Review: Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954)

Creature from the Black Lagoon has a simple enough premise: Dr. Carl Maia (Antonio Moreno) discovers a fossilized claw that appears humanoid but has webbing and claws.  Excited, he manages to get funding from Dr. Mark Williams (Richard Dennings) to expand his expedition to find more of this new discovery.  Along for the ride are Dr. Edwin Thompson (Whit Bissell), and colleagues (and lovers) Dr. David Reed and Kay Lawrence (Richard Carlson and Julie Adams).  Said expedition then learns that this creature is not entirely extinct, as they encounter one while searching for more remains.

The impact of this movie cannot be overstated.  While Universal had a history of successful horror films (Dracula, Frankenstein, Wolf Man, the Invisible Man, and the Mummy), by the 50s most of these characters were old hat - having appeared in movies together in various combos, and almost all having interacted with Abbott and Costello also.  The Gill Man was an entirely new - and entirely original - creation that was so instantly iconic that you'd be hard-pressed to find any 'fish man' that deviates away from this design.

Of note: though only makeup artist 'Bud' Westmore receives onscreen credit for the creation of the Gill Man, animator Millicent Patrick - one of the first women to be hired by Disney as an animator - also contributed heavily to the design.  This is because Westmore very angrily argued against the studio promoting her involvement.

The movie stands out for how consistently the tone plays throughout the film.  This could very easily have been something akin to The Brain from Outer Space (not a real film) but director Jack Arnold ably controls this film:  Staging the sequences so they are never not interesting (the swimming duet between the Gill Man (Ricou Browning for the underwater sequences) and Kay being a particular highlight), and keeping the film moving in a timely manner (the film feels much shorter than its 79 minutes).

When the Gill Man moves to land (played by Ben Chapman for these sequences), he still feels altogether alien despite his humanoid appearance.  Chapman deserves credit for moderating his movements to keep the Creature otherworldly so that the audience can never be fully at ease during his appearances.

The performances across the board are fine to good - much better than one would expect for a B horror movie from the 50s.  Julie Adams (credited as Julia Adams for this film and much of her earlier filmography) is justly an icon for her role in this, but best in show likely goes to Richard Dennings as the much more cutthroat Mark, who'd prefer to kill the creature rather than just study it.

Originally released in 3-D and considered one of the best of those from the 50s, I unfortunately only got to experience the 2-D version.  And I wonder how much is lost because of that difference.  Because, despite all the praise I can heap on this film for what it has accomplished, I am much cooler on it than I expected.

Possibly the music has something to do with it.  The Creature's theme - played continuously throughout the film - gets tiresome given how often and how loudly we hear it.  Despite the performances being good, none of the characters truly stand out - even Kay is more famous for her abduction by the creature than the character work of Julie Adams.  For whatever reason, this movie just didn't 'click' for me despite the skill and craftmanship that went into it.

Would I recommend it?  Yes: it certainly deserves its place in horror history, and I think even non-horror fans can enjoy it, though they might struggle a bit with the 50s style of acting.  I could even be convinced to give it a rewatch, though I would certainly want it to be 3-D next time.

6 out of 10

Review: Clown in a Cornfield (2025)

Clown in a Cornfield, based off the novel by Adam Cesare (which is a fun read), follows Quinn Maybrook (Katie Douglas), who has recently moved from Philadelphia to Kettle Springs, Missouri.  Kettle Springs is home to the Baypen corn syrup factory and its mascot Frendo the Clown.  Quinn quickly falls in with a group that makes horror YouTube videos based off the mascot, and when that group is pursued by a veritable army of costumed Frendos, she has to find a way to survive.

This movie is very much a throwback slasher:  Characters are fairly thin outside our lead, motivations are an afterthought, and the redshirts are fairly obvious.  However, it is still a fun time with some inventive kills and sly comedy scattered throughout.

Slashers - especially one that is paying homage to the 80s slashers - live and die by their energy.  Slow slashers rarely work (and for them to succeed, the slowness needs to be part of the gimmick like with In a Violent Nature) and boring/cliche kills can turn it into a slog.  So there is a constant battle to one-up previous slashers in both these ways that can turn the story into something perfunctory just so the focus can shift to those other priorities.

Because this is based off an existing novel, the story part is taken care of.  The adaptation trims quite a bit from the story, but the bones are there and allows the focus to shift to other aspects of the filmmaking.  Short of a complete rewriting of the novel (which, why would you adapt from a novel if that is your aim?), they have a blueprint to keep things from going too far off the rails.

