review that reads “I had the time of my life watching this! The most entertaining movie ever made.”  It’s driven me to the conclusion that what most people label as “Bad Movies” is really just underfunded outsider art. There’s a discomfort in stepping outside the systemic quality controls of a professional production, but those same controls can also dampen the personalities & idiosyncrasies of the artists behind those productions.  When someone says they love watching Bad Movies, there’s a cognitive dissonance between objective quality in craft and the subjective enjoyment of the audience.  To me, nothing made with ecstatic passion and highly entertaining results could ever truly be “Bad”; it’s just art that requires you to readjust what you expect out of Movies in general.  What good is consistency, coherence, and logic in a robust, mainstream production if the images feel limp & uninspired when compared to their no-budget equivalents?

Beyond Dream’s Door is A+ outsider art that I’m sure has made the rounds among the irony-poisoned Bad Movies crowd.  It’s an easy target for that kind of mockery, inviting laughter as soon as you hear the first few sitcom-level line deliveries from its subprofessional actors.  If you can stifle your snickering long enough to stick with it, though, Beyond Dream’s Door proves to be an ideal example of passion outweighing resources.  It recreates the nightmare surrealism of the Elm Street series, restricted by the production values of a 16mm regional-horror cheapie but also much freer to disregard the boundary between its dream sequences and waking “reality.”  The emotional & narrative logic behind its nightmare imagery isn’t especially deep or nuanced; it hinges its entire premise on the cryptic idiom “Beyond dream’s door is where horror lies,” and it contextualizes all of its action within a university’s Psychology program so it can make room for brief, vague lectures on “psychosis.”  It also relies on frequent dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream rug pull surprises, making it clear that nothing in the characterizations or story matters as much as establishing a consistently fun, unnerving sense of dream logic in its low-budget aesthetics.  At times, it’s transcendent in what it achieves within that seemingly limited frame, even recalling the headlights crime scene terror of a David Lynch nightmare (years before those exact images were echoed in Lynch’s Lost Highway).  And yet, it’s the exact kind of sub-professional production that instantly gets slapped with the “Bad Movie” label, while more venerated, traditionally trained artists like Lynch are afforded the benefit of the doubt.

The story of a Psychology student’s stress dreams breaking out of his skull to infect the reality of (and physically attack) his classmates isn’t sketched out with much detail, give or take his dreams finding a demonic mascot in the movie’s special guest star The Suckling.  Mostly, Beyond Dream’s Door follows its moment-to-moment whims to create movie magic on a college student budget.  Beyond posing a few dreamworld images in a blacked-out sound stage void, most of its action is staged in generic, practical locales.  The film attempts to make liminal spaces out of the mundane, Skinamarinking its suburban homes through confused geography and warping the empty halls of its academic institutions through video surveillance displays.  It conjures a literal demon through a college sleep study gone awry, but most of its horror is established in the uncertainty of where its dreams begin & end.  Lightbulbs explode in slow-motion close-up to punctuate the shock of being dunked back into a recurring nightmare.  Clear glass skulls fill with running water to erase the physical humanity of the characters navigating the dreamworld.  Disembodied arms rise from an open grave like time-elapsed flower growth, shot in psychedelic red & blue crosslighting.  The narrative may be simple, but the visual language is constantly surprising, never lazy or needlessly repetitious.  This is clearly the work of cinephiles striving to make the best possible movie they can with the resources they have within reach. It’s noticeably cheap, but it’s also thoroughly wonderful.

The main reason I love horror as a genre is because it makes this kind of dream-logic outsider art commercially viable in a way no other medium can.  If a group of college students made an avant-garde art film about the thin veil between dreams & reality, it’s extremely liable to have been forgotten to time (unless it was an early project for a director who later earned a mainstream fanbase, like Lynch).  By contrast, Beyond Dream’s Door has a kind of built-in, infinitely repopulated audience who will always be voracious for more nightmare-logic horror schlock, especially after they’ve run through the official Elm Street films a few dozen times.  It seems conscious of its debt to the larger horror genre in that way, reaching beyond the visual touchstones of an obvious Freddy Kruger knockoff to instead make allusions to Hitchcock’s Psycho and Steven King’s novel IT.  The need for scares & gore to attract an audience serves the film well structurally, giving it momentary goals to achieve beyond crafting artsy images with literal arts & crafts supplies.  The would’ve been just as great without its more overt horror elements, though; it would just also have far fewer eyes on it.  A lot of my favorite filmmakers fit into that same category: underfunded visionaries like Ed Wood, Roger Corman, and William Castle, who managed to make & sell wildly entertaining pictures on shoestring budgets by working on the B-horror margins.  They’re the exact kind of names that end up on lists titled “The Best of the Bad” instead of earning the label they truly deserve, “The Best Outsider American Filmmakers.”  I haven’t seen enough of Jay Woelful’s directorial work to say he belongs in that same conversation, but I can confirm Beyond Dream’s Door admirably continues the tradition.

