The Mummy's Tomb: Reviewing the Kharis Tetralogy

By Joe Gibson

 

“Slasher films typically adhere to a specific formula: a past wrongful action causes severe trauma that is reinforced by a commemoration or anniversary that reactivates or re-inspires the killer.^[8][9] Built around stalk-and-murder sequences, the films draw upon the audience's feelings of catharsis, recreation, and displacement, as related to sexual pleasure.^[10] Paste magazine's definition notes that, "slasher villains are human beings, or were human beings at some point ... Slasher villains are human killers whose actions are objectively evil, because they’re meant to be bound by human morality. That’s part of the fear that the genre is meant to prey upon, the idea that killers walk among us."^[11] Films with similar structures that have non-human antagonists lacking a conscience, such as Alien or The Terminator, are not traditionally considered slasher films (though many slasher antagonists are superhuman, have supernatural traits, or possess slightly warped or abstract anthropomorphic forms both physically and metaphysically).^[12]” - The Wikipedia page for Slasher films.  Link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slasher_film

 

Introduction

 

The history of slasher films is long and storied, and there are a lot of potential influences with more supporting evidence than The Mummy’s Tomb, from Giallo films to Ten Little Indians and Alfred Hitchcock.  Slasher films have a large variety of distinctive tropes, not all of which appear in any given film.  Consequently, classifying slasher films by any given goal or any specific trope I consider unwise; what they really are is an efficient format, or “a very simple formula!”  Because of how they changed between the 70s and now, one has to admit a degree of flexibility, and so, pending better arguments from more knowledgeable people, I have to conclude that The Mummy’s Tomb, a film where former human turned monster Kharis returns to get revenge on the people that previously wronged him, stalking them one by one, with a new generation caught in the crossfire and Kharis’ M.O. receiving great focus in the thrilling fight to survive, is more a slasher film than not.   

Just listen to George Zucco’s Andoheb instructing his successor in the ways of the High Priests of Karnak: “Kharis still lives – Lives for the moment he will carry death and destruction…to all those who dared violate…the tomb of Ananka.  That moment has now arrived.”  Between Kharis’ hunts, Andoheb’s successor Mehemet Bey, played by Turhan Bey, also graces us frequently with sinister monologues about their revenge mission, the motif of Kharis responding to the moon, and the temptation that the girlfriend of John Banning turns out to be for Bey in their atmospheric lair: a cemetery.  Consequently, I feel that the most flattering way to view this film is as a proto slasher, where the film’s strengths generally come from how it uses that formula and where its weaknesses might have been mitigated by little else than sticking closer to it.

Analysis

The film begins with a stock footage segment recapping the previous one through a thirty years older Steve Banning entertaining his son John as well as guests Isobel Evans (Elyse Knox) and Mrs. Evans.  Stock footage is a tool in filmmaking, just like any other, but it can be done well or poorly.  Recently, I’ve mentioned how a couple of the Showa Gamera films use stock footage poorly or very well. Gamera vs Viras uses stock footage for its major action and incidentally to break up the pacing and flow (it does not help that the film, in color, switches to black in white for a few minutes as a result of this), but, more importantly, it’s just there for obligatory destruction and has no greater context added from its original implementation (see my Gamera vs Viras review here: https://planninecrunch.blogspot.com/2024/06/the-best-of-scenes-and-worst-of-scenes.html).  Contrast this with Gamera vs Guiron, which did about the best job one could hope for in smoothing over Gamera’s moral inconsistencies by taking the key scenes from Noriaki Yuasa’s previous three Gamera films and ignoring the one he did not direct to tell a story of Gamera’s increasing heroism, a transformative way to use that previous footage (link to my Jungian analysis of Gamera vs Guiron here: https://planninecrunch.blogspot.com/2024/04/a-jungian-exploration-of-gamera-vs.html).  The Mummy’s Tomb is somewhere in the middle of those two.

