Zombieland

2009 ***1/2

I enjoyed this quite a bit. I don't have any strong opinions for or against the comedization or main-streamification of our friends the walking dead. As such I found Zombieland to be a well-penned bit of fun and a worthy addition to the world of cinema. But I'm having trouble figuring out what it lends to the world of horror.

If anything, it feels like this movie is borrowing a cup of horror from its neighbor, a neighbor who is an actual zombie movie. Not to be mean, but one of the movie's greatest strengths -- Jessie Eisenberg's list of rules -- is the centerpiece of a zombie movie in which the following common sense rule-breaking actions take place:

Going to an amusement park and turning on all the lights and rides without fortifying it or even looking around, and...

In the wake of the zombie apocalypse, when everyone is armed, putting on zombie makeup and creeping up on someone in order to make them think you're a zombie.

"I mean come ON!" said one of the voices in my head, and then, after a moment's thought: "Two months into the apocalypse and the utilities still work!?!.

But the rest of the voices were having a good time; the movie is well-written and well-acted, and for the most part earns the right to ignore some obvious zombie rules even while it purports to have the rule book. The filmmakers might be lampooning the source material, but it comes with respect.

And it's funny. I loved the opening scene (above) in which Jessie Eisenberg is running in wide loops around the parking lot, keeping ahead of his undead pursuers as he fiddles with his car door a little on each go-round (because they're zombies, and they're too stupid to do anything but chase him, so he knows when he drops his keys they'll still be there when he gets back). And while Woody Harrelson's Twinkie shtick was only so-so at times, I cracked up when I saw that truck full of Snowballs. I knew it would be Snowballs a split second before they fell out. Those are like the orange circus peanuts of snack cakes.

The right frame of mind to appreciate Zombieland is not too difficult to find. Just brace yourself for an unexpected valentine to Bill Murray and you'll be okay. But if you're in it for the zombies, you might be disappointed.

A Serbian Film

(2010) ****1/2

Procrastination has forced me to sell short the best piece of filmmaking I've come across in this year's contest. It's the last day to submit reviews and I don't have the time to churn out a polished review of A Serbian Film. I do want to put out a real review of this at some point, because I think it's worthy of review and discussion. It's not a film for the meek, and images of the film continue to plague me a month after I watched it. But it's a powerful movie, and unlike Cannibal Holocaust and either of the Human Centipede movies, it's rich in subtext. The subtext of A Serbian Film is as potent as any of the more appalling moments of the movie. There's more than just tawdriness going on here. I respected that, and I plan on writing more about why when I do a more thorough review later.

But for now, I just wanted to make sure I clocked the review before the buzzer. Anyone who sits through an entire screening of this deserves at least that much. Anyone here who has seen it would agree.

The Sentinel

(1977) ****

I mentioned in my review of the prequel to The Thing that the '82 version got a boost from a roster of talented and recognizable character actors. The Sentinel gets the same boost. A young and suave Chris Sarandon, Jeff Goldblum in a surprise role as someone other than Jeff Goldblum; also Burgess Meredith, Jerry Orbach, Christopher Walken, Tom Berenger. I think I read that Richard Dreyfuss makes a cameo as some dude on the street. Would I have been less impressed by this aspect The Sentinel had I seen it right when it came out, before any of these awesome character actor stars-to-be became big names? Give me some amnesia pills and a time machine and I'll tell you. Or wait — cause I just saw Caligula for the first time too. Can you drop me off there first? In that scene with all the group sex, not the scene where everyone's getting their head chopped off.


Speaking of kinky sex, there's oodles of it in the Sentinel. There's that scene of Alison Parker walking in on her dad while his two jiggly mistresses smear cake all over his gob. Then there's a young Beverly D'Angelo masturbating on a couch as Alison looks on, appalled.

I'm troubled by the negative portrayals of sexuality. I mean, accepting that this is a movie about a physical gateway to Hell, why is kinkiness the target? Shouldn't the target be something like greed or wrath or something? The Exorcist picked on sexuality too, but that was one short crucifix-masturbation amid a whirlpool of violence and murder. How is Beverly D'Angelo's chronic masturbation the banner moment of Hellworthiness? Girl just wants to get her O on. Doesn't seem fair.



