Wednesday, July 1, 2026

WITCHCRAFT ‘70 [1969] Review

 WITCHCRAFT ‘70 [1969]


 



“Witchcraft ‘70” is a documentary film which came out in 1969. An Italian film, it’s Italian title is “Angeli bianchi… angeli neri”. I had heard about the film in the past, while reading books about The Church of Satan. All I really knew is that Anton Lavey was somewhere in the film. 

I rented the movie on Amazon for 99 cents, and even that felt like having spent too much money. I found the film boring and forgettable. Much of the information was surface level, and seemed to focus, especially in the beginning, on things that were obviously not true, or faked for the video. 

There were scenes from all over the world, that was meant to show the different beliefs that people have across the globe. Many of these depictions were dubbed over in Italian. I found it interesting how people from the Pagan cults had rituals similar to what you see in footage about The Church of Satan. 

I don’t have any real thoughts about the various belief systems that the people had. I’m the type of person that believes that people should be free to believe in whatever. What I didn’t like about the film, is that for a documentary, much of the information was presented in a way to almost mock the people it observed. I felt this was especially so with the depictions of the Afro centric religions. Ironically, there wasn’t any commentary about how the Pagan rituals depicted, were obviously using the women for sex. 

For me, I’d rather not have any opinions in a documentary. I’d rather the information be presented, facts only. 

One thing that surprised me was how there was the actual depiction of a goat being killed on film. I was surprised that they actually included the footage of the blood being squirted everywhere. It made me wonder if scenes like these, were what was twisted during the Satanic Panic. I can imagine that some people in the past might have watched that scene, and thought that everyone in the film performed animal sacrifices. 

Much of the film was boring, and I ended up scrolling through  letterboxd for what to watch next. I found myself constantly checking the timer to see how much of the film was left. It didn’t start getting interesting until near the end, with Anton’s part of the film. 
Though his segment wasn’t that long, it’s clear that the directors really wanted his part to be one of the highlights. It almost seemed like they “saved the best for last”. What was interesting, is that they showed Anton doing a Satanic wedding in the movie, stating that Anton did them quite regularly. I don’t know how true that is, but it would make sense, if Anton did officiate a few weddings during the early times of the church. I know that in 1967, he actually did officiate a wedding, as was seen in news articles from that time.

The movie also showed shots of Anton’s home, in what seems to be one of the few films to do so. I thought it was clever, the way Anton decorated his home, with a painting of the devil around the pipe to his water heater. I’m unsure how many surviving photos there are of the black house. 

What’s interesting about Anton’s scene, is that his part is one of the few moments that isn’t dubbed over in Italian. Granted, some of the language used during the ritual scene is in Latin anyway but it appeared to me that the makers of the film must have really wanted Anton in this film, in some capacity. It appears to me, like they were really showing him some respect. We see some other familiar faces in this film, Diane, Karla, and at least one other person that I’m sure was in the movie “Satanis”. Not talked about or featured is the baptism that Anton performed on Zeena. I suppose that it probably didn’t fit in with the film, or was relevant? 

After Anton, there is a hippie cult from San Francisco talked about, but it’s not Charles Manson! Interestingly, this group also rode around in a school bus, that while it remained yellow, was painted over with spots and flowers and things. Their leader was in prison on marijuana charges, and the group was trying to raise $25,000 to bail him out. This part of the movie goes back to dubbing over in Italian. I really wish that they kept the native audio in, because it would have helped frame this film as more of a documentary. I’m unsure of what ever happened to that guy, or his group, but considering that this was filmed in 1969, I imagine that they probably disbanded by the end of that year. 

After the hippies, we are taken to Sweden, where we see a group of religious people who reject medicine and rely on prayer only. A story of a 13 year old boy dying because his mother threw out his insulin is described. It was very sad to me, that a person could do that to their child. I do give props to the film for showing that such nutjobs exist. 

The film ends over in Los Angeles, where cryogenics are discussed. The idea of freezing a body to hopefully be reanimated later, and fix what caused that person’s death, is so silly to me. I found the company to be predatory, making money off of peoples’ fears of their life actually ending some day. The hypocrisy seemed to be hinted at, where the body being frozen would have to have paid for the service. Though not discussed, it conjures up the question, “What happens to these dead bodies when the money runs out?”. An even better question is, “What happens if the company goes under?”.

I don’t recommend the film, it’s a waste of time. If you come across it, I’d say to just skip forward to the Anton part, watch the scene, then move on. It’s a pretty misleading film, where the idea of Black magic, witches, and exorcisms, isn’t even in the film. The movie isn’t scary, it’s simply boring. 

1/5

 

My video: https://youtu.be/QOaLWwVInJ4 

HOOD OF HORROR 2006 Review

 HOOD OF HORROR 2006.


 



“Hood of Horror” is an anthology of “horror” stories that are supposed to take place in urban settings. 

The dialogue is laughably bad, obviously written by people who know nothing about AAVE, or the speech patterns in the Black Communities in America. I wonder who the intended audience for this was, because it’s out of touch with anyone that isn’t a WASP. Much of the dialogue reminds me of a fan fiction that you’d come across in high school. It’s very cliched and unoriginal.

The film just starts, no real explanation. It begins animated, and someone who turns out to be Snoop Dogg’s character, is seen  mourning over his sister who was accidentally shot. Snoop’s character bargains with a demon to bring his sister back, but at the cost of his life, basically. Snoop agrees to then bring anyone similar to him to the Hood of Horror. From here, the next three stories are live action.

--

The first story is “Crossed Out”, a tale about a girl named Posie that gains the power to kill whoever’s graffiti tag she crosses out in spraypaint. She’s bestowed this gift from “Satan” as she says in the dialogue, who is portrayed by Danny Trejo. He gives her a tattoo on her right arm to symbolize this gift. 

Surely, Posie is a nod towards the popular childhood song “Ring Around The Rosie”. Unrelated fact, that song was originally about The Black Death. 

In the story about Posie, you see a flashback about how her father kills her mother. Posie was a child when this happens, and the actor they used looks nothing like the actor who plays the character as an adult. I had to take a minute to realize that the child in the memory was the character. They look nothing alike! The dad paints “RIP” into the head of her mother and says, “See babygirl, it’s like your fingerpaints!”. The audacity!

The first guy dies when he accidentally shoots himself in the pants.

When the second guy dies, Posie says, “What a waste…of beer.” Then sneers. I rolled my eyes because not only was the line terrible, the actress was so monotone and terrible, it made me hate it even more. The third guy gets strangled by a telephone cord in a telephone booth, showing how something like that could never happen today. 

Just as I was thinking, “If she does this to other people, wouldn’t other people do it back to her?”, Posie is seen tagging a wall with her name. Danny Trejo appears and chastises her for ruining a blank canvas, instead of creating real art. He summons the undead versions of the 3 guys killed before, and one of them smashes a bottle through her skull. The makeup effects here were crazy, as blood spurted through her head. 

Later, a giant painting of red posies is unveiled on a wall, and it’s claimed that Posie had to “move on” to the community. The blood presumably making up the painting. Snoop Dogg appears and pulls an eye out of the wall, Posie joining the Hood of Horror. 

—

The second story is “The Scumlord”. A terrible story about how a racist Texan is supposed to live in the same house as his father’s black tenants/old war buddies for a year, in order to get his inheritance. The idea was stupid, because for one, why didn’t any of those men have their place with a VA loan? Unless they were more than “roommates” that lived together. 

It’s revealed that the Texan actually killed his father drunk driving one day, impaling his father on a horned license plate of his. The stereotypes are off the wall in this story, and quickly become insufferable. What could have been used to make good jokes, was just cliche after cliche of “Texas is racist”. It was clearly a story done by somebody that has never spent more than a week in the state. There’s nothing about HEB or Blue Bell Ice Cream. It’s just  terrible “southern” accents, cowboy hats, and confederate flag underwear. If they wanted to make it believable, the least they could have done was make the Texans’ girlfriend a thick latina who cooks tacos. 

The more the story went on, the less interested in it I became. I started to scroll through instagram at one point, and nearly turned the movie off. I couldn’t stand the stereotypes on both sides, from Black and White. The military stereotype of veterans always talking like they’re in war made this story even harder to finish.

What was really shocking about this one, was once again, we encounter someone’s thinly disguised fetish. The Texan’s girlfriend is seen tied up in bed, her stomach bloated, as she had been force fed all of the caviar in their room. She is then gas masked and force fed more caviar, until her stomach literally bursts. When I saw this scene, I had my hands over my face, shocked that something like this was so blatantly in the film. Men force feeding women is a fetish. I am so shocked this was able to fly in the film. 

Not long after, the Texan, who is tied up in a chair, is sent backwards down the the stairs and his neck is punctured. He dies, and you see Snoop Dogg take his head to the Hood of Horror, along with the girlfriend’s body. 

—

The third story is by far the best one, titled “Rapsody Askew”. It’s about a rapper that is seen praying to God about finding his calling, and promising to basically thank the lord if he makes it big. The rapper, known as SOD, meets a guy named Quan, and the two form a duo. Quickly, you see SOD make it big, and before an award ceremony, he stiffs Snoop Dogg’s character who asks him for an interview. As punishment, SOD ends up having to face himself, as the manager lady of the building, or so she’s supposed to be, forces him to watch footage of himself and he’s acted in his life.