-Brandon Ledet

The Severing (2023)

/ swampflix / Leave a comment

Without question, the strangest moviegoing experience I’ve had all year was attending a repertory screening of the 2002 supernatural thriller The Mothman Prophecies, presented by a formerly incarcerated member of the West Memphis Three in a series about ceremonial magick.  There was just something intensely odd about seeing such a flavorless, anonymous PG-13 Studio Horror presented as a deeply spiritual text.  And just a few months later, I am once again confronted with a bizarrely idiosyncratic presentation of director Mark Pellington’s workman-for-hire artistry.  Pellington’s filmmaking career peaked in the Y2k era with The Mothman Prophecies & Arlington Road, two serviceable thrillers with mainstream appeal.  His most recent feature, The Severing, is borderline avant-garde in contrast, enduring a slow-trickle rollout from smaller festivals like Slamdance to the public library-supported streaming service Hoopla.  It’s an abstract interpretive dance horror film made in collaboration between Pellington (whose involvement doesn’t make much sense) and Nina McNeely, the choreographer of Climax (whose involvement makes all the sense).  Like The Broad’s recent screening of The Mothman Prophecies, this really was one of the stranger viewing experiences I’ve enjoyed all year, and although neither were especially great films, they were at the very least memorable.

I guess this film makes sense within Pellington’s larger catalog if you know him primarily as a music video director, which is the side hustle that’s been paying his bills since well before his feature-length breakout in Arlington Road.  Shot with a small dance crew in a single, crumbling warehouse locale, The Severing is essentially a feature-length music video without much actual music to speak of.  Composer Peter Adams mostly works in light piano twinkles and long, droning tones, so that the interpretive dance artistry on display never convincingly builds to any kind of crescendo or catharsis.  However, if you hit the mute button and throw on your favorite Nine Inch Nails record as soundtrack replacement, it’s easy to see the spooky mood Pellington & crew were aiming for.  The dancers craft some gorgeous, upsetting images throughout, painted in full-body bruising that makes them look like rhythmically decomposing corpses.  Their movements are pained & frustrated, often stuck in repetitive, throbbing movements like looping .GIFs.  The warehouse locale is lit with the sickly fluorescent washes of vintage torture porn, recalling the haunted house your dirtbag cousin worked at on the weekends more than a professional movie set.  It’s eerie, it’s uncanny, but it’s mostly hung off the shoulders of the contorted dancers and their avant-garde choreographer.  Pellington’s generic-horror touches mostly just get in their way.

Replacing the soundtrack with your industrial rock album of choice would help cover up some of the ill-advised dialogue snippets that distract from the dancers’ onscreen movements, but the film’s high school goth poetry is still inescapable as constant, on-screen text.  Title cards & incoherent ramblings about how we shallow humans “move like lemmings” or how “sleep is a doorway to the 4th dimension” detract from the inherent tension & beauty of the dance choreography.  In a year when horror has been shaken up by slow-cinema abstractions like Skinamarink, The Outwaters, and Enys Men, it’s frustrating to see a formal experiment like this repeatedly ground itself instead of fully giving into its true, alienating self.  Since my familiarity with Pellington is as an openly, thoroughly commercial director, I’m assuming a lot of that normalized framing is his doing.  As such, this is more of a balletic echo of the Michael Jackson “Thriller” video than it is some jarring breakthrough in cinematic form.  It makes for great spooky background imagery for the Halloween season, but it’s frustrating that it couldn’t amount to more than that, since there’s some truly powerful artistry expressed through these tortured, writhing bodies.  A more daring, adventurous director would’ve matched the dancers’ artistic boldness in their own visual medium, but there’s something to be said for Pellington’s workman spirit getting this project completed & distributed at all.