 

As you know, in the previous film Steve Banning and Babe, looking for Ananka’s tomb, found a male Mummy controlled by Andoheb that eventually kidnapped Marta.  Babe, surname now Hanson rather than Jenson, killed Andoheb, and Steve destroyed the Mummy.  While it is a rather rough and bare bones “Previously On” segment that still somehow takes up a good deal of the film’s first act, the reveal of Marta’s death saves this from being an empty scene because it is the linchpin for Steve’s character in this film.  Steve had the victory we saw and its natural consequences of a loving family, nice house and good public standing, but he has also lost a lot, as Marta is dead. 

When he reflects on the previous film’s adventure, he regrets that he could not retrieve Kharis too for study, but he finds some solace that at least he destroyed a terrible monster.  When that monster does track him down as its first victim in the film, Steve won’t fight back or at least can’t.  It cuts away to leave much of the strangulation up to the imagination, but a later victim of the same general age puts up a very good fight.  Our dashing hero Steve not only fails to put up a good fight, but he’s lost the love of his life, doesn’t do archaeology anymore and does spend his life comically arguing with his sister while telling that same old story to his son and guests that doesn’t even turn out to be completely true, a strangely pathetic spin on “The Hero” of old.

 

The Evans find the story fantastic but do not immediately voice doubts, and the story would proceed the same whether or not Isobel and her mother believe him.  It is John that contrasts his father, as Steve believes archaeology is different from the medical sciences his son works in.  There is nothing intrinsic to the slasher genre that means a film must contrast the generations and let old heroes die, while the next generation finds different ways to survive.  It does happen a lot, however, mostly due to the fact that slashers cost the cast a slashing, that is to say that major and minor characters have to die for the tension to really hold in the scenes that threaten other major and minor characters, and it makes more sense to kill the old than the new.  In that regard, this is a facet in which the film starts off strong but also could have allotted things differently to better explore these themes.  

 

The stock footage segment works to explore only one character: Steve. The city of Mapleton Mass. may as well be just the confines of his house in the opening scenes, and John may as well just be the reward at the end of a long arc for Steve.  Other slasher movies are more efficient in both the set-up of multiple characters and world building of the setting around them.  Later plot points will logically follow from the idea that this is a small and close knit town, but the film really should have introduced that idea better and sooner.  Scream (1996) is a good example of a slasher that subtly but specifically sets up at the beginning the way the small town setting will enable certain plot points throughout the film. That said, our reintroduction to John following Steve and Bey’s intro scenes is him playing checkers with his father in a way that highlights their differences, so the film was on the right track with parts of this.

From Steve’s death onward, focus is split between John and Bey, which puts us at a greater distance from the former and uncomfortably close to the latter.  After John attends a medical examination of Steve’s body and the weird gray marks on his neck, the film tells us through his Aunt Jane’s dialogue (rather than showing us) that he has been neglecting his practice and girlfriend Isobel trying to play detective.  Isobel pulls up, and they go on a date, but it turns out this only happened so that Bey could see them and develop an infatuation with Isobel that he tries to resist (this being one significant moment where either this is a very small town or this movie is very contrived).  John’s romance and investigation will weave in and out of this film, while Bey struggles with and eventually embraces his attraction to Isobel.  Bey actually contrasts Andoheb interestingly insofar as the night by night murders makes Bey seem more responsible in administering “safe” amounts of tana leaves (not exceeding the 9 per night).

 

As I mentioned earlier, Bey connects Kharis to the moon consistently during his monologues, which helped me to realize that the motif of howling wolves was supposed to pertain to that.  Coming off the previous film, which implied the howls of jackals were announcing it was time to feed Kharis, wolves howl continuously in the movie while Kharis is on the hunt after receiving his tana leaves.  I think this was done to make Kharis seem more monstrous for two reasons.  For one thing, this film was made (and seems to think it is set) in 1942, starring Lon Chaney Jr., so the comparison to The Wolf-Man that also emphasized its bloody killer’s connection to the moon is not only fair but probably something Universal would consider.  Also, it works that way in the film itself.  By the end, Bey, trying to justify a sinful immortal marriage with Isobel Evans to Kharis, goes on about how Kharis is immortal and not really human at all anymore, mainly because of these observed patterns.  Kharis proves him some strange mixture of right and wrong, and we’ll get to that soon.  Any interpretation outside of the moon thing with these wolves becomes strange, because wolves are not exactly jackals and also not exactly dogs, so it doesn’t make sense that wolves and jackals would both be aligned to the Egyptian gods, but Steve’s dogs King and Silver would be hostile to Kharis.