SOD turns out to be a terrible person, having used his fame to have intercourse with minors, not even feeling bad about it. One line from the character even has him say that he urinated on the girl. I wonder if this was a reference to R. Kelley. 

SOD turns out to have had a huge ego, and owed his fame due to Quan’s smart business decisions. In one piece of footage, Quan was offered a solo deal, by a character played by Jason Alexander. Alexander donns a terrible British accent that was barely even understandable at times. Later, it turns out that Quan was killed in a shooting, when he and SOD randomly decide to go to a Bodega at night. 

It’s revealed that Quan was set up, and the shooting was actually a hit from SOD himself, as he hired his bodyguard. The manager then allows someone into the room, and it’s the undead corpse of Quan. He starts to mess around with SOD, and SOD loses his mind. His bodyguard comes to the room, having round up two girls for SOD to sleep with, but SOD starts freaking out that his bodyguard can’t see Quan. Thinking that he’s stabbing Quan in the eyes, SOD turns out to have taken glass and stabbed his bodyguard in the stomach, killing him. The girls who were taken to the room see this, and run away screaming. SOD then dies in a shootout with the police. 

The movie ends with Snoop Dogg taking all of the characters who died in the stories to the Hood of Horror. It’s a silly ending with some serious elements. 

Overall, I didn’t care for the film much. Each story had different writers, which somehow still ended up with the similar bad styles. The best story was  the last one, as I could see this actually working as a separate movie on its own, if fleshed out properly. I’m sure that there’s a movie like this somewhere. 

I can’t recommend the movie, it was pretty hard to get through. There are a lot of the early 2000’s movie tropes in it, such as the over sharpness, the barely edgy “attitude” that is still “safe for mom”, and the overuse of Sepia filters. Many of the things that I hated about films from this time period are in it, such as the interest in non-Anglo cultures, yet not wanting to accept the nuances within them. I know that this wasn’t supposed to go out there and change the world, but I have a hard time enjoying pieces of media that only keep people back. It just has a very small minded way to presenting humor. 

I give this movie 1 star, and 2 slimes.

 

My video: https://youtu.be/pz-ZQcI724I 

THE ANTICHRIST 1974 Review

 THE ANTICHRIST 1974


 



“The Antichrist” is an Italian religious horror film that came out after “The Exorcist”. The film was surely a cash grab of sorts, to capitalize on the success of the latter’s popularity, but “The Antichrist” falls short in many ways. 

Though there are beautiful shots in the film, the movie’s greatest downfall is the plot itself. In the years since “The Exorcist”, there’s been a standard formula for ‘exorcism’ movies, but “The Antichrist” follows this too closely. In many ways, the movie is just “copying the homework”, without adding anything new at all. 

I’ve yet to watch “The Exorcist” movie, but I’ve read the book, and that is enough for me to know how much this movie shamelessly takes from it. Some of the ideas between the two medias are changed, but not greatly. I didn’t want to compare the two, initially, but it’s hard when some of the ideas are such blatant rip offs. 

A quick summarization of the plot is that the main character, Ippolita, believes that she can’t walk, in the decades since a car crash that killed her mother. Ippolita is very attached to her father, and detests the idea of him finding someone new to love. Ippolita has no reason to believe that she can’t walk, as doctors prove that there’s no actual health reason preventing this. A psychiatrist examines her, and this leads to some sort of past life recall, where it’s revealed that Ippolita is the reincarnation of an ancestor with the same exact name. This ancestor was in league with satan, having had intercourse with him presumably, at a witch’s sabbath. Ippolita becomes possessed, sexual, and able to walk again. She ends up at a sight seeing tour and has relations with a random guy, only to not remember it. She “wakes up” in a field, “normal”, and unable to walk again. 

Eventually, Ippolita becomes more possessed and vulgar. She ends up being exorcised, and at the end of the film she runs out of her home, potentially about to jump off of a building, but it “saved” by her father forcing her to hug a giant cross. At the end of the movie she seems to be normal, and walks away with her father and another character.

The movie wasn’t horrible, but it wasn’t something that I’d watch again. As stated before, there were beautiful shots, with the camera work. It’s strange, because there was this high quality to the film. You can easily see everything that’s going on, the audio was quite well (though a little desynced, but that might have been due to the website I watched it on), and even the settings were beautifully decorated. You see many beautiful shots of the Italian countryside, and Italian architecture, but the story itself negates all that. 

The idea is that Ippolita is losing her faith, and doesn’t want to lose her father to another woman. The more the movie went on, I felt less inclined to care about Ippolita, because she didn’t appear to suffer from demonic possession, but some sort of mental illness. I know that we’re supposed to suspend our disbelief, but it’s hard for me to seriously believe that Ippolita had anything to do with Satan. This was established from nearly the beginning of the film, where Ippolita and her father went to a statue of the virgin mary, where the idea was to touch the statue, and it would “heal her”, and allow her to walk again. But Ippolita falls, not even reaching the statue. Somehow, this knocks down her faith, like as if God abandoned her. I didn’t understand how this would be enough for her to become possessed, when she could have gotten up and walked towards the statue with the help of her father. 

The opening scene to the movie was interesting, because it seemed like it was trying to portray how this statue really did help those that touched it, but it also showed pure religious fanaticism. One woman was brought to the statue by her family, and she spit on it, calling the virgin mary a whore. But as soon as she touched the statue, she became calm. This woman was actually one of the ones that helped Ippolita up when she fell. 

One of the people there, was a gross man with green slime coming down his face. He was obviously at the ends of life due to his possession, and he ends up jumping off a building, killing himself. This was said to cement his relation with Satan. The green screen effect of him jumping off was silly to me. While I applaud the make up for making him look gross, it was almost too well done. I had a hard time watching the green puke. 

As the movie moved on, I found it strange how we’re just supposed to care for Ippolita. She doesn’t appear to want to better herself in anyway, and nearly everyone actually cares about her. It was strange, how she insisted that no-one really loved her, despite the fact that every character’s life revolved around her. 

Near the end of the movie, Ippolita vomits green puke, very much like what you see in clips from “The Exorcist”. This was disgusting, and I had a hard time watching this part. She forced a guy to eat it, and I just wanted to barf. 

The movie is nearly 2 hours long, but strangely, it didn’t feel like a drag the entire time. There were concepts I found interesting, but I question how much I found entertaining. Were those just all of the parts ripped off of “The Exorcist”? I honestly believe that this film took from both the book and film versions of it. 

In some ways, I can see why they would want to create their own version. I felt like there was a lot of potential to create something scary, because of their location. Imagine what could have been, with their proximity to the actual Vatican! There’s a lot of wasted potential here. 

I don’t find the movie terrible, but I don’t recommend it. You can watch it once, and never again. There are other films that explore the idea of an exorcism much better than this one. 

2/5  | 1 slime

 

My video:  

THE CLOWN MURDERS 1976 Review

 THE CLOWN MURDERS 1976 


 



The Clown Murders is by far one of the worst movies that I have seen in my entire life. It’s low quality, low budget, and the story makes next to no sense at all. The idea of the film is that a guy named Charlie is still in love with his ex Alison, who has since married another man. On Halloween night, Alison and her husband are supposed to close on a property, at midnight of all times, but Charlie kidnaps Alison at a Halloween party with some other guys, where everyone is dressed as a clown. What was supposed to be a prank quickly turns creepy and Alison’s husband goes to the cops looking for her. The movie makes very, very, little sense, and is hard to follow.

The main problem with the movie is its story. The idea is that Charlie, Alison’s ex, would kidnap her as a prank, so she couldn’t close on a property with her husband at midnight. There are so many things wrong with this idea, it’s hard even knowing where to start. 

First of all, kidnapping someone as a prank, is nonsensical, and not a prank! It’s even worse, that Charlie kidnaps his ex of all people, and in the movie, he even says that he knocked her out with chloroform so that she wouldn’t scream! This is so insane and creepy! I don’t know if this was so show how psychotic Charlie was, or if it was supposed to be funny. In many ways, the film is humorous, just not in the ways it intended. I found myself laughing at just how stupid the concept of it was as a whole. 

I wondered if this was some sort of Manson-exploitation in a way. The main character was named Charlie, and later in the film, one of the sex crazed characters, Rosie, starts naming off women he found attractive. Many of these names were shared by women in the Manson Family or concerning the Tate-LaBianca case. I’m unsure if this was coincidental or not. Some of the names mentioned were: Linda, Nancy, Sharon, Rosemary, and Brenda. I won’t lie, I found the actress that played Alison to look similar to Sharon Tate in a way. The movie released in 1976, 7 years after the murders.

I also found the idea of closing on a house or property at midnight absurd. Who would do that? I know that this was obviously something for the sake of the plot, but it’s so stupid and unbelievable. 

My biggest contention against the film is how it runs for way too long. The film is 1 hour and 35 minutes, when it could, and should, have ended at the 40 minute mark. I watched the movie on Fawsome, and found myself constantly checking the timer to see how close I was to the end. I was surprised when there was still an hour left. I was surprised that nothing really happened when that hour passed. 