I also found a teeny bit unfair that there was any sort of controversy around the casting of disfigured people and circus freaks as demons in the last fifteen minutes of the movie. I imagine that every one of them was well payed for their appearance in the film and nobody seemed to be mistreated. Seems like no real cause for anyone to be up in arms about anything. And if advocates of the physically malformed are so concerned with the public image of people with disfigurements, why not make your own damned movie about the disfigured living completely normal lives? Remake Hitch but with someone with elephantiasis in the title role. I'd watch it. Hell, I'd review it. Not for Horrorthon though. That would be missing the point entirely, and I don't miss points.


This came highly recommended by a number of horror enthusiasts and it did not disappoint. The directing and performances are all good. There's one really good heebie-jeebie moment when Alison goes to visit her neighbor upstairs — Octopunk pointed it out in his review as well, saying, "The good scare is down to a subtle move, too -- the ghost simply emerges from the shadows and walks across the room into some other shadows. The result is perfectly chilling." No lags in the pacing and no weaknesses in the script at all really. Solid piece of work.

Jeepers Creepers

(2001) ***1/2

[Sung to the tune of "The Seeker" by the Who]

The two Jenner kids
Drive across Dakota
When a crazy stranger tries
to run them off the road-a.

They call him the Creeper.
He's a scaly, beasty guy.
Here he comes. Speeding truck. Chasing after.
Where's he get those eyes?

They see a dark figure
stashing cadavers.
Derry falls down a hole and finds more
stitched together like wallpaper

They call him the Creeper.
He's a scaly, beasty guy.
Here he comes. Speeding truck. Chasing after.
Where's he get those eyes?

It's in local legends:
disappearing drivers.
And it seems to happen every 23 years.
The Creeper makes his body
from stitched up human parts.
He'll eat'cha after sniffing you out by your fears.

[awesome guitar solo]


Here he comes. Speeding truck. Chasing after.
Where's he get those eyes?

The first half of the movie's filled with promise.
But it loses its steam in act 2 and 3
Suspenseful storyline, and excellent visual style.
Not bad, not great. At least, it's worth your while.

Another song review
Got no original take.
But this format takes as long as a review.
So give me a friggin' break.

They call him the Creeper.
He's a scaly, beasty guy.
Here he comes. Speeding truck. Chasing after.
Where's he get those eyes?

Here he comes. Speeding truck. Chasing after.
Where's he get those eyes?

The Thing

(2011) ***1/2

I suppose I could give the prequel to John Carpenter's The Thing less credit. What I liked most about it is the additional context it gave to the '82 movie. It sort of says more about how I liked the first movie enough to want to know more about it, than it does the prequel for filling in the blanks.

All the extra time these characters spend scurrying around the monster's spaceship made me think more about the invading force. I guess I'd always taken it on faith that the monster in its original form was a skittering, tentacled...well, *thing*, I guess you'd call it. I never thought to ask, with a spaceship that large, why there weren't more of them lying around dead when the Norwegian and then the American scientists came to snoop around. It's a massive ship. Was there really only one *thing* on board?

Then in the middle of watching the prequel everything fell into place — and I might be retconning a bit here. Since the thing is a microorganism, it's kind of like the yellow cloud of nasty from Green Lantern or the electrobug swarm version of Galactus in Marvel's Ultimate Extinction (I understand it's the same concept in the second Fantastic Four movie, but I haven't seen it). The *thing* the Norwegians dig out of the ice is not a single *thing*, but rather a composed formation, with limbs and a body with which to operate a spaceship. It's possible that it was operating the ship as an entire crew and then it merged into one body when it was time to abandon ship. If I'd thought about it, I should have been able to reach all of those conclusions after watching the John Carpenter version. But that's half of what makes a remake, or a prequel, or a sequel a good idea — more context for the original story. Purists would argue that if an original is good enough, it needs no sequels or prequels to lend itself context. But hey, all of that stuff I just wrote occurred to me while I was watching this in the theater, and I hadn't thought of it before when I was watching the first movie. So, nyahhh, purists.

Unfortunately the other half of what makes a remake, or a prequel, or a sequel a good idea is it actually being a good movie. And there, this prequel falls flat. I've heard the cast of the '82 version panned as being uninteresting, but I like all of the actors in that cast, and I recognize almost everyone in that cast from other things. I barely recognized the new cast. There's Mr. Eko, and there's the girl from Scott Pilgrim, and the guy from Warrior, which I haven't seen, and the "hurrrh?" looking guy from Dumb and Dumberer, which I also haven't seen. Maybe if I'd seen this instead in like 2020, I could look back and be like, "Oh, cool. That dude. Look how young he is." But for now, meh. The acting is fine, I just felt more connected to Kurt Russell and his companions than to anyone here. Personal problem? Maybe.