Kharis incidentally attacks the Bannings’ helper Jim on his way to kill Aunt Jane (the film says Kharis mold marks were found on his neck, but all we see happen is that Jim passes out in fear, and Kharis accidentally kicks his head), and Babe Hanson visits John, having heard of Steve’s death.  Babe’s role in this film is very interesting, especially considering how weak of a character Steve is now.  Babe essentially takes on the role of main survivor/mentor for the next generation, similar to other legacy character returns in slasher sequels, such as Nancy Thompson’s return in Nightmare on Elm Street 3, and this is really interesting because Babe wasn’t the final boy of The Mummy’s Hand.  But now, for whatever reason, he is the only one that knows what is going on with some idea of how to stop it.

I wish more of the film was about Babe trying to guide John into surviving this ordeal, because Wallace Ford demonstrated a lot of range in this role, and his dynamic with John Hubbard (John Banning) was unique from his dynamic with Dick Foran.  Unfortunately, John doesn’t take the newly serious Babe seriously (and neither does the Sheriff, who gets a fair bit of screen-time), resulting in Babe spilling his guts in a bar to New York journalist Jake Lovell overheard by Mehemet Bey (again, this has to be a small town otherwise Bey is far too lucky to stumble upon the main characters as often as he does while being a reclusive cemetery caretaker).  Unfortunately, Kharis successfully kills Babe, even though he puts up a good fight, and it is John finding a piece of the Mummy’s wrapping and new character Professor Norman analyzing it that proves Babe right too late.

 

Babe seems to understand that the curse on entering the Mummy’s Tomb doesn’t just affect Petrie but also the survivors and their family, and the film technically agrees with him since John is the only one to survive and wasn’t present for the first film, though Jane dies also innocent of any tomb raiding.  This is another reason I would have liked more time spent on Babe here, not just for unraveling this strange morality, but also because I want to know when he figured that out and if that or his earlier general buffoonery kept him from starting his own family.

 

Bey once again happens to notice John and Isobel’s quickening courtship (at least his obsession gives him a motivation to find them this time) as John is basically being drafted into the military but insists on taking Isobel along as his bride (it’s an interesting parallel that she is thrilled when John decides they are going to be married without her input but is horrified when Bey does the same), so Bey resolves to have kidnap her and turn her immortal.  Bey gives his spiel about Kharis lacking humanity, and I got the sense from Chaney’s performance that Kharis was rather defiant throughout that speech, which becomes obvious when Kharis almost kills Bey because of how this whole situation played out when Andoheb tried it.  Interestingly, Kharis does not strangle Bey and follows his instructions perfectly for the rest of the film.  This moment has created potential momentum for Kharis to become independent though, and we will somewhat return to that thread later in this series.

 

While all of this was happening, John, the Sheriff and a man named Nick Landsford who had been working with the Sheriff, incite a mob against the Mummy, and an old man just so happens to have interacted with Bey well enough to know he fits the profile of the perpetrator (again, this is forgivable in a small town scenario, but the film has not confirmed that it is one).  Then, John learns of Isobel’s kidnapping, and Bey makes two mistakes in rapid succession.  He elects to have Isobel drink the tana fluid first and then puts the fluid down once he hears the mob coming rather than have her drink it anyways and then go to meet them.  Because of this, it is now possible for Isobel to be saved and possible for Bey to be killed, both of which happen.  It comes off as somewhat strange for debatable protagonist Bey to die before the big set piece against Kharis in the flaming house in roughly the same manner as Andoheb in the last film, who had far less focus.  While Kharis’ characterization will receive more focus in later films, I think a more interesting ending would be where Bey gets far enough in the ceremony to turn himself immortal, and Kharis, as alluded to by wanting to strangle Bey earlier, goes rogue, leading to the mob, Kharis and Bey all having a stake in the climax.