In many ways, I found the film to be some sort of thinly disguised fetish. Alison is kidnapped by her ex, and he starts acting like he can treat her better than her husband could. It’s implied that she may not be totally in love with him, but in what seems like some sort of Stockholm Syndrome, Alison is semi open to Charlie’s advances. In one scene, she asks him if he wants to tie her up. It was pretty clear what the point of the movie was to me, after that. 

The actor who portrays Charlie is Stephen Young, who 3 years earlier was seen in the movie “Soylent Green”. This was a kind surprise, but I was even more shocked to find that John Candy was in this movie! When I first saw John Candy’s name in the opening credits, I couldn’t believe it. I thought that it might have been some other guy that had the same name. But no, this is one of John Candy’s early films! 


John Candy’s character, Ollie, is easily my favorite. He’s supposed to be the fat guy who is always the butt of the joke, but in comparison to the rest of the cast, Ollie is the most normal and sane out of everyone! Ollie is seen constantly eating something, and near always being made fun for being fat by the character Rosie. Rosie is a balding sex craved man, who always has to put Ollie down for some reason. He also believes that Ollie is a virgin because he’s fat. In one scene, Rosie is squeezing a donut acting like it’s a vagina, and asking Ollie if he knew what “that was”. Ollie proves himself to be the best character when he looks at Rosie and says, “That’s a donut.”.  That was one of my favorite moments in the film, because it was such an easy and clever way to put down Rosie. 



I also found it really funny when Ollie pointed out that Rosie got mad when a girl he’d been talking to, pointed out that he was balding. It was small moments like this that would genuinely make me laugh during the film, because it was so silly juxtaposed to the convoluted plot.

The story ended up all over the place, because initially, Charlie and the group of clowns he had to kidnap Alison took her to the house of one of the men, a lawyer named Peter. They stayed there for a little bit, but it quickly became clear that things were getting weird. Peter wants to let Alison go, but Rosie insists on keeping with Charlie’s plan. Peter tries to leave his own property, but gets caught by Rosie who was chasing him with some sort of knife or machete. Rosie actually stabs Peter, but they stop when some old woman comes by with trick or treaters. She doesn’t seem to get the picture to leave until she looks over at Peter and sees that he’s bleeding. After this scene, the group agree to take Alison to her own house, and hole up there. The fact that Rosie stabbed Peter, and that Peter was actually bleeding, doesn’t seem to be mentioned ever again. 

Summaries of the movie say that an actual clown was stalking the group, but you barely even see this. At one point, this clown stalker tries to bust into Alison’s room, but disappears after she stabs him in the hand. He’s not scary at all, and at the end of the movie, it’s implied that the “stalker” was actually one of the country workers on the property.

The title “The Clown Murders” is hilarious, but very misleading. No-one even dies until the end of the film, and ironically, it’s the kidnappers themselves. Rosie is choked out by the clown stalker, but he doesn’t die. Instead, Rosie is accidentally shot by John Candy’s character, who starts squealing once he realizes what he’s done. I found it hilarious when John Candy screamed, “I killed him!”. In many ways, John Candy was the only reason I watched and finished this film. 

The only person the clown stalker actually kills, is Peter, when he’s shot. 

What was extremely strange to me, is how Alison, the woman kidnapped in the movie, decides to have sex with Ollie. There’s nothing that prompts this at all. Alison has virtually no interaction with Ollie before this, with the exception of early in the film. In the beginning of the movie, Ollie and Alison have a few lines, if that; but it’s never implied that she had romantic feelings for him at all. What’s also strange about this, is that she had sex with Ollie, but not Charlie. In the scenes before this, it’s implied that Alison was potentially still in love with Charlie. Once again, various plot lines that don’t make sense. 

What also doesn’t make sense, is that when Alison was initially kidnapped, she was with her husband, who looked like he was stabbed in the back by Rosie. I thought that he was supposed to be dead, but later in the movie he was just “knocked out”, and goes to the police. The detective he talks to about finding his wife is practically useless, not even seeming to comprehend that something is even wrong. What I don’t understand is why Alison’s husband never came home? If he just went to his own house, he would have found his wife there. 

The movie ends with the cops showing up the next day, seeing Alison at her house outside with two of the other men. Ollie is wrapped up in blanket looking traumatized, and Charlie is sitting by himself, tying a noose. The cops show up, and Charlie just sits in the police car, knowing that he did wrong. 

Alison’s husband checks on her, but she says nothing. He tells the police to give her space, and the camera zooms in on her face, like as if she…doesn’t want to be with him? Like as if she knows too much? It doesn’t make much sense here. I couldn’t help but wonder if she planned on telling her husband that she cheated on him with Ollie. 

Looking through the newspaper archives, reviews of the movie were not good. One article stated that it was a crummy movie playing to empty theaters. Another called it “harmless and forgettable”. Strangely, one review actually thought that the movie was good, but I am unsure how genuine it is. Other reviews  virtually talk about how bad the movie is. Thankfully, I wasn’t the only one to think about how terrible the dialogue was.

Truly, I can’t recommend this film, as bad as it is. John Candy provides some laughs, but the movie is too long, with nothing really happening. I wouldn’t even waste my time watching this film.

1 star
2 slimes

 My video: https://youtu.be/PKx2t3jiDgg 


SATANIS 1970 Review

 SATANIS 1970 

 

 




“Satanis” is a documentary about The Church of Satan that was recorded in 1969, and released in 1970. The film was very obviously recorded before the Tate-LaBianca murders, so there wasn’t any sort of disclaimer about the crime, and the group. I bring this up because from a historical context, after Tate-LaBianca, some people looked at The Church of Satan as potentially responsible for the crime, as certain members of  The Manson Family had small ties with the group. 

That said, “Satanis” is a mildly interesting film that takes a look into what was still the very new Satanic Religion. You see shots of people being interviewed around San Francisco, and the common person’s opinion about Anton LaVey. Watching the film, it was clear to me that from the start, many people have had their doubts and criticisms about The Church of Satan, and Anton Lavey. What’s interesting to me, is that the way this movie appears, it’s clear that the confusion on whether Anton Lavey was a devil worshiper or not was likely intended from the start. 

There are various people asked about their opinions on The Church of Satan, and a lot of people are of a negative mindset about it. Part of it comes from the obviously traditional Christian-type mindset about Satan and the devil; that Satan is bad, a tempter, and a liar. Some of the people interviewed seemed to believe that the Church of Satan was about literal Satan and demons. I remember one woman had stated that she thought that what Lavey was doing was wrong, as she felt that he was leading people to ruin. Considering that it was 1969, and The Satanic Bible had only barely came out that same year, it can’t be expected that people would know that-that’s not what Anton’s group was about. In some ways, I think that “Satanis” was actually about dispelling these types of myths. 

There’s footage of two rituals performed at the Black House, and while interesting, I think that these run way too long. For people that probably never heard of the Church of Satan, or read anything about them, these scenes would likely show what their inside life was really like. In some ways, I can see this as showing that they’re not really scary, but for 1970, some of the things in this film likely still scared people. 

In 2026, many of the parts within the ritual scenes appear campy and hokey. While Anton wasn’t necessarily trying to appear as a horror movie, it’s always been clear to me that certain parts of his rituals were for show. Watching this movie 5 decades after its release, there are things that just seem rather normal to me, than freaky. The opening scene with a ritual was pretty cheesy to me. One thing that I couldn’t get over was how monotone and bored everyone sounded when reading from the books in front of them. It made me wonder if the rituals performed on film were just that, performances. 

You see scenes that show Anton’s wife at the time, Diane. It was interesting to see her, as she would later leave him in the 80’s. To me, it seemed like Diane didn’t seem that into the magic part of the Church, as much as she was the social aspect of it. There are parts to the film that did shock me, like when she kissed a man’s ass during one of the ritual scenes. Was this something that she always did? Did she find this demeaning? Why didn’t Anton ever kiss any man’s ass?

Interesting though, was how this film showed very open attitudes towards homosexuality. In the decades since Anton’s death, people have claimed that the Church of Satan sold out, and became woke. Ironically, Anton shows in Satanis, which was 28 years before his death, that he didn’t have anything against homosexuals at all. The Church of Satan accepted this from the start! This is also seen in another ritual scene, where a man asks for a new banker in his neighborhood to hopefully be drawn to him. It’s not explicitly said, but if you know what he’s talking about, this was a gay man, hoping for another man to have a relationship with him. 

I did laugh though, when the person after this part of the ritual, asked for his penis to be “moist like leviathan”. It was quite possibly one of the biggest nerds too, and it just made me shake my head. I will admit though, I didn’t care for how overt the people in the film were with sex. Some things said in the movie seemed really gross, like about how one woman talked about her son. I don’t want to repeat what she said. 

Do I think that this is the type of documentary that a regular person would watch, or understand? No. In 2026, I really don’t believe that people would watch “Satanis” and think that it’s answered their questions about Satanism or The Church of Satan. Not the deep questions, at least. “Satanis” has gone on to become more of a piece of history for The Church of Satan, something to be watched by those that are already very familiar with Lavey and his writings. 
The way the Church developed after this film, “Satanis” became rather outdated by the end of the decade. Anton stopped performing rituals by 1975 I believe, and the idea of The Church of Satan as a social group was frowned upon. This is interesting, because “Satanis” does make it appear like the CoS was just a group of friends, that got together.