Here I am, five paragraphs into a review I'd told Octopunk earlier today I was going to try to mash into one paragraph in a three-way catch up review of The Thing, Jeepers Creepers, and Troll Hunter. Maybe I should have saved all this for the far more deserving 1982 version. Whatever though. If I get around to reviewing that, I'll just copy paste this whole thing into that review. Octo and JPX do it all the time and nobody gives them shit for it.

Trolljegeren

2010 (***1/2)

It's interesting that the promo material for Troll Hunter actually shows you one of the trolls — and not just any troll: the big one. No mystery there whatsoever. It's for the best, I think. When I first glimpsed one of the trolls I thought, "Awww, how cute!" If there's a way of making trolls frightening, this movie doesn't really try to achieve it. I mean, look at that nose! HONK!

Knowing ahead of time that the monster is cute lowers expectations — in a good way. Troll Hunter isn't intentionally a funny movie. It's not even really unintentionally funny. Nor is it cheap, bad, or amateurish. It's light, fun fare. It has everything that makes for a successful horror movie. The acting is good and earnest. The pace is good, although a few minutes could have been shaved off if there had been less footage of the lovely Norwegian countryside.

Most importantly, the monster poses a real threat — a believable one, in the context of this being a fun movie. The movie takes place primarily in the tall, stony woods of Norway, and even there, the trolls are strong enough to destroy shit. You can imagine nothing good happened to the person holding this camera.


It's got better characters than Blair Witch and a lot more of the screen time is devoted to stationary shots, meaning the cinematography is not bouncing you down the road to migraines and barf. It's not scary, and it's not funny. It's just fun, and worth watching.

Images Blizzard From The Cave Of Cool

http://calvinscanadiancaveofcool.blogspot.com/

Godzilla

1998 **

I hadn't seen this since opening night in 1998, the summer we saw New York destroyed three times on screen (see also Deep Impact and Armageddon). Surprisingly, it held up after all these years... as one of the most disappointing failures in monster movie history.

The marketing campaign for this flick in New York was nuts, in particular I remember the life-sized signs, all black, that just said HE IS AS TALL AS THIS SIGN (or that one on 42nd street that was AS LONG). It was cool. I predicted at the time that, were this movie successful, we were set to enjoy a slew of copycats and sequels, meaning the big monster movie would enjoy a resurgence in the west. Obviously my optimism was misplaced, but my prediction came true in a half-assed way. The movie sucked and bombed, and the monsters stayed home until Cloverfield a decade later.

To save time, here's a list of suck things stuffed into one big sausage of failure: The cartoonish portrayal of New Yawkers. The way Matthew Broderick walks into a giant footprint without noticing. The way they show that old man going "Gojira...Gorjira" three times. "Mayor Ebert" and his aide Gene, the movie critics spoofed with no skill because they panned Independence Day (Ebert's brilliant bitch: I can't believe you lampooned me in your monster movie and missed the opportunity to have me eaten or trampled). The thing with Jean Reno always trying to find good coffee. The bumbling, approval-seeking sergeant played by the gay guy from Melrose Place, who acts like his dad gave him the keys to the giant military operation. The way they evacuate Manhattan in half an hour, apparently all to one house in Brooklyn. The way Matthew Broderick's character has to keep correcting the way people pronounce his name. The way they faked atomic breath by having Godzilla's roar happen to explode a car on two occasions. They way they go to all the trouble to pull Matthew Broderick out of Chernobyl and then treat him like some clown for no reason. Harry Shearer's character, the colonel character, the horny head scientist lady -- heck, pretty much every single character is awful, or has a stupid shtick, or at the very least has a stupid accent. But worst of all was...


Matthew Broderick's ex-girlfriend. Boy does she suck. She sucks like nobody ever sucked a suck. This chick is like a combination of Jar Jar Binks and every bad thing anyone has ever thought about Yoko Ono. Every attempt she makes to emote is a hateful and depressing experience. The idea that anyone would pine for her makes me squint uncomfortably. Let's move on.



I remembered the opening of this movie as actually having some promise, in fact that's the main reason I decided to 'thon it. It is, and I shudder to say this, the only scene in which the monster is terrorizing the general public. Nobody had yet done this kind of thing with modern special effects. Upon viewing it again, it's actually quite gutless.

The effects were substandard at the time (the standard being Jurassic Park five whole years earlier... tsk tsk, gentlemen) and aged even worse than I predicted.