-Brandon Ledet

Buzz Cut (2022)

/ swampflix / Leave a comment

There’s not a lot of information online about Buzz Cut, a New Zealand film from a couple of years ago that recently made its stateside debut. With most movies, you’ll see some variation between multiple synopses on different websites, but everywhere that the film has any online presence at all, the informative text is identical, from IMDb to the movie’s few sparse reviews to the description on Hoopla (where I found it): The Hash House Harriers (“a drinking club with a running problem”) encounter a killer Bee Keeper in a crazy Kiwi horror-comedy that is part Animal House and part 80’s slasher movie. It sounds promising, especially since NZ churned out one of the best horror comedies of the last decade with 2014’s Housebound (directed by future M3GAN helmer Gerard Johnstone). More, the film has a great retro horror poster featuring the film’s slasher, an apiarist (that is, a beekeeper) wielding a chainsaw while surrounded by bees and featuring two great taglines: “By the time you hear the buzzing[,] it’s too late” and “Bee prepared, bee warned, bee scared!” Unfortunately, although there are a few pretty funny bits throughout, some great stylistic choices, and a fairly well-developed plot for a parody, the film’s tendency toward outdated, mean-spirited humor makes the film feel like a throwback in a bad way. 

Jemma is the newest member of the Hash House Harriers, a group of runners who meet up once a year to go on a nature run and spend some time getting sloshed in a cabin. Jemma is especially out of her depth here, since the co-worker who invited her has contracted a bug that renders him unable to participate that year, and the other dozen or so participants are all strangers to her, although not to each other. The main case feels large and unwieldy at first, since it’s naturally a pretty large crew owing to the nature of slashers meaning they’re going to have to start dropping like flies sooner or later. We get two introductions to all of them, the fist of which comes as the camera moves through the converted bus on which they’re en route to “The Hash” and labels each of them with their “hash names,” which range from raunchy puns (Wino-na Ride-Her, Sir Cum Navigator) to mocking insults (Mini-Schlong, Fugly Moa, Rigid Beef Whistle) to what I think are NZ references that are impenetrable to me (Gnarly Barney, Angry Dragon, Gorb). When the gang stops for a rest break, Sir Cum provides Jemma, who has yet to be given a hash name, additional introduction to the players via bits of exposition about each member of the group … and drops a transphobic slur right out of the gate. 

So … yeah — when the film cites one of its influences as Animal House, we’re not talking about the parts where Dean Wormer delivers a hilarious speech about why he wants to get rid of Delta House, or the food fight, or the guitar smashing, or the unbelievable series of events leading up to the fate of that poor horse, we’re talking about the parts where our heroes use the word “n*gro,” play fast and loose with sexual assault and statutory laws, and all the other things that have aged more and more poorly in intervening years. This kind of shit is often present in slashers of yore, but it feels like writer-director Martin Renner really overshot the mark with this retro throwback and ended up in territory that’s not difficult to watch because it’s offensive (which it is), but because it’s not very funny. It stands out in sharp relief to a lot of other good jokes in the script. There’s a particularly funny sequence where the group gathers and drunkenly (and stonedly) argue about social mores, eating habits, and pop culture in a way that betrays both their present inebriation and their intrinsic idiocy. Dim-witted pretty boy Gnarly Barney mistakes Mini-Schlong’s statement that he’s a pescatarian as a profession of faith; Sir Cum is furious that Schlong believes that Deckard is a replicant; Barney confuses Stephen Hawking and Stephen King, and Angry Dragon is stuck on the idea that Star Trek star DeForest Kelley was somehow involved with the clearcutting of the Amazon because she’s hung up on his first name. It’s proof positive that the talent behind this film are not without comedic insight and ability and that they could have produced a funnier movie if they had reined in some of the bits that push past humorously raunchy into retch-inducing territory and cut all the racist shit. 