The movie also succeeds with some inspired casting: getting a whole cadre of character actors to fill out the roles of the townspeople.  The biggest name is probably Will Sasso, but Kevin Durand and Aaron Abrams also make appearances.  All of the performers do an excellent job.  None of them break new ground with their performances, but they match the tone that the movie is asking for and flesh it out just enough to give it a pinch of realism.

The movie also wisely moves along at a quick pace to go along with the high energy.  We meet our characters and set up conflicts fairly quickly, and the kills start soon after.  At 96 minutes, it has to be judicious with its scenes and director Eli Craig (with an assist from editor Sabrina Pitre) makes sure not a moment is wasted.

All in all, this is a fun little movie.  It isn't doing anything to rewrite the genre, but it's a fun time.

6 out of 10

Review: Freaks (1932)

Freaks, directed by Tod Browning, is a complicated film.  Filmed in the pre-code era, it offered a compassionate look at those with disabilities and was vilified for it.  It is a tale of revenge that gets lumped into the horror category, mostly for the wrong reasons, but does feature moments of horror within it.  Originally 90 minutes long, producer Irving Thalberg - without letting Browning know - edited the film, removing so much of it that the alternate footage had to be added to give it a theatrical run time of 64 minutes.  The full version is lost.

It's hard to talk about the film on its merits when the version that survived to today is so heavily compromised.  Not only that, but a modern audience would approach it in a much different way than a contemporaneous one - which is the proper way to review it?  I'm going to somewhat split the difference between the two, but I can't say if that is the best method.

The story of Freaks is simple: Hans (Harry Earles), a dwarf circus performer, is smitten with Cleopatra (Olga Baclanova) a trapeze performer.  Because of a large inheritance he has received, Cleopatra leads him on for a bit before hatching a plan with her paramour, Hercules (Henry Victor), to marry then poison Hans so that she can get all of his money.  Unfortunately for Cleopatra and Hercules, they are found out and the titular freaks get their revenge.

The movie is one of contrasts: An early scene shows two men talking about what basically amounts to eugenics before coming across the sideshow performers and being horrified by them - this providing a counterpoint to the many familial scenes within the circus performer community, with both the 'freaks' and several of the 'normal' performers living amongst one another. Phroso and Venus (Wallace Ford and Leila Hyams) a clown and a seal trainer, consider many of these performers to be their friends, and Venus is attacked by Hercules because she knows too much about their plot.

There is also the infamous 'One of Us' scene where, after marrying Hans, Cleopatra is offended to be welcomed by the freaks and called one of them.  Whereas the 'freaks' are happy to welcome another into their group, the beautiful (and somewhat Aryan) Cleopatra - despite performing in the same circus - considers herself better than this other group.  Director Browning, who himself had traveled with a circus, likely didn't do this by accident.

The movie is not without problems, despite being in many ways well ahead of its time.  The revenge against Cleopatra and Hercules is still portrayed as horrifying because of who is pursuing them more than a proper comeuppance for their crimes, and Frieda, Hans's love interest, is played by Daisy Earles, the sister of Harry Earles.  While the former is likely a combination of the heavy edits to the movie and the time period in which it was made, the latter really feels like it could have been avoided with better casting.

Still, the movie is an interesting time capsule into the how filmmakers in the past worked to be subversive, and two years later the Hays Code would have made the making of this film all but impossible, so it should be treasured for what it did accomplish moreso than criticized for what it did not.

Would I recommend this movie?  It's short, so even if someone didn't enjoy it, it isn't asking too much of their time to check it out, so I'd say yes for that reason alone.  Film buffs should definitely watch it though.

8 out of 10

Review: Frogs (1972)

It's weird seeing Sam Elliott without his mustache.

Frogs finds a very-young Sam Elliott, playing photographer Pickett Smith, as he finds himself spending an evening and day with the wealthy Crockett family after one of their clan almost runs over his canoe with their boat.  Apologetic, they offer to let him dry off and spend the evening with them on their island.  An island that is teeming with frogs (or, toads that we are meant to believe are frogs).  Those frogs, and the various other wildlife on the island, have plans for the Crockett family and their visitors...

