The Fine Art of Tactical Retreat - June 10th, 2008

12:58 am - The Horror!? 89: Metamorphosis (1990)

Genius scientist and douche Dr. Peter Houseman (Gene LeBrock or a piece of papier-maché shaped like a man)has a problem (actually, he has two problems, but since nobody seems to mind his lack of manners I'll let it slide) - after his university has allowed him to use up $200 000 in his research on something he didn't want to tell them about, they actually dare to demand answers to some questions about his work before they grant him another $100 000. Although his incredible charm (or so the script says) helps him to sway Sally (Catherine Baranov), a member of the budgetary committee whose approval he now needs, the other members of said committee are less impressed by him or his theories (something about some kind of genetic thingy that could possibly end aging and death) or his methods (including illicit use of human fetuses in his experiments). They are so unimpressed that they're planning to assign Dr. Lloyd (Stephen Brown) as his supervisor, a man who hates Houseman's guts for no good reason at all (if you ignore Houseman's tendency to insult Lloyd whenever possible).

The only thing that can save Houseman's easy life work is that well-known staple of responsible science - the clandestine self-experiment. To no-one's surprise the good doctor, soon after injecting himself with his serum (genes are the new glands!), starts to act like even more of an ass than before. Of course he has these strange little blackouts, too. Is it possible that he slowly regresses into "a living fossil", the well known predecessor of mankind science calls the Humanoid Camembert? Will he kill a few people in a very lackluster manner? The answers will surprise nobody.

The most interesting thing about Metamorphosis is its place in bad movie history as the only official directorial work of beloved Italian (bad-)movie actor George Eastman of Anthropophagus and a million other films fame.

I am a little sad to suggest that Eastman didn't learn anything about directing films while acting in them, but this snoozefest doesn't leave me with much of a choice. I am even a little generous when I call Eastman's direction pedestrian and uninspired. The film is more or less at a point where I'm not sure if there really was a director on set. Everything is excruciatingly boring.

But special attention has to be paid to the actors as well. After all, how often does the discerning viewer have the chance to watch so many people in the only roles of their careers? Now some might say that even one time was one time too many for these people (or the viewer), a notion of which I highly disapprove. In the end even a piece of wood deserves a short time in the spotlight.

And let's be honest. I don't think even the most brilliant actors would have been able to do something with a script as thoughtless, stupid and just plain boring as Metamorphosis'.

Current Mood: bored

05:13 pm - The Science!? 16: Ring of Terror (1962)

An irritating, but at least cat-loving, undertaker sprouts some nonsense until his cat gives him the idea to tell his unlucky viewers a story about the inhabitant of a grave.

Medical student Lewis Moffitt (George E. Mather, in the first half of his Forties at the time, a typical age for students in this movie) seems to be a man without any fear. In truth, a very unpleasant childhood experience with his grandfather's corpse and darkness has left him deeply afraid of (you'll never guess) corpses in darkness. The wacky young people with the receding hairlines who comprise a fraternity he wishes to join, have the bright idea to torture him to death with a supposedly living corpse. In darkness.

The End.

As my plot synopsis demonstrates, Ring of Terror just doesn't have enough plot to fill its whopping running time of 62 minutes. The whole set-up could have worked as the episode of a TV series or one story in an anthology film, as a full feature it's somewhat hard to bear. I could even imagine some ways to make it work as a full length movie, turning it into a psychological horror film by deepening the characterization of our "hero" (from non-existing to shallow), or actually motivating anything that happens. Or having something, anything happen.

The producers of Ring of Terror of course give us half an hour (and I'm generous here) of filler. Watch the wacky fat comic relief people dance! Watch the wacky fat comic relief people be totally wacky! They're not thin, so they have to be funny, right!? Wait, where are you going?

Oh, look, the students are waiting for a call. The phone rings! A student answers. The student repeats all that is said. Then the student repeats all that was said again. They have to assemble the others for the autopsy! Let's listen how the plan to assemble them! A cut, a cut!

Now we can watch the students standing in front of their university. They are repeating the address of the local morgue. They are actually getting into their cars! Look! I am so thrilled! They are driving away!

And the autopsy is even better. Look at the students' crows-feet! My, the professor may even be older than some of his students! What an interesting clock this room has! And so on, and so on.

And of course there are great moments of "emotional intensity", when Moffitt's girlfriend Betty wants to leave him because they say he's strange, wanting to become a doctor and not fainting during an autopsy being his deepest offense. It makes as much sense as you think, while I am quite sure that it's even more boring and affectlessly acted than you could think.

Did I already mention that there just isn't anything happening in the movie?

Current Mood: bored