There are scenes where some of the members are in the room with Anton, discussing random things. It’s interesting to see how there wasn’t this dynamic of “bowing down to Anton our lord”, as some people might have thought. Instead, it appeared more like Saturday night of cards with friends. It does appear that the CoS was more of a theosophical or philosophy club, which in many ways they are. Interestingly, in news article before “Satanis” came out, it appears that Anton Lavey was a part of the Theosophical Society. I wonder if this is what inspired him to create his own group. 

One thing that surprised me, was how Diane and Anton so readily admitted to performing curses on people. I’m surprised that they would be so open to admitting that on film. Another interesting point is how you see “666” painted on the chest of one woman during a ritual scene. In the years after “Satanis”, Anton wrote that “666” wasn’t a Satanic number, but “999” was. Yet here, in what was recorded in 1969, you clearly see that this was different. I’ve come across this in articles about Anton from the 60’s also; one article even shows a picture of Anton’s car, which had “666” on the license plate. I wonder if certain things like this were changed because of how bad the Satanic Panic got in 80’s. I honestly believe that many things from the original CoS years were changed after the Satanic Panic, for legal reasons.

In some of the interviews with the townspeople, you see them talk about whether they believe Anton actually worships the devil or not. Some believed yes, others no. I found it interesting that some of the Christians in the movie stated that they believed it was all just a sort of self aggrandizement for Anton. One older man even states that he didn’t think that the Church of Satan had anything to do with transcending, as seen in other religions. 

There were tidbits in “Satanis” that I didn’t see mentioned anywhere else. More info about Togare, Anton’s lion he used to own, which was almost disturbing in some ways. I won’t mention everything, but apparently Diane was actually scratched, in the least, by Togare in the past. As stated in other reviews about Lavey, I have never understood the interest in owning an exotic animal in a small, suburban setting. By the time “Satanis” was recorded, Togare had already been donated to the zoo.

There were various members of the church interviewed for the film, though their names were never formally divulged. For a documentary, it would have been nice to see name cards or something. The most you could really gather was if a person was wearing a sigil of baphomet necklace or not, but even still, you’d have to have already known about that, to know that-that was a CoS thing. 

I looked up “Satanis” on the newspaper archives, and there was only stuff on it from 1970. Mostly ads about the movie, some reviews lightly touched on the matter. Interestingly, some ads stated that the Church of Satan was a cult. Another article joked that they were afraid of Anton, after he admitted to performing Black Magic, and were his friend! 

Satanis was released on March 4th, 1970, from what I could find. On the opening night of the film, it was played as a benefit for the church, and anyone that attended received free copies of The Satanic Bible. Interestingly, one ad for “Satanis” had “Night of The Living Dead” also advertised with it. 

The movie doesn’t seem to be mentioned after 1970, as I couldn’t find any reviews or ads on it after. 

I rate this 2/5 stars, not because it’s about the Church of Satan, but because the film making itself is not that great. The director really should have done more to explain who the people interviewed were, what their opinions on the church was, and let Anton and the others explain what the church really stood for. To me, documentaries are made to inform, and I don’t really believe that this film did that. 

My video: https://youtu.be/D1BeXr6i5Kc

ALUCARDA 1977 Review

 ALUCARDA 1977

 



Alucarda is a Mexican horror film, though not in the typical bloody slasher context. It’s based deep in religion, and fears from the Catholic perspective. In some ways, it proves Peter Steele right with his song “Angry Neurotic Catholics”. 

The actual setting and time period isn’t formally announced, it’s just something that we as the viewer have to piece together. I’m not sure if we’re supposed to assume the movie takes place in Mexico, Europe, or wherever. Though admittedly, the exact location isn’t that important. 

The movie starts out in some sort of crypt, where a woman has just given birth to a baby girl. Some sort of hag/old man vagabond is with Alucarda’s mother, and swears to take the baby to the convent so “he won’t let him take her away”. Who “he” is, isn’t revealed to us. Looking back, it’s clear that she must have meant The Devil. After watching the film, I noticed that the crypt looked like some sort of beautiful oasis at first, and it wasn’t until the baby was taken away, that it turned into a cobweb filled crypt of doom. Alucarda’s mother is played by the same actress that plays Alucarda. 

Thinking about it, I assume that the man who takes Alucarda away is the devil himself. 

The movie then flashes forward, to where a girl named Justine is moved into a convent. Justine was recently orphaned, after what appears to be her mother’s death. It seems that she had already experienced her father’s death before? Justine is moved into a room with none other, than Alucarda. 

Alucarda appears out of the shadows, and quickly reveals herself to be a kooky lesbian, with interesting “secrets” like bugs and trinkets. Alucarda and Justine quickly get close, and frolic in the meadow, rolling around in the grass. I’m unsure if Justine realizes the gayness of this, it’s never really discussed. They come across a freakish male in the forest, who looks like a cross between a meth head and Mungo Jerry. They follow him to a caravan, and a woman reads Justine’s palm, somehow being able to tell only “darkness and shadows”. The way her palm is read is laughable, and not really how it works. What’s important about this scene, is that Alucarda attains a dagger, which becomes important later.

 



 The two girls run away and stumble across the old crypt that Alucarda just so happen to have been born in. Alucarda feels right at home, and seems to do some sort of past life recall, where she was killed in the crypt. I’m unsure if potentially this was her remembering her mother? If so, does that imply that Alucarda was her mother in a previous life? 

Alucarda confesses her feelings for Justine, which felt crazy to me, because in the movie, they had just met. Alucarda wants to form a pact with Justine, that they’d love each other and die together. They nearly complete the pact, but Justine chickens out. Alucarda just so happens to open the tomb to her mother’s grave, and all these crazy voices seep out, with the girls running out of the crypt. 

They quickly enter a relationship, and the passage of time isn’t really discussed. In what appears to be a day to the viewer, was apparently at least a week later in the movie. 

Later during a sermon, Justine falls out and is taken back to her room. Alucarda claims to hear “the voices” and starts shouting out various names for The Devil. Beelzebub, Astaroth, Belial. She does this crazy twirling thing and screaming Satan, and Justine starts crying. Somehow, none of the Sisters in the convent seem to come in the room, wondering what’s going on. 
What’s interesting about this scene, is that Alucarda seems to be falling into descent with the devil. Though, on the other hand, in  a non religious way, this could also be interpreted as her having mental health issues, believing that she’s possessed by the devil. For the sake of the film, I think we’re supposed to suspend our disbelief, and believe that Alucarda is possessed. Right after, she slaps Justine and tells her that they have to make a pact together with their blood, and of course, the devil shows up. Interestingly, it’s the man from earlier who gave Alucarda the dagger. 

The two women complete the blood pact, naked, Alucarda kissing the blood on Justine, and overall, quite gay and Satanic. They go towards a Witch’s Sabbath, where a group of naked people dance around and fornicate. One of the convent Sisters seems to “see” this, in a psychic vision, and prays for Justine. The two girls are seen with Satan during this Sabbath, and I suppose, this cements their allegiance with Satan. At the end of the scene, the convent Sister is nearly completely covered in blood, and seems to ascend in the light. I don’t completely understand this, but I found it interesting.

Part two of the film starts with another religious lesson, and Alucarda is caught chatting with Justine. When asked what the Sister was lecturing about, Alucarda perverts it to Satan, which scares everyone. Justine joins with Alucarda, and they deliver the iconic line: “Satan, Satan, Satan, our Lord and Master! I acknowledge thee as my God and Prince. I promise to serve and obey thee as long as I shall live. I renounce the other god, and all the saints.”.

This was really interesting to me, because I did not anticipate coming across this line. I’m a fan of the band Ritual Killer, and on their first album they have a song called “Dead River Intervention”. At the end of the song, there are a few rips played after the music ends. The first one, I can’t seem to place where it comes from, but it seems to be rather popular, as another Black Metal band has used this clip in one of their songs. But later, over the chanting of the first clip, you hear this line from Alucarda. This is such a great easter egg, and watching this movie, makes me like that song even more; listening to that song, makes me love the movie even more. I figured that-that quote came from somewhere, but I didn’t know where. I had the hunch that it had been from a movie, and I’m glad to know that Alucarda was the origin!

Anyway, Alucarda and Justine’s allegiance with Satan doesn’t go over well with the convent, and they’re expected to repent. Justine falls ill, mysteriously, and from here, we see her start to fade out of the movie as a character. I don’t believe she has very many lines, if any, after this. Alucarda is expected to repent at Confession, and instead, she points out the hypocrisies in the church, and shows that she’s not sorry at all. Here, we start to see that Alucarda is definitely evil. 

What’s interesting, is that the movie moves from being about a lesbian that’s a little freaky, to something more major. Father Lazaro and the other convent sisters start flagellating themselves to rid them of the devil and his evil; we see this divide between religious superstition, and what’s supposed to be science. Right before this scene, we see Justine still sick in bed, who was having coals or something placed on her to help with the illness. Of course, whatever this was definitely wasn’t working. It looked akin to the bloodletting type things that doctors of yore would do, which didn’t help anything. Ironically, the doctor’s treatments didn’t help Justine because they were pseudo-science, it was because she was possessed!