The film called to mind The FP, another independently produced parody of bygone genre gems, and another which wore its filmmaking competence on its sleeve while being mired down in making cheap jokes that punch down. There are some great stylistic choices here that betray a cleverness that carries over into the script, but only, like, 50% of it. I particularly like the use of old-timey black & white interstitials that explain the hash, and the bit where the pranksters in the group have to navigate the presence of two separate “local farmer with ominous warning” archetypes. In another callback to the cheapy horror flicks of yesteryear, there are two distinct scenes with gratuitous partial frontal nudity, and as the second takes place at a strip club visited in flashback, the characters gathered around to hear this story mock the teller for the unnecessary setting and narrative focus. It’s not that there’s nothing here to enjoy, but I’ve really skipped over a lot of things that are just awful. For instance, one of the runners is a New Zealander of Chinese descent, dudded out as a Rastafarian and going by the hash name “Bruce Ma Lee” (get it?). In one of his very few scenes, his every line of dialogue consists solely of describing the shapes of clouds as various couplings and copulations of his clubmates using language that is as puerile as it is exaggeratedly “broken.” Although there are many things about it that I wish I could recommend, you only get four free borrows from Hoopla a month, and I wouldn’t burn one of them on Buzz Cut. 

-Mark “Boomer” Redmond

Lagniappe Podcast: The Exorcist III (1990)

/ swampflix / 4 Comments

For this lagniappe episode of The Swampflix Podcast, Boomer and Brandon discuss the supernatural horror sequel The Exorcist III (1990), written & directed by the author of the original Exorcist‘s source novel.

00:00 Welcome

04:22 House on Haunted Hill (1999)
12:22 Jacob’s Ladder (1990)
14:47 Talk to Me (2023)
26:12 Aporia (2023)
27:59 Freejack (1992)
30:12 Buzzcut (2022)
31:56 Mission: Impossible – Fallout (2018)
34:02 No One Will Save You (2023)
39:36 Fire in the Sky (1993)
48:52 Cult of Chucky (2017)
56:50 The Craft (1996)
1:03:53 The Craft: Legacy (2020)

1:07:35 The Exorcist III (1990)

You can stay up to date with our podcast through SoundCloud, Spotify, iTunes, TuneIn, or by following the links on this page.

-The Lagniappe Podcast Crew

No One Will Save You (2023)

/ swampflix / 6 Comments

Brynn Adams is alone. She doesn’t seem to be all that troubled by it, at least most of the time. She wiles away the hours in the sumptuous country home that she occupies by herself like a woman unstuck in time: she learns decades-old dance steps from numbered diagrams while listening to Ruby Murray’s “Knock On Any Door” from 1956; she designs and creates her own dresses; she’s even recreated the entire town of Mill River in miniature in her living room. When she ventures into the real town, she ducks to avoid certain people, and when she attempts to interact with others, all she gets in return are sneers and frigid shoulders. The closest thing she seems to have to human contact is a mailman who intentionally damages her packages. Brynn’s been alone for a long time, but she’s about to have … visitors. 

Kaitlyn Dever, who I really liked in last year’s Rosaline, both stars in and executive produces for No One Will Save You, the sophomore directorial effort from Brian Duffield, who is perhaps best known around these parts for writing The Babysitter. I first became aware of the movie after a screenshot of Stephen King calling the film “Brilliant, daring, involving, [and] scary” as well as “Truly unique,” and I went into it blind, which allowed for me to be pleasantly surprised not only by all of the film’s tiny reveals but also its big one; namely, No One is almost entirely dialogue free. Dever is the only performer who ever gets to speak, and it’s telling that her single impactful line is spoken to no one, or at least to no one who can hear her. That’s not to say that she’s not well developed; in fact, I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if this becomes one of those films that achieves cult status through its use as a teaching tool via its masterful adherence to the timeless axion of “Show, don’t tell.” Everything important about Brynn is captured by the filmic eye: the regretful letters she composes to her childhood best friend Maud, her awkward attempts to practice waving and greeting others, her abject terror at the prospect of interacting with a middle-aged couple we later learn are Maud’s parents. The story moves clearly and cleanly without the need for dialogue, as the film cuts seamlessly and smartly between Brynn encountering a situation and her resolution of the same. For instance, in one simple sequence, we watch as Brynn rides her bike into town for help after being unable to start her car, experiencing an extremely unpleasant but nonetheless wordless encounter with Maud’s mother and father (the latter of whom is the chief of police) that reminds her that—as the title tells us—no one will help her, and then immediately cuts to her at a bus station, ticket in hand. There’s no spoon-feeding and there’s no need for it, either. 