In any case, after Bey is shot, Kharis slips off with Isobel, arriving at a house that is implicitly the Banning house since Kharis knows where it is, Kharis is comfortable enough climbing the side (he did so earlier to kill Steve, and it is actually strange with hindsight that he knew Steve would be up there), and John is able to outmaneuver the Mummy in this house.  The mob is carrying torches, and John’s ineffectual fighting against the Mummy sets the staircase and almost John’s own head on fire once he is knocked out.  It is a minor thing, but I do appreciate both Steve in the last film and John here creating the circumstances to burn Kharis mostly accidentally (however John does catch on to the fire’s presence rather than trying to use a torch holder as a bludgeon).  The flaming house is a really interesting setting for this final fight that seems pretty in line with the common slasher trope of killing off the marketable villain in more elaborate and amped up ways, fully intending to somehow bring them back in the following film (slasher sequels as a formula tend to have more logistical errors than just the original in isolation, and I think it is significant that unlike the previous film where the “archaeology” [mal]practice of Steve was the most unrealistic part, from this point on the hardest plot points to swallow will be how Kharis still exists in the time and space he does at any given moment).  John and two other men, presumably the Sheriff and Nick, all help in making sure the innocent escape while Kharis remains in the burning house.

 

The film ends with the entire town celebrating John and Isobel’s marriage (one more evidence point for it being a small town and the film not actually being too contrived in that regard, though again it should have done more to spell that out).  As far as my investment in the marriage, their relationship was fine, but I already mentioned how the split focus between John and Bey allowed me to understand Bey better, so this just seems like an obligatory happy ending (not uncommon for Universal but also not necessarily common for slashers).  The final shot on my DVD at least is an ad for war bonds, confirming that the film at least intends to exist as 1942 media, whether or not it is also set then.  The references in the film to a conflict on the same level of World War 2 (if not World War 2 itself) serves as an interesting time capsule since the attitude of the film where John leaving Mapleton to join the war effort is a good thing definitely represents the preferred attitude then, but if the film is supposed to be set in the 1970s, then it also represents the ideal patriotic attitude even in the far speculative future.

Conclusion

 

This film has more small issues than its predecessor, which had fewer issues but each of larger severity.  Which one is better depends largely on the way your perception and scale for appraising quality.  I said that The Mummy’s Hand works better as a chapter one than the full story, and I regard this film similarly where it pays off Steve and Babe’s characters while teasing the future of the franchise with Kharis’ reticence to obey Bey.  While we are here, I said last time that The Mummy’s Tomb would fit better as a title for the first film, and I also think that The Mummy’s Hand describes this one better since it is that hand that kills our returning heroes, with the tomb nowhere to be seen except as a static image during the credits.  That’s a good encapsulation of how I view this series: very interesting ideas and executions that could have been truly spectacular if just a few things were shuffled around.  Next time will be The Mummy’s Ghost and then finally The Mummy’s Curse.

Silent Night, Deadly Night, Utah-made sleazy terror for the holidays

By Steve D. Stones

Just how sleazy is the holiday horror film SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT? Paige Hurley, a concerned parent from Minnesota said: "My 3-year old son saw the television commercial for SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT last week and now refuses to sit on Santa’s lap for our annual Christmas picture this year. What next? A marauding turkey at Thanksgiving?" Roxanne T. Mueller of the Cleveland Plain Dealer said: "SILENT NIGHT, DEALY NIGHT is a sleazy, miserable, insulting piece of garbage!" Actor Mickey Rooney said: "How dare they! I’m all for the First Amendment, but … don’t give me Santa Claus with a gun going to kill someone. The scum who made that movie should be run out of town." As you can see, critics were not very kind to this movie.

Like DON’T GO IN THE WOODS . . . ALONE, this film has a special appeal to me because it was filmed locally in Heber City, Utah. In fact, directors James Bryan and Charles Sellier Jr. both worked on the Grizzly Adams TV show of the 1970s.The story begins with a young family traveling to a Utah mental facility to visit their grandfather on Christmas Eve. For years, the grandfather has pretended to be unconscious and mute. After greeting the grandfather, the parents leave the room to attend to some formalities with the superintendent while Billy stays to watch his grandfather. The grandfather begins to warn little Billy that only good children can receive gifts from Santa, and Santa severely punishes all naughty children.