The level of disaster is goofily downplayed, in a way I can't excuse just because this is a pre-9/11 movie. Later a TV is barely heard to say "dozens" of people were killed. Dozens? This movie had the same rating as Independence Day, which offed millions of people with nary a thought. Why go total wuss now?

But worst of all, the heart of the scene is missing because the filmmakers completely misuse the "don't show the monster" technique. Trying to emulate Jaws, I suppose, Godzilla is only shown as a pair of feet, a tail, and some shoulder spikes. It's a lost moment. This is a monster rampage, there's no murky water or deep woods or badly-lit cabin for our nemesis to hide in, and no need of it.


Of the monster's offspring I must say something, and that's to note that Cloverfield used a similar device, but used it much, much better: It's a good idea to have some additional, smaller critters running around because character engagement with a humongous monster is a limited affair. But like all the good ideas Godzilla glimpses distantly in the mist and then wanders away from, the baby Godzillas are awkward, dreary second cousins to Jurassic's raptors, their menace undercut by scenes of them falling down on basketballs and a generally spaced-out attitude when faced with an opportunity to eat a main character.

The G-babies sequence is also handicapped by its dumb place in the larger dumb story, that being just after big 'Zilla is "killed" in the Hudson River by some torpedoes. Jordan and I had a joke about that, which goes something like this:

"Hey, we're going to make a Godzilla movie."
"Hey that's great. What's the premise?"
"'Great big lizard, stomps around city, terrorizing the people.'"
"Sounds great! What are you going to do with it?"
"First, take away the people."
"Uh...okaaay."
"Then, take away the lizard."
"..."

Within this movie's tedious muckity muck there can be found a few glints of non-failure. Godzilla's design is decent, (although not notable enough to warrant the nutso level of secrecy about it at the time). It's a good idea that he is effectively invulnerable because of his agility, as opposed to the standard issue "our weapons don't affect it!" business. When missles finally do connect, they do a realistic amount of damage. And despite the gripes above, the action scenes are somewhat engaging, perhaps worth watching if you wander past on on cable.

The scenes in between are bad in the bad way, and should be treated accordingly. If you get the urge to watch one, get some pornography and watch the non-sex scenes of wooden dialogue instead. You'll be better off.

Jeepers Creepers II

2003 ***1/4

I'm overusing the tiny star fractions this year, but I rated the first Jeepers Creepers as a three-star flick and this one was a little better, but not as better as I'd hoped. The Creeper is still pretty damn good monster, a mysterious batwinged demon-thingie wearing a wide-brimmed hat and a tattered duster coat. He sustains his yucky form by eating bits of live humans, directly using the limbs or organs as he needs them.

Taking place just one day after the events of the first movie, the story centers around a busload of high school kids returning victorious from a state basketball championship. The Creeper disables the bus on a dark and lonely road, and begins to pick off the sardines in the can. A grim siege ensues, although the kids do get their shots in.

"Merely a flesh wound!"
I've been thinking about this movie for a month and I'm still not sure why I found it disappointing. At first I thought it was the bizarrely convenient plot contrivance of giving one of the cheerleaders prophetic and informative dreams, providing some monster exposition like the psychic lady did in the first movie, but much more directly. But that wasn't it; it came down to this guy, the alpha monkey asshole jock.

The root of the problem, regardless of the problem.
I don't share JPX's cranky automatic dislike of unlikeable characters, as a character can be unlikeable and still entertaining, if done right. Scotty here is not done right, moosing around the movie being as entitled, homophobic, racist and selfishly ruthless as he can be. You might think that nominates his ass for some major pipe, and you'd be right, but a character of this dickosity level needs to be offed in a stellar fashion, and it doesn't happen. He's pretty much just whisked into the night sky, and too many other victims go that way for it to rate as a showcase death. Without such a death, all the time spent listening to him gab was time spent listening to a bully spieling his bully spiel, and that's never fun.

And another small film rolls over for the mighty Post Puncher corporate agenda. How much power is enough?
The bulk of the movie is teenage angst in a survival situation, then Ray Wise shows up with his scratch-built Creeper shooter, out to avenge his young son who got carried off before the credits. As you might imagine, that shakes up the plot in a welcome fashion and hey -- it's Ray Wise, who always classes up the joint. I wish they could've worked his swivel-mounted Post Puncher into Twin Peaks.