We eventually learn what happened between Brynn and Maud that left Brynn a pariah in Mill River, and it’s devastating. Outside of the flashbacks that fill this in, however, the film takes place over a brief time frame of only three days and two nights. The first of these nights sees Brynn (sort of) fend off a home invader, who just so happens to be an extraterrestrial. When she finds herself unable to gather assistance or successfully escape town the following day, she prepares to defend herself for a second night, only for the film to perform a little sleight of hand with its genre, transitioning from the home-invasion-with-an-outer-space-twist narrative to a more introspective form of psychological horror, as the aliens attempt to assimilate Brynn into a pod-people collective. Their means to do so involve tempting her to give up her mind and body through visions of a reality where she is no longer bound by the tragedy of her past and no longer missing the things which have been lost to her. When that doesn’t work, the snare she’s in just gets tighter. 

This movie lives and/or dies on Kaitlyn Dever’s performance, and it’s a testament to her ability that it soars. The camerawork here is likewise deft in the way that the language of pans and zooms keeps us in Brynn’s headspace so effectively; the touch is so lightweight as to make its capture of all the moving parts appear almost effortless. The visual effects work is also top notch; the aliens feel appropriately otherworldly even if the CGI seams are unavoidable, while the film wisely chooses clever takes on familiar ways of visualizing standard abduction phenomena, borrowing heavily from The X-Files and its use of blinding beams of white light (the abductions of Duane Barry in the second season and Max Fenig in season four come to mind), although it also includes occasional pervasive red lighting that calls to mind the opening of Fire in the Sky. The film moves in novel and exciting ways, and it’s well worth checking out. 

-Mark “Boomer” Redmond

Good Boy (2023)

/ swampflix / Leave a comment

Scandinavian cinema has a distinctly fucked up sense of humor to it, so it’s not surprising that two of the year’s best black comedies have been released out of Norway.  Kristoffer Borgli’s debut feature Sick of Myself (in which an art-world narcissist medically self-harms for media attention) is the higher profile of the two, already landing the director a buzzy follow-up starring Nic Cage (in Dream Scenario).  By contrast, the darkly comic Tinder thriller Good Boy is a much smaller, limited production – restricted to just four characters shooting in four sparse locales.  Despite earning a few key critical accolades on the festival circuit (including a coveted spot-on John Waters’s Best Films of the Year list), Sick of Myself is hardly an MCU-scale cultural behemoth worth rooting against in favor of its underfunded underdog.  Still, running only 75 minutes and released to zero fanfare, Good Boy is a fucked up little Norwegian romance drama worth championing for its minor, muted victories, at least so director Viljar Bøe might be able to torture audiences on a much bigger scale in his next production.  There’s plenty of dark Norwegian humor to go around.

Good Boy might not have a professional-level budget, but it does have a killer hook.  It’s a story of unethical puppy play, pulling some uneasy laughs and genuine chills out of the basic discomfort of stumbling into someone else’s elaborate kink scene without context or warning.  After scoring a successful Tinder date with a legitimate millionaire, an unsuspecting Psychology student is introduced to her new beau’s unconventional pet: a human man who spends 24/7 in a dog costume.  Any cautious probing about the weirdness of keeping a human being as a house pet is outright dismissed by the Norwegian Psycho; he responds to reasonable questions like “What’s his deal?” with “He’s a dog.”  Of course, because this is a movie, it turns out the dog’s deal is much sicker than that, and his loving captivity within the millionaire’s household turns out to be less voluntary & consensual than initially let on.  Much less.  The story gradually devolves into full-on torture porn from there, but much in the way that the equivalent American dating-app thriller Fresh did last year: maintaining a wicked sense of humor throughout.  It’s all one big joke about dating a total control freak; he just happens to be a very specific kind of freak.