On their way back home, Billy expresses a lack of interest in Santa visiting their home on Christmas because he is afraid of being punished. Soon they encounter a man dressed in a Santa suit pulled off the side of the road with car trouble. The Santa has just robbed a local convenient store. The father pulls over to offer help, but the man points a gun at him. He quickly puts the car in reverse, crashing into a nearby ditch. The father is knocked out unconscious. Santa pulls the mother out of the car, raping and murdering her. Billy witnesses her murder after fleeing from the car and hiding in the brush near the ditch.

Four years later in December 1974, Billy is now living at Saint Mary’s Home For Orphaned Children. Mother Superior disciplines Billy for showing a violent crayon drawing of Santa to his classmates. While walking in the hallway to his room, Billy witnesses a young couple having sex in their room. This triggers a flashback in his mind of the rape and murder of his mother. Even sitting on Santa’s lap at the orphanage seems to trigger the violent flashbacks of his mother.

It is now Christmas time 1984, and Billy is a grown up teenager working at a toy store. One of his co-workers constantly teases and bullies him at work. He develops a crush on a pretty brunette girl who also works at the toy store. He even has sexual fantasies about her in his dreams. His boss insists that he dress up as Santa to greet costumers. He is very hesitant to take on this assignment because of what he witnessed of his mother many years ago, but soon agrees to dress up as Jolly O’ Saint Nick.

One night while leaving the store, he witnesses his bully co-worker raping the pretty brunette girl in the back storage room. Once again, this triggers another flashback of his mother being raped. This time he becomes violent and kills the man by hanging him with Christmas lights. For the rest of the film, Billy goes on a murdering rampage with an axe and dressed in his Santa suit.

One particularly sleazy and gratuitous scene in the film shows Linnea Quigley, the most famous star of the film, having sex on a pool table with her boyfriend. She hears a cat outside the house and decides to open the front door topless to let it inside. How many women would really open the front door topless to let a cat in the house? This is not very believable. Soon Billy enters the home and picks Quigley up, impaling her on the antlers of an antelope head hanging above the fireplace. The real Santa will have quite a surprise when he comes down this particular chimney tonight!

Although I’m a fan of this film, I do have my criticisms of it. This film is an obvious attempt to cash in on the success of John Carpenter’s Halloween some six years earlier. The 1980s ushered in the "slasher genre" as a result of Halloween, and this is one of many 1980s films that fits this category.

What makes Michael Meyers such a believable killer is that we really do not know why he kills, and we never see his face. Plus, we feel Meyers is evil and has no remorse for his actions because he is not aware they are wrong. The Billy character in this film is not quite believable because we are given a long history into his life, and he appears to be the typical all American boy up until he witnesses the girl at the toy store being raped by his co-worker. He does not come across as being evil and seems to be killing for only the sake of witnessing a rape. Perhaps this is one of many reasons why parents all across America were protesting and banning movie theatres for screening this film.

SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT is a film I would only recommend to fans of the "slasher genre" of the 1980s. If you’re looking for a well-made, classic holiday horror film, I would highly recommend BLACK CHRISTMASfrom 1974. BLACK CHRISTMAS pre-dates the "slasher genre" by nearly a decade, and is said to be John Carpenter’s inspiration for Halloween.

The new Halloween movie – is it any good?

Review by Steve D. Stones

Is the new Halloween movie as good as the 1978 original? Will it become a great classic in time as the original? Perhaps only time can answer these questions. I feel that the new Halloween is not as good as its original, but it has plenty of knuckle-biting sequences to keep the viewer on the edge of their seat, particularly the last twenty minutes of the film. As I watched the film, I enjoyed picking out references from the first film and finding similarities in how scenes are shown.

References to the first two films can be found throughout this film. A mother carving a ham is hammered in the head by killer Michael Meyers as she is watching something on TV in the kitchen, in a scene very similar to one shown in the second film. A babysitter is also murdered and draped with a white ghost sheet – which gives reference to Meyers draping a ghost sheet over himself when he confronts actress P.J. Soles in an upstairs bedroom in the first film.