The one question I have of this franchise: if you chopped The Creeper into bits when you had a chance, and sealed the bits in boxes and separated them, would that defeat him? Because that's what I'd do. Just going on record for when it comes up.

Jeepers Creepers II is pretty good stuff and mostly worth your time, although I feel like this series hasn't hit its potential. Just be prepared for some poorly-handled doses of dicky jockitude.

The Thing

2011 ***

Let's just talk about the big mutated elephant in the room: No, the computer-generated monsters just aren't the same. John Carpenter's The Thing has a visceral quality that is still unmatched. That movie turned the very notion of shapeshifting into pure horror. The creature's transformations are somehow a violation of the flesh, not just that of its victims but all flesh in general. In this year's The Thing...

Has anyone addressed how boneheaded it is to use the same name when it's not a remake? "If you want to see what happens after the events of The Thing, then check out 1982's The Thing!" If this new movie takes off and they decide to do an updated version of the 1982 movie, what will they call it? That Thing? Man...

(Since writing that I've actually found the answer; it's posted below.)

Moving on: the monsters don't have the same punch as they do in the 1982 version, not nearly. More on that later.

Curious about this flick, I asked some friends who saw it before me what they thought. There were two related gripes that I took with me to the theater: 1) That this story was never meant to be told, it's better as a mystery attached to JC's version, and 2) It's basically the same story anyway. These are both valid points, but when I got to the theater myself I realized something early: I like this story, the idea of finding something horrible in the Antarctic ice. I didn't really mind seeing it "again," and I didn't mind having some of the mystery of the earlier film displayed in the open. For me it doesn't ruin anything about the first movie; I can recapture the feeling of a question unanswered.

As the crew descended into the ice cave, I looked at the blue ceiling and thought how the ancient ice has been a the Earth's protective shield for thousands of years. Later, in some of the movie's best shots, the indistinct view of the dark, mad shape entombed in the ice is compelling in the same way... the shield is allllmost breached, but nobody suspects because they can't imagine it's still alive in there.

My favorite mystery of this story (both versions) has always been what The Thing looked like before it started imitating humans and dogs. While you do see it, its complete shape remains mostly a mystery -- a crazy cacaphony of weird flesh and insectoid limbs. The practical model of charred alien corpse was a high point for me (surprise surprise), because the reality of the object brought all of its gooey strangeness to the fore.

I will say this in praise of the monster effects: you get plenty of them. Perhaps too much, if you're still craving mystery, but as I often bitch about monster stinginess (Blood Beach, I'm looking at you this year), it's worth pointing out. And of course CGI monsters do provide more opportunity for complicated actions like chasing someone around. The designs are worthy as well, and there are two details that stood out for me. First of all, it's all about mouths. Since the Thing's main goal is consumption, its first order of business is to fashion as big a mouth as possible to suck you in. Secondly, there's one critter formed from a person that still retains human ingredients even as it morphs, opting for deformed bone and sinew instead of bug parts. It's not a hard rule by any stretch, but I thought it was a good touch.

Other features that worked for me: The Thing will talk like a person just long enough for purposes of deception, but once its identity is revealed it has absolutely nothing to say to you. No speeches about humans being puny or stupid, no throwbacks to whatever relationship the intended victim had with the person now transformed, nothing. It's just "I'm gonna eat ya!"

And while I thought Mary Elizabeth Winstead's acting was limping along at the outset, once things start cooking she manages to pull it off. I particularly liked the bond that formed between her and the non-English speaking Lars, and the way her voice of reason quickly assumes command of the camp (the critique that she's rendered Ripley-like is valid, but isn't that the right model to use?).

Here's what I didn't like. In addition to not being as good, there were times when the CG was not good enough. Since I perceive CGI as being kind of full of itself, I like it to be as perfect as possible, and I didn't get that feeling here. Or maybe I never do, and this is just a gripe about CGI.

This next dig might apply to 1982's beastie as well, but the 2011 Thing just doesn't always play to its advantages. If you can infect another being starting with just one cell, why ever go all monsta? Just hide and wait, casually infecting along the way, and everyone is consumed without knowing it. Each time the Thing goes on the attack, it usually winds up getting burned. Which brings us to the next item: why do they never team up? My favorite moment in the 70s Invasion of the Body Snatchers is when two women share a look at a party, and you instantly know they're both pod people, and that they just silently let each other know. This strategic opportunity never happens in a Thing movie, because the Thing can't keep its mutated tentacles in its pants. Next item: there's a scene in which a character is hiding in a duct, juuuust out of range of monster tentacles. How can there be an "out of range" with a shape shifter? Just make 'em longer! Or form an eye on the end and see where they are (50P's idea), or detach a dozen little bug monsters, or whatever! Dude!