For all of its kink-scene iconography, Good Boy is less about the degenerate amorality of real-life puppy players than it is about the violent amorality of stubbornly Conservative thinkers, recalling the sickly domesticity of recent titles like Swallow & Hatching.  It dodges a lot of the kink-shaming implications of its premise by doubling down on something we can all agree on: the ultra-wealthy are the world’s true degenerate freaks.  It undeniably banks on the viewer’s kneejerk discomfort with other people’s private kink play scenarios, though, drawing just as much terror out of the human-dog’s elaborate furry costuming (his mask has a hinged jaw!) as it does out of the violence that keeps him living the fantasy.  Speaking personally, the movie didn’t change the way I think about narcissist millionaires, trad homesteaders, or proudly kinky puppy players.  However, it did change how I interacted with my dog for the next couple days, causing me to pause while feeding her, pilling her, and getting her ready for bed to consider just how strange of a relationship we have on either side of the pet-owner divide.  It may not be an especially deep movie, thematically, but it still made something familiar & routine feel totally alien & horrific in its immediate afterglow, which is all I can really ask for out of a prankish, low-budget horror movie.

-Brandon Ledet

The Beast (1975)

/ swampflix / 1 Comment

I’ve watched a few disparate adaptations & reinterpretations of Beauty and the Beast in recent years, each with their own unique window into the dark magic of the fairy tale: the intensely sensual surrealism of the French version from 1946, the tactile storybook atmospherics of the Czech version from 1979, the Internet Age psychedelia of the animated Japanese version from 2021.  All of these retellings of the “tale as old as time” have, of course, touched on the hesitant attraction of an innocent young woman to a wounded, mysterious brute, but they also all ultimately focus more on the brute’s troubled past & cursed homelife than the inner life of the vulnerable beauty who loves him.  That’s where Walerian Borowczyk’s take on Beauty and the Beast finds new, forbidden territory worthy to explore (as a French adaptation from a Polish director, as long as we’re tracking geography).  A profane masterpiece of erotic menace & goofball social satire, Borowczyk’s perversion of the Beauty of the Beast template delves deeper into the monstrous extremes of women’s desire & pleasure than any other retelling I can name, to the point where the titular beast is merely a prop, a piece of furniture.  And wait until you see what the women do to the furniture!  The Beast is also singular its smutty eagerness to roll around in its own filth, an instinct that eventually pushes past the absurd into the sublime.  It’s the only version of this story I’ve seen that reasonably compares to the 1940s Cocteau film that defines so many adaptations’ basic visual language, mostly because both works were clearly made for abject perverts.

Technically, The Beast is not an adaptation of the 18th century fairy tale at all, at least not in terms of plot.  Like the recent anime version in Belle, Borowczyk’s film assumes the audience’s overfamiliarity with the source material, using its basic iconography for shorthand to push & warp its broader themes to new extremes.  This is still a story where a young, naive woman is married off to a cursed, wretched beast as a desperate financial ploy, with the deep sadness of their newly shared castle’s faded glory haunting their tentative romance.  And just in case you don’t catch his allusions to the fairy tale, Borowczyk hands the beast’s would-be bride a single red rose as a symbol of their delicate union.  It’s just that this is the kind of film where the young beauty mashes that rose into her clitoris as an unconventional masturbation tool, destroying it in lustful mania while entertaining a zoological ravishment fantasy that would make even the most jaded cinephile blush.  You’d think there’s nothing left that a Beauty and the Beast tale could do to surprise an audience, considering how many times it’s been retold & reshaped over the past few centuries.  The Beast dropped my jaw in shock in its very first frame, which zooms in on the textbook veterinary details of equine genital arousal.  The movie opens with relentless, repetitive images of erect horse cocks, fairly warning the audience that if you stick around long enough you will watch beasts fuck in intense biological detail.  You won’t find that kind of novelty in either of Disney’s retellings of the tale, but Borowczyk’s version has a way of distilling it down to its most essential, throbbing parts.