When Lori Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) is thrown through an upstairs window by Meyers, her body is no longer laying on the ground when the camera cuts away from Meyers standing above her, which is similar to the first film when Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence) is looking out the upstairs window of the Meyers home after Meyers falls to the ground from multiple gunshots at the end.

The director is careful not to reveal the face of Meyers when he is questioned by an interviewer in an opening sequence. He is chained to a block, standing inside a painted square in the yard of a mental institution. Here we see a much older, graying Meyers, but his height and size still make him very imposing.

In the first film, the viewer is not shown how Meyers obtains his iconic mask. Sheriff Brackett simply tells his daughter at the scene of a hardware store burglary that someone stole some Halloween masks and tools from the store, so the viewer assumes that Meyers took the mask from the hardware store. In this new film, the viewer gets to see where Meyers obtains the iconic mask by taking it from the trunk of a car of two reporters who attempt to interview him at the mental institution.

What makes the first film so effective to me is that the violence is much more subtle, and often only implied. This new film uses techniques more appealing to the millennial generation by showing extreme, graphic violence in which the violence is drawn out for a much longer period of time in the scene, such as a gas station bathroom killing sequence near the beginning of the film.

The opening credits also show a similar type face design to the credits shown in the first film, which is a nice touch to the opening of the film. Instead of the camera slowly zooming in on a lit pumpkin as we see in the first Halloween, here we see the pumpkin slowly reshaping itself from being squished.

The new Halloween movie is well worth the price of admission, but only time will tell if it becomes the great classic of the original 1978 film. Happy Halloween!!

New Year's Evil; Roz Kelly greets the new year

By Steve D. Stones

Happy Days star Roz Kelly stars in this early 1980s slasher film directed by Emmett Alston. Like so many horror films of the 1980s, this one is an attempt to cash in on the success of John Carpenter’s Halloween franchise.

Kelly is a punk rock mother hosting a New Year’s Eve party at a hip New Wave music club in downtown Los Angeles. Her teenage son comes to see her at the club with flowers, but she completely ignores him. A maniac killer, played by Kip Niven, calls Kelly at the club hotline to inform her that he will commit a murder every hour until 12 midnight as part of his New Year’s resolution. A club worker named Yvonne is the first victim to be killed in a bathtub in a club dressing room.

The second victim is a pretty blonde nurse at the local hospital. The killer predictably poses as a new hospital orderly who lures the nurse into a hospital room with champagne and proceeds to stab her to death after making out with her. Another nurse at the hospital discovers her body in a closet.

The killer continues to call Kelly at the music club in a disguised voice to inform her that he is committing murders. He even plays a taped recording over the phone of him stabbing the nurse at the hospital. Kelly is now forced to take his threats seriously. She asks the local police department for police protection.

By now the viewer has been exposed to lots of really bad punk rock performances, zebra striped T-shirts, and 1980s mullet hairstyles. Where are The Ramones, The Misfits and The Sex Pistols when we need them?

Feeling rejected by his mother, Kelly’s son sees his mother performing on television at the club with a punk band. In a fit of anger, he tears apart the roses he brought for her, and stretches one of her red nylon stalkings over his face as if he is about to become a killer himself. This is a particularly confusing scene because by now we already know who the killer is and what he looks like, so any attempt to suggest that the killer could be Kelly’s son seems unnecessary. The killer now shows up at another dance club in L.A. dressed in an obviously fake moustache and three-piece suit. He tells another pretty blonde girl at the bar that he is a business agent for many Hollywood actors in town. He convinces her to leave the club to attend a business party. She refuses to go alone with him, so she takes one of her club friends with her.

This spoils the plans of the killer to get her alone. The three drive in the killer’s Mercedes to a gas station, where the killer strangles one of the girls with a bag full of marijuana. He hides in a Dumpster to attack the second girl as she comes out of the gas station with a bottle of champagne. The killer stabs her to death. As the killer flees the scene, he is harassed at a stop light by a motorcycle gang. The killer speeds away from the motorcycle gang and hides out at a local drive-in theatre.