What’s interesting is that Father Lazaro brings up instances of the devil from archives in the Vatican. This is very interesting to me, because growing up, my very Catholic Father would talk about how the Vatican had extensive pieces of knowledge, and I’ll just leave it at that. I wonder if this scene is a nod towards this Catholic mindset. 

A Brother holds this book up where two other stories of demonic possession/evil are recounted, and then a third one is read, which seems to foreshadow some of the later events of the movie. 

An exorcism is attempted on Justine and Alucarda, in a way that I’ve never seen depicted in any other movie. The two are practically crucified, Justine being worked on first. They poke her with something and she bleeds, dying I guess. The doctor that looked after her earlier busts into the room and flips his shit, because he points out the religious stuff has no bearing on science and medicine. He takes pity on Alucarda, who was knocked out by one of the Brothers, and he takes her away from the convent, back to his own house. 

Justine is mourned by the Sister who seemed to have first welcomed her. It seems clear that they only saw Justine as a plaything for Alucarda, not really putting any blame on the former. We see two sisters praying over Justine’s body, though not in the Khoma Viy way. One of the sisters falls out, and is taken away…but last minute Justine seems to come back to life. 

Back at the Doctor’s house, Alucarda wakes up, freaking out scared that she’s going to be killed. The doc’s blind daughter, Daniela stays in the room with Alucarda after her father leaves, and near immediately, Alucarda seems to start putting the moves on Daniela! When I saw this, I thought, “Oh my god, Alucarda is such a player!”. 

In another room, the doc opens a book about Satan, but rejects it as bullshit. He’s then called back to the convent, where it turns out that Justine’s body is gone. You can tell that he wanted to believe that somebody probably just stole her body, but then he’s called to look at a nun’s body upstairs that mysteriously burned to death. 

Alucarda is seen leaving the Doctor’s house with his daughter Daniela, though we don’t know where too. Back at the convent, Father Lazaro asks to see the burned nun’s body, and a second later, he’s chopping the head off of it, because she came back to life! 
This is the most brutal scene in the film to me, one of the few with blood and gore. Because we don’t see blood in much else of the film, this scene is even more gory to me. What’s interesting, is how the doc asks how her body could have moved if she was dead, and the Father tells him it was because of the devil. For the sake of the film, it makes sense; but it also makes me think about how in real life, many people have used religion as an excuse to do horrible things. 

The doc has a diatribe of sorts talking about how when he studied in Paris, religion was taught as a form of slavery. He couldn’t believe though, what he just saw with the nun coming back. It seems to me that the movie was playing with the idea of people who believe in science only, versus religion only.  

Father Lazaro states that Justine corrupted the nun, and they have to stop her and Alucarda. The doc is taken to the crypt Alucarda was born in, as one of the Sisters knew that she hung out there sometimes. Justine makes her final appearance in the film, as a blood covered, Elizabeth Bathory type. The doc appears with some Holy Water to pour on Justine, to try stopping her from attacking the nun, but she still takes a bite out of her. Justine melts into a skeleton, dying. 
They go back to the convent, and Alucarda appears with Daniela. It seems to me that Alucarda was fulfilling the third Vatican record from the archives discussed earlier, and Daniela was the third person to help fulfill this. Alucarda seems to have acquired the power to set people on fire by saying the names of “The Devil”, which in this movie were “Astaroth”, “Belial”, and “Beelzebub”. She also says something in what appears to be Latin, but I cannot completely hear it. 

The convent is set on fire from Alucarda’s powers, and she’s only able to be taken down when some of the Sisters hold up one of the dying nuns, or perhaps the dying nun that Justine bit, in the same position of Christ on the cross. Alucarda just so happens to be standing in front of the giant crucifix, and I guess being sandwiched between the two scares her enough, to where she fades away into ash. The doctor is able to seen holding his daughter, we see the crucifix burning, and the movie ends.

—
Overall, I really liked the movie! There are problems, sure, but I can see myself rewatching this in the future. One of the main problems I had with the movie though, is that the audio wasn’t that great, and it was hard to tell what the actors were saying, on first listen. I definitely had to replay some scenes just to even understand certain pieces of dialogue. It seems that the audio track to the movie was a little off, I nearly thought that the movie was dubbed, but no, it was recorded in English. 

I think that the movie could have done well to explain some background information about the characters. Nothing is really known about Justine, other than she’s an orphan. We don’t have much reason to care for her. I think that the movie could have taken the time to explore the idea of science vs. Religion more. The movie isn’t very long, only an hour and 16 minutes. Another 15 minutes could have easily explained a few things more, or given more time to Justine and Alucarda’s relationship. 

The name of the main character is never explained. Clearly, this is a nod towards Dracula, and Alucard. Backwards, Alucarda is Adracula. In the movie, her mother was named Lucy Westenra, who is a character from Bram Stoker’s book “Dracula”. I found it funny that Alucarda’s mother wanted her to be raised in a convent, surely so that she’d turn out good, despite the fact that her daughter’s name was Dracula backwards! It doesn’t make sense! Where did Lucy get that name from?!  I think it would have been interesting to have had more nods towards Bram’s literature, or maybe even a scene talking about her name, but we never saw anything like this. 

In general, I think that this was more of a nod towards that classic gothic lit, as movie also has similarities with the story “Carmilla”, which is also about a female lesbian vampire. 

There seems to be relatively little known about the background of production. I’m not sure what the budget for the film was, or what the filming session was really like. I assume it was on the lower end, and I give them a lot of credit for working with what they had. The few settings in the movie are really worked to drive the dark, creepy, feeling you get from Alucarda. One of the best parts about the film to me, is how weird they depict her. Alucarda is played by Tina Romero, who has this Sissy Spacek vibe with her crazy expressions. Tina Romero really brought the character to life, with her crazy twirls and screams for Satan, on top of her damn near psychotic eyes. 

I tried to look up any reviews for the movie on the newspaper archives, but I didn’t see anything. The most we ever got on the film were ads about it being played in theaters…30 some years after it came out! I’m not sure what happened, but after 2000, I started to see more mentions of Alucarda in the newspapers. There were even theaters that would show the movie in person, as recently as 2024! 

Despite the lack of story in some parts, I really enjoyed this film. Surprisingly, I give it a 4/5. I really think that this movie would be enjoyed by many people. 

 

My video: https://youtu.be/n5ILfRxoFGI 



DAWN OF THE DEAD 1978 Review

 DAWN OF THE DEAD 1978


 



“Dawn Of The Dead” is one of the movies that has been talked about all my life, and rightfully deserves all of the praise it gets. I was made aware of the film early in life, thanks to my father, and his interest in zombie movies. We didn’t watch the original movie, but I remember him showing my siblings and I the remake from 2004, and some of the comics based off of the original. I grew up before we had all of the streaming services available today in 2026, so if you wanted to watch the movie, you had to find a physical copy. Ironically, after the 2004 remake, but before our streaming services of today, I remember it being pretty hard to find rentals, or anything on the original version of the movie. 

After I turned 13 years old, I got into Metallica, and remember looking at pictures of Cliff Burton, who was always recalled as a “blast from the past”. People would talk about how Cliff still dressed like he was in the 70’s, and had this hippie look to him. I remember seeing these pictures of Cliff wearing a “Dawn of The Dead” shirt, which made me want to see the original movie even more. After high school, I started to get my own money, and somewhere around 18 or 19 years old, I saw “Dawn of The Dad” for the first time, after buying it off Amazon. I have a physical copy of the theatrical release. This version is 2 hours, but I feel like the length is appropriate. For everything that ends up happening in the film, any shorter length would only result in certain plot points not being properly explained. Even still, there are longer cuts of the film, 2 and a half hours, which give even more info than the 2 hour release. 

I can’t act like this is a “perfect” film. Truly, a perfect film does not exist; but “Dawn of The Dead” is as close as you can get, in the horror genre especially. 

There are negative aspects to the movie, one the main contentions being that the only female lead, Fran, is poorly written, and a weak character. In the theatrical release, she appears more weak, and less questioning than in the extended cuts. There’s not much her character can do though, as she’s pregnant, and logically, it wouldn’t make sense to put a pregnant woman in peril with zombies. Once the group gets to the mall, Fran feels forgotten about, especially in the theatrical cut. The story seems to focus more on the men. It would have been interesting to see some scenes with dialogue about how frightening it would be to bring a baby into the world, when it was overrun with zombies. It was never commented on, how she was pregnant during a time of absolute death.




I never saw anyone comment about Fran’s pregnancy, in the years that I’ve watched this film. Maybe my perception is too brutal on this subject, but, wouldn’t it be selfish to go through with the pregnancy during a zombie outbreak? One thing I always think about, is how the baby wouldn’t have any medical care, or prenatal appointments. I mean, it could bring a whole new world if fear and hunger to bring a child into the world, when the group didn’t have much of an evacuation plan from the zombies to begin with. What was also strange, was how Fran kept smoking cigarettes despite knowing she was 3 or 4 months pregnant. It was 1978, so it’s not like the effects of smoking while pregnant were unknown. But then, maybe her smoking showed how much she really wanted the baby. Once again, this point is never really talked about. The pregnancy is more like an afterthought, and Stephen often acts like he’s not about to become a father; like as if he doesn’t need to be more careful. 