Finally, here's the answer to my earlier question, from imdb:

"The producers convinced Universal Studios to allow them to create a prequel to John Carpenter's The Thing instead of a remake, as they felt Carpenter's film was already perfect, so making a remake would be like "painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa". However, the prequel still has the title of the original film, because they couldn't think of a subtitle (for example, The Thing: Begins) that sounded good."

It's nice to see such devotion to the original, but this is one of those times the devotion becomes forced and awkward; as with Superman Returns, this is too slavish to its source material, and misses some chances to forge its own identity. It performs its prequel duties with nerdish precision; all the bodies are in the right places, there's even an ax jammed in a wall where it should be. But the final tie-in is clumsily tacked on, which left me feeling that they did have a stand-alone movie in there but they were too whimpy to go through with it.

Perhaps that's a little harsh; I am giving this the three-star seal of approval (although as Trevor said, do NOT start with this one; see the 1982 version first). I like to think of it as a decent version of the story, but it's a pale reflection of a horror classic.

My parting shot: they should have called it Thing. It's simple, it connects to the 1982 movie, and it avoids the pitfall of a subtitle. Maybe it's a dumb idea, but it's got to better than twin brothers with the same name. Duh.

Bonus: Here is a pdf of "Who Goes There?", the short story on which all the movies are based. I tried to read it before writing this, to get perspective on some of the details, but it was written in 1932 and the style's a bit clunky.

The Haunted Palace

1963 ***1/2

Somehow I missed The Haunted Palace in my earlier sweeps of Lovecraft cinema, which is too bad because it's the first time someone tried it. Directed by Roger Corman and starring Vincent Price, the story is a stripped-down telling of Lovecraft's The Case of Charles Dexter Ward, and if you read my review of Black Sunday you're going to notice some funny similarities.

It's 1765 in Arkham, Massachusetts, and Joseph Curwen (Price) has been bewitching young women and drawing them to his mansion, pimping for an otherworldly beast hanging out in his basement. A barfull of angry villagers decide it's a good idea to go to Curwen's house and burn him, which, seeing his house, I'm surprised didn't happen sooner.

It looms over the town like Edward Scissorhands's dark mountain (without the irony), and you know whoever lives there is up to no good. As the flames rise around Curwen, he curses the town of Arkham and in particular the men before him, those who led the torch-wielding mob to his front yard.

Flash forward 110 years and Charles Dexter Ward arrives in Arkham with his wife, eager to see the ancestral home he just inherited. They stop in The Burning Man tavern and are traditionally hated on sight by everyone within. As soon as they leave the same exact dude who 'roided out and burned Curwen 110 years ago gets all honked off about Ward because he looks just like his evil ancestor (as seen in yet another conspicuously displayed portrait of someone everyone hated). It's the angry guy's descendant, of course, but this particular application of same-actor-playing-distant-offspring is kind of funny, because it's the same five guys in the same bar behaving in the same kind of cranky and/or cowardly way. The main difference is the hats.

It turns out they've actually got pretty good reasons to hate Ward, as the otherworldy pollution of the town gene pool has resulted in weird birth defects in most of the inhabitants. These vary in degree, usually involving the lack of one or both eyes. (The execution doesn't hit its potential, and feels like a really cheap version of those times new Star Trek trotted out yet another alien race that looked just like humans save for a particular nose ridge.)

With nowhere to go, Ward and his wife settle into their creepy house, meaning to only stay a few days. But contemplating the odd portrait creates a change in Ward, as his ancestor reaches out from beyond death to possess him. Any appeal this movie has hinges on Vincent Price's amazing performance, switching from caring Charles to icy, arrogant Curwen in the blink of an eye. The effect is somewhat diffused by the sallow complexion Price sports when possessed, but an overly enthusiastic makeup department can't obscure yet another display of Price's skill as a performer. As his ancestor gains more power over Ward, he is able to inhabit him longer, and soon sets out to continue his nefarious schemes of the past. But first a little revenge-taking is in order on his killers' children's children, who conveniently look just like those first guys... can a new angry mob be raised in time?

Like most of Corman's movies, Haunted Palace is coming from a place that is admittedly kind of cheap, but no less sincere about storytelling. A must-see for fans of Vincent Price, and a good time all around.