The movie screen advertises a film entitled Blood Feast as a feature playing at the theatre, but it is not Herschel Gordon Lewis’ schlock masterpiece from 1963, unfortunately. After stealing another car from a young couple making out at the drive-in, the killer shows up at the New Wave club, manages to club a police officer in the head at a back entrance, and puts his police uniform on, which conveniently fits him perfectly. Under police protection outside her dressing room, Kelly sits in front of a mirror putting on make-up as the killer suddenly appears in her room in a jogging outfit and a Halloween mask.

She sees him in the mirror, but is not frightened. He removes the mask, and reveals himself to be Richard Sullivan, her husband. She is not frightened by his presence because she has no idea he is the killer. As the couple gets into an elevator, it becomes evident to Kelly that her husband is the killer.

He holds a knife up to her and saying:“I’m fed up . . . You’re just like all the other women in my life. Women are manipulative, deceitful, immoral and very, very selfish!”

His reasoning for killing here seems very petty and unnecessary. Wouldn’t his actions make him “manipulative, deceitful, immoral and selfish?” If he was so fed up with his wife, why didn’t he just request a divorce from her? Why go through the troubles of killing several innocent women to get to her? In the post O.J. Simpson and Scott Peterson world we live in today, it seems highly unlikely that a man would go on a killing spree killing innocent victims just to prove a point with his wife.

However, I realize this film was made long before the O.J. Simpson ordeal of the1990s, and the Scott Peterson ordeal early in this decade. As the film comes to an end, Richard chains his wife to the bottom of the elevator and is chased by policemen who fire shots at him. He is chased to the top balcony of the building, where he puts the Halloween mask back on and jumps off the building, committing suicide. His son emotionally removes the mask from him.

The film ends with a shot of Kelly being wheeled into an ambulance. The driver of the ambulance is wearing Richard’s Halloween mask, and the paramedic on the passenger side lies dead on the floor of the ambulance. Could the killer now be Kelly’s son?

NEW YEAR’S EVIL follows in the long line-up of so many 1980s slasher/horror films. Like Silent Night, Deadly Night, My Bloody Valentine, Christmas Evil, Don’t Open ‘Til Christmas, April Fool’s Day, Mother’s Day, and so many others, NEW YEAR’S EVIL is an attempt to use a holiday title to cash in on the slasher craze of the 1980s. Watch it above.

Rob Zombie's take on 'Halloween'

By Steve D. Stones

John Carpenter’s classic film Halloween literally took the box office by storm in 1978. It was immediately hailed as “the new Psycho of the 1970s” and remained the highest grossing independent film for more than 20 years, despite a budget of only $320,000.

It ushered in the “slasher genre” of the 1980s, and remains a classic of the horror film. Its influence can still be seen in many horror films of today.

This year marks the 30th anniversary of the film’s release. Rob Zombie’s 2007 reworking homage to Carpenter’s film is also a real treat for the horror film aficionado. Zombie concentrates on giving the audience the point of view of the Michael Meyers character, his childhood, and the transition he makes from a child’s clown mask to the iconic Michael Meyer’s mask that has become so familiar to moviegoers and horror fans.

This time we see a more human side to the Meyers character and less of the supernatural characteristic that defines Meyers in the Carpenter film. The Meyers family can be defined as the typical dysfunctional, middle-American family, with a divorced mother, Deborah Meyers, who works as a stripper, played by the director’s wife Sherrie Moon Zombie, and her deadbeat lazy boyfriend who constantly argues with Judith and avoids the children.

The Meyers home is in constant chaos, which drives Michael to trapping and killing animals in the home bathroom while wearing his clown mask. Zombie makes many of the same references that Carpenter makes in his film, such as a scene of Howard Hawks’ 1951 film The Thing playing on the television, and the music of Blue Oyster Cult’s “Don’t Fear The Reaper.” Young Michael Meyer’s even wears a KISS T-shirt to school.