It’s interesting though, Peter offers to give her an abortion, if she so wants it, claiming that he knew how. I think this is a very interesting piece of dialogue that really showed the times that the movie was set in. Abortion had barely been legalized 5 years prior, in 1973, so people like the character Peter definitely still carried that knowledge, but the time the movie came out. Of course, Fran denies an abortion. But it makes you wonder what would have happened if she got one. Would she have been alright? Or would she have risked her life, almost dying? I wonder if this was subtle plot point here. Fran can risk dying to the zombies, if anything were to happen, or she could risk dying if the abortion went wrong. Despite Fran’s character not getting as much development as the men did, the idea of her being pregnant during such a horrific time drives my contention on how well the movie at least brings up subtle yet interesting points, intentional or not.

Another negative contention that I saw in reviews from the 70’s, was that the original zombie outbreak was never explained. This is true for the theatrical release. The scenes that at least speculate, are not included in what was originally seen in theaters. Granted, I never thought about the origin of the outbreak when watching the movie, as I viewed the film from an everyday person’s perspective. Though many scenes were cut from the film for time and ratings reasons, the theatrical releases makes it feel like the origin isn’t talked about, because the main characters wouldn’t know the origin anyway. It doesn’t seem too crazy, in 2026, that a pandemic would happen, and the common civilian wouldn’t be told the correct information, let alone the origin of it. But, hindsight is 20/20, isn’t it?


I’ve watched the Theatrical Release, The Complete Cut and other extended versions, and I’ve seen the movie in 2015 at Housecore Horror in San Antonio, Texas. In 2015, the band Goblin, who did much of the soundtrack to the film, or technically, one version of the soundtrack, played music along with the movie at the Aztec Theater. I don’t know technically, what version of the movie played that year, though it seems to have been more of an extended cut, as I remember seeing many of those padded background scenes, which aren’t included in the Theatrical release. 

It’s funny, in a way, I remember sitting in the dark with the other members of the audience, listening to Goblin play perfectly along with the movie. Personally, I prefer Goblin’s tracks over the majority of the movie because of this. I really feel like Goblin made the music to the movie real. I’ll never forget, having a serious headache though, near the end of the movie, and having to leave early. Some of the staff at the festival asked me if I was really gonna leave, before the movie ended, and I told them I had to. I really needed a tylenol. Little did I know, that was an early sign of my arthritis. 

What’s also funny, is that a friend of mine has always wanted to see Goblin live, but has never got the chance to. Shortly after meeting him, I asked if he ever did, and he said no. Ironically, him and his band had played at Housecore Horror the year before. If only his band played in 2015, would this friend have been able to see Goblin live. I recommend doing so, by the way. They put on a good show.

—

The movie starts out in complete chaos as the news station WGON-TV is rowdy with workers running all over, as a broadcast about an outbreak is going on. In some versions, the audio is a little too loud, making the dialogue hard to hear. But we piece together that the dead are coming back to life, eating the living, and multiplying rapidly due to this. The first character we see is Fran, who is seemingly trying not to lose her shit. I’ve watched the movie multiple times, and it wasn’t until rewatching in January of 2026, that I realized how George Romero is sneaking in the opening shots of the movie, sitting in front of Fran.

The TV station was trying to broadcast information out to the people, but Fran points out that the info is outdated, and would send people to their deaths, because it would point them to locations that are closed. She tries to have these taken down, but another producer argues to leave it up for ratings, basically. Already, you see how greedy people can be, during a time of crisis, one of life and death.



There are two men arguing live on TV, one trying to tell the truth about the zombies, and trying to warn the people. What’s interesting to me, is how he says that people were to no longer reside in their private residences, and evacuate to centers deep in the city, as the National Guard bursts into peoples’ homes to exterminate the dead.

I’ve always questioned the idea why people would leave their homes in a zombie invasion, to potentially die on the road. There’s no guaruntee that there would be room for all the people at the shelters, and so called “Safe Havens”. There’s no promise that a shelter would have enough food or supplies to properly take care of thousands of people all at once. To me, it always seems like a bigger risk to brave a zombie infection on the road, than toughing it out at your own domicile. Granted, this is also how we get the zombie movies and TV shows we do have. Granted, “Resident Evil” on the PS1 takes place in a house, just, a really big one. Of course, being in the city, is also completely different from living in the suburbs or the country. 

Fran is then taken to the side by her boyfriend Stephen, who tells her to meet him on the roof at 9pm, because they’re taking a helicopter, and leaving the city. In the theatrical release, it’s not really explained what Stephen’s role is. In extended cuts, he’s revealed to be the traffic weather guy. Thinking about it, aren’t they stealing the helicopter? Anyway, Fran tries to protest that she has to stay and work, but one of her coworkers overhears and tells her to go. By midnight, the emergency broadcasts would be taking over. 

The movie then cuts to another part of the city, where some type of hostage situation or standoff is happening. In the complete cut, you see Roger, the third main character, hiding below a brick half wall, and saying a few things. These are then repeated by the negotiator over the megaphone, who says something about a guy named “Martinez”. It becomes clear that the building is populated by the Black and Puerto Rican population, and a racist cop named either Wooley or Willie, starts being racist. He uses the N-word, and talks about blasting them out of the building. What’s interesting, is how the racist cop shows signs of racist envy, claiming that he doesn’t understand why the people have a better housing situation than him. A common folly of racists, angry with the people of a different color, because of some perceived superiority complex, and not mad at how rigged the system is as a whole, for everyone. This is once again, one of the subtle nudges of social commentary in Romero’s film, that was also seen in the movie “Night of The Living Dead”. I always liked how Romero’s films would touch on the topic of race, something that I don’t think he originally intended; but thanks to Duane Jones, the original actor for Ben in the 1968 movie, Romero would subtly point out the hypocritical logic in many racists’ minds. The driving theme with the 3 “Dead” films is, “How can you be racists, when the dead are walking the streets?!” The dead aren’t racist! They’ll eat anyone!

Going back to the movie, when Wooley makes his racist comments, Roger looks flabbergasted, especially as he looks at a new hire, some sort of first day, Leon Kennedy type. Roger tells the kid he’ll do fine, and then Martinez, we presume, busts out of the building with his cohorts, shooting. The makeup is pretty bad here, nearly brown face. The new hire Roger was talking to is shot in the head, killed instantly. You see Roger’s horror, as this young promising life has everything taken from him, never even getting a chance. 

The cops gas the building, and raid it, causing complete pandemonium. Racist cop Wooley loses his fucking mind, and uses the raid to start shooting and busting down doors, murdering innocents, all because they were minorities. This is where the practical effects really start to be seen, as one of the people Wooley murders is a figure made out of what looks like clay or something. Despite the context this is happening in, I found this figure to be very cheesy looking, and laughably bad. Apparently, this was supposed to be used as a prop for an alternate ending, where both Fran and Peter kill themselves, the prop being for Peter’s death; but with the change of the ending, and the two escaping, this prop was repurposed. 

In the complete cut, we see Roger try to stop Wooley, and jump on him, but Wooley throws him off. One cop tells Wooley not to open the door to one room, but he does so anyway, and once he does, he’s show through the chest by another SWAT member standing behind him; the 4th main character, Peter. Peter subtly signals to the others that they didn’t see anything, which seems to be understood. This scene is very powerful, as cliche as the word might seem here. I think many would find Wooley’s death to be justified, and all the more satisfactory, that no-one would even report it. Most of all, how ironic that Willie was done in by the type of man that he hated so much.

Roger is helped by another young SWAT member, and as Wooley’s body is being removed, it’s revealed why he was initially told not to “open that door” to the apartment; corpses and dismembered body parts are all around it. Here’s we see the true reason the SWAT team are sent to the apartment building, and likely, the real reason for the shootout with Martinez; the residents of the apartment building are hoarding their living dead in there, and potentially other rooms. 

This is what was so quickly discussed at the beginning of the film with the news broadcast. The people were to evacuate their private residences to go to the shelters, while the National Guard would collect the dead. But it’s so clear by this SWAT raid, that things didn’t go smoothly. People weren’t doing as they were supposed to. Clearly, SWAT was forcing these people out, not helping them.

I wonder if Wooley and the others knew this, or if he was completely naive to the undead theme. I also wonder, if the racist context was supposed to be a way for the movie to trick prejudiced watchers. Would a racist viewing the film think that Wooley’s actions were justified? Many racists believe that minorities are criminals. I wonder if were supposed to think that the raid might have had something to do with drugs, only to be shocked with the zombie reveal. It’s the little parts like that, that make you think about how much time and nuance truly went into the writing of the film.

In the apartment filled with zombies, the young guy nearly gets bitten, as he’s shocked at the sight of what’s happening. Another zombie comes in, who Roger and another cop fight off, and then the young kid shoots himself after killing the zombie. This horrifies Roger, likely because he just saw another young man lose his life.