I think whether or not you enjoy this movie is heavily dependent on whether or not you can roll with the combination of a silly premise and serious acting.  While there is a certain level of campiness to a few of the performances, most of the actors play the dialogue dead serious.  It works for the film - I don't think the movie would work if there was any sort of leaning into the ridiculous premise - but if the viewer can't get into it, they will not enjoy this film.

I was able to get into it.  It's always interesting to see a before-they-were-famous performance and it is easy to see the easy charisma of Sam Elliott in this performance.  Several of the female characters are instantly in lust with him, and the viewer can actually see why they are into him so quickly - not an easy feat to accomplish.

Because of the large cast - there are a grand total of 10 members of the Crockett family, plus two servants and a guest in addition to Pickett - the deaths happen early and frequently.  While precious few of them are caused by frogs - I'll let future viewers be surprised at the actual total - all of them are caused by wildlife of some sort.  A few of them, while lacking realism, are still gross to watch, including one poor soul who ends up with a tarantula in their mouth - and not a fake one.

I'd almost like to watch a making-of this movie.  A man wrestles a live alligator in one scene, the trailer shows a woman dropped into quicksand by a giant butterfly (this does not make the final cut of the film), there is an extended sequence with animal sounds coming from stuffed animals where most do not match: I willing to bet the making of the film is just as if not more interesting than the finished product.

Overall, I'd say the film is enjoyable.  It could probably do with a few less scenes of frogs menacingly staring at the camera, but it's not bad by any stretch of the imagination, though I can definitely see opinions varying wildly on this one.

6 out of 10

Review: Wolf Man (2025)

I think the critics got it wrong on this one.

The 2025 Wolf Man follows the Lovell family (Blake, played by Christopher Abbott; Charlotte, played by Julia Garner; and Ginger, played by Matilda Firth) as they go to Blake's estranged father's home after he is declared legally dead.  However, it t urns out his father is not dead, but now a werewolf who attacks the family, infecting Blake.

This version of the classic tale diverges from other versions by having the turning process be long and painful.  Blake starts to get heightened senses, but then loses the ability to talk or even understand his family.  The metamorphosis is slow, and complicating matters is that the werewolf that infected him continues to hunt the family into the night.

There are undercurrents here of family trauma being passed on to the next generation, as well as less subtextual moments relating to relationships within a family that is strained but not broken.  The slow decline of Blake - treated as an infection given to him - feels pointed in a post-COVID film, and I appreciate director Leigh Whannell twisting the age old myth in such a way.

A film like this is going to live and die on its performances, and with a cast of 5 - two of which are fairly small - there isn't any room for a bad performance.  Thankfully, all of the cast do an amazing job.  Abbott in particular does an amazing job of showing Blake's slow loss of his humanity (it isn't stated, but is implied, that once you transform it is permanent).  Garner, as a mother who worries she doesn't connect with her daughter or husband as she should, also delivers.

Whannell does add some flair to several sequences in the film.  Several chase scenes are fairly inventive - my favorite being one involving a greenhouse - and the decision to cut between Blake's 'werewolf' vision/hearing and that of his family works very well at creating otherworldliness that would be missing in a standard werewolf movie.

This movie also wins points by not being overly long.  An hour and 40ish minutes - including credits - means that we get to the actual meat of the movie fairly quickly, and it doesn't drag at all as the family is trapped/attempts to escape Blake's childhood home.

I will say that this movie is more focuses on the psychological and body horror rather than on jump scares.  I think it is the correct choice for the story that Whannell and co-screenwriter Corbett Tuck want to tell, but for those looking for more traditional scares, this won't scratch that itch.  However, I'd definitely recommend it to those who don't mind a different type of horror.

8 out of 10.

Review: Fear No Evil (1981)

It really isn't surprising that a horror movie from 1981 would have a character possessed by Lucifer dabble with homosexuality (I think... it is never really clear if lead character Andrew - played by Stefan Arngrim - has always been Lucifer, or if he was possessed as a baby.  And those aren't the only possibilities either).  What is surprising is just how very gay this movie gets.

The plot:  Andrew Williams has been... something... since he was a baby.  At 17, he starts manifesting powers and acting demonic and it turns out he is the devil, Lucifer.  Three angels - also reincarnated as humans during this - have to seek him out and kill him before he brings about the end times.  Things get so incredibly gay along the way.