The beastly beau in this picture is the poorly socialized nephew of a decrepit French baron, living in a Grey Gardens style faded estate in the rot of long-lost wealth.  Hoping that a traditional Christian marriage will bring the mysteriously disgraced family back into the royal fold, they arrange for the ancient nobleman’s brother, a highly reputable Cardinal, to ordain his weirdo nephew’s union with a spritely British heiress.  Only, the heir to the estate is a hopeless loser, spending every waking moment in the stables overseeing an intensive horse-breeding program with a fervor that pushes beyond the practical to the disturbed.  Luckily, his wife-to-be is just as much of a shameless pervert, immediately matching the unholy, decadent vibe of the chateau with her own morbid sexual curiosity.  Since her beau is too socially obtuse to understand or reciprocate her enthusiasm, he leaves her sexually frustrated in the absurdly long wait for the Cardinal’s arrival, dead time that she fills with wet dreams of the estate’s sordid history.  There are superstitious rumors that a former lady of the house had mated with a cryptid beast who cyclically haunts the grounds every couple centuries, which is supposedly how the family was excommunicated from the Church in the first place.  The beauty sweatily reimagines this human-bestial coupling in extensive, graphic detail while furiously masturbating in her bridal nightgown until the poor cloth is ripped to shreds.  The horny, mythical beast of the past and the shy, grotesque beast of the present are eventually linked in a last-minute twist, but their connection is far less important than the perverted pleasures of the women who desire their touch (and thrusts).

Before The Beast devolves into full-on cryptid erotica, its value as a unique work gets lost among its many literary parallels, which extend far beyond the fairy tale it most overtly alludes to.  The long, pointless wait for the Cardinal’s arrival at the castle plays out as an existential joke, recalling surrealist works like The Exterminating Angel & Waiting for Godot.  There are also overt Buñuel parallels in its blasphemous mockery of the wealthy & religious ruling class as degenerate brutes, pushing its satire to de Sadist extremes but never fully matching the heightened Buñuelian humor at hand.  The centerpiece of the work really is the pornographic depictions of bestial fucking, then – starting with the horses, working up to more traditional onscreen heterosexual couplings, and then climaxing with the historical ravishment fantasy that swallows up most of the third act.  “Climax” is the only word you could really use to describe that payoff, too, since the humanoid wolverine who couples with an actual human being spurts semen by the bucketload for minutes on end as their tryst pushes beyond taste & reason.  A faux-classy harpsichord soundtrack keeps the mood lightly comical throughout this absurd display, and it concludes with a punchline in which the Cardinal, finally arrived, performs a grand, fingerwagging speech about the evils of bestiality & women’s libidos as if he were reading from a pre-prepared pamphlet.  In the end, it’s the women’s arousal & search for pleasure that registers as the film’s most blasphemous acts, even more so than its extensive depictions of their monstrous ravishment fantasies.  They’re greatly enjoying themselves, much to everyone else’s disgust & confusion, which remains a global movie censorship taboo to this day.

Borowczyk finds his own fairy tale visual language here with images that have no obvious connection to the Beauty and the Beast tale: a snail sliming its way across a lady’s sky-blue shoe; lurid flashes of red paint through hallway doors that slyly recall aroused genitals: pornographic close-ups on actual aroused genitals; etc.  As soon as his equivalent of Belle arrives on the estate taking dozens of dirty Polaroids of every perverted detail she can collect, it’s clear that he’s taking the story to new, distinct places.  Most Belles cower in fear of the erotic menace lurking in their new home castles, gradually warming up to the beast who stalks the grounds.  In this version, she’s so immediately fired up by the ugly erotic charge of the central pairing that it freaks out everyone around her, including the audience.  A half-century later, it remains a bold, hilarious, intensely alienating take on a story that’s continued to be told countless times since, but rarely with such gleeful prurience. 

-Brandon Ledet

Podcast #196: Hour of the Wolf (1968) & Horror Dabblers

/ swampflix / 3 Comments

Welcome to Episode #196 of The Swampflix Podcast. For this episode, Britnee, James, Brandon, and Hanna discuss four horror films directed by auteurs who only dabbled in the genre once, starting with Ingmar Bergman’s Hour of the Wolf (1968).

00:00 Welcome

03:07 The Beast (1975)
08:31 No One Will Save You (2023)
10:22 Death of a Cheerleader (2019)
12:18 Night Tide (1961)
16:12 Anchorman (2004)
22:08 Good Boy (2023)
24:19 The Severing (2023)

28:47 Hour of the Wolf (1968)
50:54 Peeping Tom (1960)
1:10:25 Near Dark (1987)
1:27:22 Willow Creek (2013)

You can stay up to date with our podcast through SoundCloud, Spotify, iTunes, TuneIn, or by following the links on this page.

-The Podcast Crew