Roger escapes to the basement, and nearly throws up. He’s told that he’s not alone, and we see the man that shot Wooley. He asks, “You was in Wooley’s Unit, wasn’t you?”. Roger replies, “I didn’t see anything. I didn’t see how he died.”. The mutual understanding that, he wasn’t going to say anything, if any questions were ever asked. I guess the characters expected life to go back to normal eventually. I wonder if Peter was thinking what he’d have to do, in case he was taken to court for murder. Then again, Wooley murdered multiple people first.

The two sit and chat, smoking, when a one legged priest appears. I always think about what he says, whenever someone or my cats are blocking a doorway. I always think, “Let me pass” in that guy’s voice. “Let me pass, let me pass.”. What’s interesting, is how the priest tells them that the people of the apartment building were leaving their dead in the basement they were in, right now!

Peter and Roger make their way to his part of the basement in particular, and it’s understood that Peter wants, or feels like he has  to shoot these zombies, to put them out of their misery. He looks horrified as he sees some of the dead eating body parts, and others, wrapped up in sheets, but moving. He unloads, and then has to replace his ammo, although it looks like he doesn’t really want to. Roger then comes over and finishes the job. A National Guardsman busts through a small chute, shocked at the bodies. He asks if they’re okay, and Peter reluctantly says yes. Roger asks why the people do this, and Peter tells him that they still believe in respect for the dead. And I agree.

—
The movie goes back to Stephen and Fran, who go get fuel for the helicopter. They’re waiting on Roger, fueling up, when some ruffians try to scare them. One of the people is Joe Pilato, who would go on to have one of the lead roles in a later Romero film, playing Captain Rhodes in 1985’s “Day of The Dead”. Pilato and his fake cops see a patrol car showing up and decide to scram, obviously scared at being found for being fakes. This dialogue is not in the theatrical release, but it’s very funny seeing Pilato’s fake cop character trying to bargain not getting into a shootout with Roger. Roger brings Peter with him, and before they leave in the helicopter, one of the dopey fake policemen ask if they have any cigarettes. He also claims that they’re taking a boat down the river to “The Island”, though, they have no real destination, and are greatly unprepared. I assume they probably died instantly, with wherever they eventually headed. The funniest part, is that Roger and Fran immediately light up their own cigarettes as they leave in the helicopter.

In the complete cut, Peter asks if anybody is being left behind. Fran says, “an ex husband”, and Roger says “an ex wife”. Peter says some brothers, and Fran asks if they were real brothers or street brothers, and Peter says “both”. It makes me wonder if any of the people in the apartment building were people that Peter knew.

The helicopter flies over the countryside, where they see the military out in trucks, rednecks doing target practice on the roaming zombies, and a mix of the two drinking somewhere inbetween. They land for fuel, and Peter checks out a building, a potential motel. We see writings on the wall from people that passed through, telling loved ones where they went. This surely influenced the graffiti seen in the save rooms from the game, “Left For Dead”. 

While getting the fuel, Stephen is attacked by a zombie, but Fran does nothing, as a zombie is coming toward her. This scene is silly, because it doesn’t really show how she’s stuck between a rock and a hard place, it just makes her look useless as a character. Stephen thankfully grabs a mallet he dropped, and bashes the zombie, but as he gets up, he bumps into the other zombie, nearly twirling in the air. I won’t lie, I sometimes got second hand embarassment from how useless Stephen would be at times, he wasn’t a very good protector.

While fueling up, a zombie with a big head makes its way towards Roger. Thankfully, the helicopter blades scalp the zombie, in what I am sure is one of the most memorable deaths in the entire movie. I don’t know if something like that was ever seen in a movie like this, before. The thing is, people actually die like that in real life.

Peter is seen at the motel, and in another movie first, he has to shoot some child zombies. A common piece of lore here is that Ken Foree had no idea that there would be kids as zombies, so his reaction in the scene was apparently real. This was surely upsetting to many people, and you never see kids as zombies in movies after this. I’m sure there’s laws about this, because depictions of violence against children, but it does bring up the good point that in a zombie apocalypse, even children can be infected too. We see another zombie come in to try and munch on Peter, who, I wonder is the inspiration to the poster art. You never really see the exact zombie on the poster, at least, I don’t think.

Eventually, the crew make it to t he infamous mall, and set up “shop” there. Not long after, Peter and Roger decide to explore, while Stephen and Fran stay upstairs…until Stephen decides that he once again wants to prove himself as a man, and gets nearly killed in the utility room. The four all have a close encounter with the zombies, and after, in the complete cut, Stephen has the audacity to say they did a good job! This extra scene shows how naive Stephen is as a character, claiming that people “just didn’t do what they were supposed to”, and that’s why the outbreak got so bad. But it’s clear that Peter sees through this, and asks Stephen if he’d be ready to blow Fran’s head off if she became one of the zombies. He doesn’t say anything.

Interestingly, when it’s revealed that Fran is pregnant, the only one to suggest finding a doctor is Roger. Peter interestingly says that they can deal with it. Of course, he offers to give Fran an abortion, but they refuse. In the complete cut, Stephen goes back to the room he and Fran are staying in. Fran wanted to go to Canada, just taking what they needed, and leaving. Stephen points out that they’d have to land multiple times just for fuel, and would likely have trouble with the authorities. All good points. In the complete cut, we see some info the next day as Fran watches the news. With this extra scene, we’re informed that the outbreak is likely due to a virus. Fran has extra dialogue around here, saying that she wants to be included in group decisions, and doesn’t want to be left defenseless again. All good points. This seems to bother Flyboy, who seems offended by this. 

Roger and Peter then take some trucks to block the entrances to the mall, though Roger nearly gets killed in the process. We hear one of Roger’s most infamous lines, “We got this! We got this by the ass!”. Roger’s hubris nearly gets him eaten, again. Thankfully, Fran shoots some of the zombies, but he gets bitten anyway. It make me laugh to see Ken Foree’s reaction, who just simply says, “Damn!”, Roger quickly begins to deteriorate, and Stephen picks up some of the slack as Peter’s right hand man. 

In the weapon shop, Peter and Stephen stock up. Interestingly, this store was not an actual store in the mall used in the film. It was a separate location entirely.

The four go out into the mall and nearly die again, Roger’s infected leg being gored by another zombie. They get into a car, driving around the mall to lock all the doors. This is seen in extra scenes of the film.

With the extra scenes, we get more background to the characters. Granted, one off thing was how the characters would dump the dead zombies in a fridge cooler to what I assume was a restaurant. This is seen in the theatrical cut too, but with the extended scenes, we see that they dump the bodies next to perfectly find food! Isn’t that wasteful? They could have surely eaten the ribs and tomatoes in there, instead of letting it decay with the zombie flesh. What also doesn’t make sense, is how they expect the cooler to be a good enough storage! Wouldn’t the bodies still rot? It would just happen at a slower rate, but still cause stinkage!

After a shopping spree, the gang gathers in front a JC Penney’s, and Ken Foree says the famous line, “When there’s no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth.”. Something told to Peter by his grandfather, a potential voodoo priest from Trinidad. This line makes me wonder, if Peter thought this at the beginning of the film.

Roger deteriorates rapidly, and though somewhat delirious, he asks Peter to shoot him, so that he doesn’t become “one of them”. Not long after, Roger passes, and comes back, looking like a moldy mushroom. Peter ends Roger’s misery. They bury him in the mall ground fountain area, which struck me as odd. Would he even decompose there?

 In the next scene, Stephen and Fran are eating at a “restaurant”, and Steve proposes. Fran rejects him, saying that it “wouldn’t be real”. You can see how this hurts the character. I thought this was stupid, because it’s like Fran assumed that life would go back to normal, eventually. But when would that be? 5 years? What would make the marriage real, at a time when most of the population was dying to, and becoming zombies?!

Time passes, and Fran becomes more visibly pregnant. Extra scenes show the part of the mall they’re in being more lived in and decorated. Tensions seem to run between Fran and Stephen more, sometimes nearly seeming like they don’t even like each other. At dinner, Fran exclaims “What have we done to ourselves?!”, implying that what she said about the mall being a prison too, was right. I couldn’t help but roll my eyes at this. During a life or death situation, what is she looking for? 

After this, we see Fran mastering the helicopter with Stephen, which pretty much begins the ending of the film. Tom Savini and his group of evil biker raiders decide that they want stuff from the mall, and run amok inside it. They throw pies in the zombies’ faces, steal jewelery from a zombie, and ride around in their motorcycles. In extended cuts of the film, the song that plays here is “Zarazatom” by Goblin, which I think fits perfectly with this sequence. Granted, I think that the song “Torte In Faccia” would have been good for seeing the pies in the zombies’ faces. 

Despite being vastly outnumbered, Stephen feels territorial about the mall, and wants to fight for it. Thankfully, he gets the idea to retreat, though Peter still has to escape after being shot at by the bikers. Unfortunately, Stephen gets shot when he retreats into the elevator shaft.