I really don't mean to harp on it so much, but I can't believe a movie that wears homosexuality so proudly on its sleeve got away with it in 1981.  Sure, A Nightmare on Elm Street 2 was also insanely gay, but it at least was mostly subtextual.  This movie has an extended scene where two men - naked, I feel I should add - kiss in the locker room shower of a high school.  It start out as bullying and turns into something else.

As Andrew finds himself becoming more and more evil, he gets gayer and gayer.  It's marvelous.  He summons the dead, he forces a coach to kill a student, he wears lipstick.  All things that prove he is evil.

Now, I have to be honest here:  Long parts of this movie are exceedingly boring, and I totally understand anyone watching this movie and deciding it is not worth the time.  But for every draggy, boring scene (mostly following the reincarnated angels) there is some sort of batshit insane scene to pull you back into the movie.

The popular girl group wear satin jackets that say Queen B's and that B means exactly what you think it does.

It helps that Stefan Arngrim really commits to the performance.  He gives the role more than I think it asks for - in particular, his early apparent struggles with turning evil really muddy the mythology of what is happening - but he does an amazing job with what had to be an insanely risky role for 1981.  It transcends into something genuinely campy (in a good way) and is the primary reason I'd recommend this movie.

Andrew's father starts screaming his son is the devil like he is in another, better movie.

As for the other performances, they are mostly fine.  A few performances are rough, but nothing terrible.  All hit the proper tone the movie is going for, if nothing else.  If I had to pick a next best, it would be Daniel Eden as Tony, one of the bullies of the school, whose character is second to only Andrew as having the most out-of-pocket scenes scattered throughout the film.

There is so much male nudity in this, even outside the shower scene.

When shit really starts to hit the fan - a church play results in mass stigmata; the summoned dead attack other students on an island that somehow has a castle-like structure - it has one last moment of absolute what-the-fuckery before the angels confront our devil and save the day (Spoiler?  The devil wasn't going to be gay and win in 1981 people, come on).  And I do mean what the fuck did I just watch?  I can't even begin to think of spoiling it: it needs to be encountered, like stumbling upon a wendigo in the woods.  Knowing about it beforehand only lessens the impact.

Lucifer is made up of lasers.

Tonally, it is all over the place, as evidenced by the wild swings between boring and absolute crazy, but hot damn did I enjoy this.  Even if it is draggy, it's only 99 minutes long, so nothing drags for so long that it isn't worth the wait.

Like Empire of the Ants, this movie really transcends a proper rating given the anything goes approach to the screenplay.  But I'll give it a 6 out of 10.

Review: The Pit (1981)

The thing about cult movies is sometimes you watch them and end up not being part of the cult.  I'd come across this movie in random forums or online lists of 'forgotten' films (and even The Angry Gay fave Final Girl) so I finally gave it a shot after seeing for cheap at Kino Lorber.

It was not my favorite.

I will say that lead actor Sammy Snyders does a good job in the role, and the trogs, while not very intimidating once they leave the Pit (spoiler?), at least have a somewhat original look to them.

But I am getting ahead of myself: first the plot.  Young Jamie Benjamin (Snyders) is an odd child.  Despite being 12ish years old, he still talks to his teddy bear (named Teddy, not very original is young Jamie) and doesn't socialize well with anyone his age.  However, he has discovered a pit in the woods filled with monsters he calls trogs.  He feeds them meat from the butcher, but finds himself unable to purchase more after a time.  What will he do? (He will feed them people, obviously).

So, first, this movie drags.  It opens with Jamie pushing someone into the pit, but then waits another 30+ minutes before it happens again.  Once Jamie does start murdering people, we get the exact same scene from the opening - in its entirety! - among the kills.  The kills are mostly done as a montage, and once they are done, we get some more 'plot' that doesn't do much to progress the story.

There are subplots in this film involving eventual victims, but they go nowhere and don't add anything to the movie so it feels unnecessary to get into them, other than to complain about them making this 101 minute movie feel even longer.

It may be that I'd be more invested if the acting was better, but it's pretty rough the entire runtime of the movie.  There's sometimes charm in that (see: Sleepaway Camp), but there still needs to be something interesting going on for it to work.  And none of it is interesting.

There aren't even that many shots that are visually stimulating either.  It's a very plainly shot with nothing inventive done throughout, and some shots actually take you out of the movie with the thought of 'What were they thinking?'

I am glad other people enjoy this and the world is better when people enjoy movies, I am just not a fan of this one.

3 out of 10