After this, Tom Savini’s character is shot by Peter, and he dies, and the other bikers try to escape. Here, we see the sombrero biker trying to get his blood pressure taken, for whatever reason, and then of course, he’s mauled by zombies. According to a news article from 1978, this character had a red band around his arm, with a certain party symbol on it. I don’t believe we see this insignia in any scene, thankfully. In the 1978 article, the author wrote that their thoughts were, “Some people will wear anything”. Granted, when the extras to the biker scene showed up to the film, they were told to wear whatever they wanted. The idea was to look like an authentic group of ragamuffins. Interestingly, some of the bikers in the movie were part of a real gang, called the Pagans. 

Stephen is then supposed to meet up with Peter, but is mauled by zombies as his feet dangle in the lift. A complete goner, Stephen quickly converts into a zombie. This is interesting to me, because Roger took a few days to zombie, where Stephen did so in a few hours. Zombie Stephen and his cohort of undead friends take over the mall apartment, and Peter tells Fran to escape, but he’s not coming with her. Peter contemplates suicide, and the zombies start to climb to the roof, to the Fran even. Last minute, when Dawn hits, Peter decides to live, and go with Fran into the helicopter. They then fly away, to who knows where!

—

Overall, I think this is an essential movie for every Horror fan to see. You cannot watch horror movies, without watching “Dawn of The Dead”. The influence this film had on culture is too great to ignore. You see how it inspired other zombie movies, zombie video games, and even zombie books. There was even a novelization of the film, though I haven’t seen it in person myself. There wouldn’t be games like “Left 4 Dead” or “Dead Rising” without this movie. I believe in some ways, this movie inspired parts of the Resident Evil series, especially RE2, and Leon Kennedy. Even though Leon was a cop, his outfit is similar to what Roger wears in the 1978 movie. 

Yes, there are many points that don’t make sense, the characters suffer because of their own hubris at times, but I still think it’s a great movie. My favorite character was Peter. He was very realistic, and the only one of the four to think far ahead. Fran and Stephen were much too naive, and Roger ended up dying because he got a little too reckless. I feel like the other character’s owed Peter their lives. Without him, they would have surely died, because of their lack of foresight. 

I highly recommend this movie. I give it a 5/5.

 

My video: https://youtu.be/5INmmyoC8pY 


 

 

DRILLER KILLER [1979] Review

 DRILLER KILLER [1979]

 



“Driller Killer” or “The Driller Killer” is a low budget horror film, though the term “horror” is almost a loose definition. I watched the movie for free through Fawesome, but even on their website, the movie was still pretty low quality. Apparently, Driller Killer is public domain, as of 2006. I don’t know why, though I’m not complaining either. I imagine it might have had something to do with it being low budget, or even just an early film in Abel Ferrara’s career. 

The plot to the movie was silly; a painter in New York City is short on rent, and working on a painting for his buyer. The painter, our main character Reno, asks for an advance, but is denied. This seems to be among the things that builds tension in Reno’s mind, for him to eventually snap. Reno lives with two women, Pamela and Carol, who have a semi-lesbian relationship. You see the two showering together sensually, like as if that’s just what women do or something. The relationship is never really talked about. I don’t know if Reno was just living with Pamela, or if they were threesome. Did Carol really have feelings for Pamela, or was it more of a companionship thing? 




Their neighbors are a punk band that play all hours of the day and night, which drives Reno mad. He complains the the super at his apartment one day, and the guy tells him there’s nothing he can do. Reno says that if the guy doesn’t do anything, he won’t pay rent. The super says, “You don’t pay rent anyway!”. This made me laugh, because it was true. The super then shows Reno a skinned rabbit in a shelf, and gives it to him. Reno takes it back to his apartment, and is seen further mutilating it later that night. Something about that made me feel sad, because it was a real rabbit used in the film. I don’t know why, but seeing its corpse desecrated just for a movie really bothered me. It was definitely a waste of food. I also found it odd that the rabbit was just hanging out in the shelf at the super’s place. Why did he just…have it there? Where did he get a freshly skinned rabbit in New York City? 

Reno sees an ad for a power drill that was only $19.95, and we assume that this is the one he uses later in the film. There’s no real psychotic break for Reno, he just sort of decides to start killing people one night. He preys on the homeless men of the area, drilling them in the back, forehead, and spine. The way the movie is written, it comes off like as if Reno takes his anger out on the homeless, because he can’t get any peace and quiet at home. It was like as if he hated the Punk band that lived next door to him, yet, he never attacks any of the band members. I thought that this was where the movie was going to go, but this never happens. 


 



There was a part of me that really liked seeing the old New York punk scene, from this time period. It was a treat, in a way, to see some of the original foundations of heavier music of today getting some spotlight. I think it was ironically written that Reno hated the Punk band next to his apartment, because Abel Ferrara would go on to include Punk themes in his movies after this. There is even a line from Pamela, where she said that she bought tickets to see Iggy Pop and Dee Dee Ramone. Though I’m not really into Punk rock myself, I appreciate the genre, because it greatly influenced the musicians that I do listen to today. For example, I’m a huge fan of Eyehategod, which has heavy Punk influences. 

Reno’s girlfriend Pamela eventually gets fed up with him, and gets in contact with her ex-husband. It’s implied that she’s thinking of going back to him. Meanwhile, Reno gets a visit from a guy looking for Pamela, who was absent at the time. The guy sees Reno paintings, and asks for his portrait to be made. We never see the end result of this portrait, but Reno agrees to paint it, if the guy agrees to pay $500; the same amount of money that they need. What’s really interesting, is that at one point, the guy is in the room with Reno, and starts reading from a book, talking about something called “Ronove”. I wasn’t sure if it was what I initially, but it turns out that yes, the guy in the movie was reading from “The Lesser Key of Soloman”, a book about demonology! I think this is an easter egg of some sort, not any foreshadowing clue about what was to come next. I wonder why that book, of all things, was chosen for the movie. Let alone, how did they end up with it?

Eventually, Reno finishes the painting for his buyer, and when the buyer comes by the apartment, he hates it! He refuses to pay, then leaves. Reno is shocked, and Carol loses her shit, throwing a tea pot at the wall. She screams at Reno to do something, and you can see him thinking, that he has to kill the buyer, Briggs. 

Carol ends up leaving Reno to go back to her estranged husband, Steven. Reno tries to stop her, but she walks to the subway anyway. 

Reno is seen at home later, at night, and calls Briggs up. He tells him that he has something to show him, and words it in a romantic way. It’s implied that Briggs thinks that Reno is hitting on him, and they’re going to potentially spend the night together. Briggs tells him it’d be about 45 minutes, and he’d bring a bottle of red wine.

When Briggs shows up, Reno eerily appears, and kills him, the screen going black. Pamela shows up and sees something bleeding through the door, opening it to find Briggs. She’s horrified, and Reno pops up behind her. It’s assumed that he kills her. I didn’t understand why he would kill Pamela. She was the most innocent character in the movie. She didn’t do anything! 

We see Carol back with her husband, who is making tea while she goes to shower. While in the bathroom, Reno shows up in the kitchen and kill’s Carol’s husband. Somehow, Carol does not hear any of this. She gets out the shower, and doesn’t notice his dead body on the floor. Carol goes to bed, cutting the light off, not realizing that it’s not her husband in bed with her. Of course, Reno is the one there, but we don’t see anything further. It’s implied that Carol is none the wiser, and will likely be killed by Reno. Reno is never caught, and the movie ends. 

I found the movie interesting, but the type I’d only watch once. It wasn’t that compelling to me, nor scary, but I found it more funny than anything. It was just silly to me how Reno would haphazardly show up with a drill to attack homeless people. I know the whole point is to be a murder movie, but if Reno was strapped for cash, why didn’t he just use the drill as a threatening weapon to rob people? I think that would have been a more believable plot. I think the idea would be easier to digest, if Reno had this descent of robbing people first, and then killing them. Like, he just needed the money, but someone refused, so killed them. That would make more sense in a movie, but I do realize that I’m the type of person who wants their plots to be believable. In literature, there’s the concept of “suspending your disbelief”, and I apply that to film too. I have a hard time suspending my disbelief for this movie. 

Going through the newspaper archives, there weren’t any reviews for the movie, that I could find. I know that it’s a really low budget film, so it probably didn’t get that many writers to watch it. I did see a lot of ads showing that the movie was in theaters, but not much beyond that. One ad claimed, “You haven’t seen anything like this since Texas Chainsaw Massacre!”. Much like “Satan’s Children”, this movie tries to piggyback off the actual fright that TCM induces, while falling completely short of the horror it brings. There wasn’t a single time while watching “Driller Killer” that I actually felt nervous tension. Nothing in “Driller Killer” compares to that scene in “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” where Leatherface beats the hammer on that one guy for the first time. You can’t compete where you don’t compare. 

I found the character Reno to be pretentious and rather annoying. In a way, it made sense that a freak like him would end up as a serial killer. There was a part to his character that reminded me of Douglas Levison, from the infamous video “Trumpet Fight”. Granted, these two instances are decades apart in time.

Overall, I wouldn’t recommend “Driller Killer”. It’s not necessary to watch, in my opinion, to the general movie fan. But if you like horror trash, I think that it’d be okay to watch once, then move on. I can’t see myself re-watching this, on purpose.

1 slime.

My video:  https://youtu.be/rjND6bpque0