The one reference that got my attention immediately is a scene of a young couple having sex in the Meyer’s rundown house while they play the punk rock song “Halloween” by The Misfits, which is sung in Latin. Zombie has also kept the eerie Carpenter score from the original film intact. Zombie spends more time showing the audience the interaction that takes place between Dr. Samuel Loomis, played by Malcolm McDowell, and Michael Meyers as a child. Dr. Loomis records his thoughts into a tape recorder while videotaping young Meyers in his handmade masks.

Meyers spends his time at the sanitarium making paper mache masks. His obsession grows to a room full of masks covering every inch of wall space in his cell. Another major difference between the two films is that the Lori Strode character in the Carpenter film is a virginal, bookworm babysitter who avoids boys out of complete shyness. Lori Strode in the Zombie film is at times a very sexual, nasty teenager who isn’t afraid to use foul language and talk about boys. She appears to be more confident about herself, and enjoys participating in the normal behaviors of a teenage girl.

From a complete visual standpoint, I found this film to be very well made, with genuine scares that kept me on the edge of my seat. Zombie manages to make horror films that combine bizarre visuals and rapid montages that work well with his choice of sound and music. Like his music and live performances, you will walk away from Halloween feeling very entertained and genuinely frightened.

I highly recommend this film to any horror film buff and fan of Zombie’s music. Two thumbs way up on this one!!!!!

It's 'New Year's Evil!'

Happy Days star Roz Kelly stars in this early 1980s slasher film directed by Emmett Alston. Like so many horror films of the 1980s, this one is an attempt to cash in on the success of John Carpenter’s Halloween franchise.

Kelly is a punk rock mother hosting a New Year’s Eve party at a hip New Wave music club in downtown Los Angeles. Her teenage son comes to see her at the club with flowers, but she completely ignores him. A maniac killer, played by Kip Niven, calls Kelly at the club hotline to inform her that he will commit a murder every hour until 12 midnight as part of his New Year’s resolution. A club worker named Yvonne is the first victim to be killed in a bathtub in a club dressing room.

The second victim is a pretty blonde nurse at the local hospital. The killer predictably poses as a new hospital orderly who lures the nurse into a hospital room with champagne and proceeds to stab her to death after making out with her. Another nurse at the hospital discovers her body in a closet.

The killer continues to call Kelly at the music club in a disguised voice to inform her that he is committing murders. He even plays a taped recording over the phone of him stabbing the nurse at the hospital. Kelly is now forced to take his threats seriously. She asks the local police department for police protection.

By now the viewer has been exposed to lots of really bad punk rock performances, zebra striped T-shirts, and 1980s mullet hairstyles. Where are The Ramones, The Misfits and The Sex Pistols when we need them?

Feeling rejected by his mother, Kelly’s son sees his mother performing on television at the club with a punk band. In a fit of anger, he tears apart the roses he brought for her, and stretches one of her red nylon stalkings over his face as if he is about to become a killer himself. This is a particularly confusing scene because by now we already know who the killer is and what he looks like, so any attempt to suggest that the killer could be Kelly’s son seems unnecessary. The killer now shows up at another dance club in L.A. dressed in an obviously fake moustache and three-piece suit. He tells another pretty blonde girl at the bar that he is a business agent for many Hollywood actors in town. He convinces her to leave the club to attend a business party. She refuses to go alone with him, so she takes one of her club friends with her.

This spoils the plans of the killer to get her alone. The three drive in the killer’s Mercedes to a gas station, where the killer strangles one of the girls with a bag full of marijuana. He hides in a Dumpster to attack the second girl as she comes out of the gas station with a bottle of champagne. The killer stabs her to death. As the killer flees the scene, he is harassed at a stop light by a motorcycle gang. The killer speeds away from the motorcycle gang and hides out at a local drive-in theatre.

The movie screen advertises a film entitled Blood Feast as a feature playing at the theatre, but it is not Herschel Gordon Lewis’ schlock masterpiece from 1963, unfortunately. After stealing another car from a young couple making out at the drive-in, the killer shows up at the New Wave club, manages to club a police officer in the head at a back entrance, and puts his police uniform on, which conveniently fits him perfectly. Under police protection outside her dressing room, Kelly sits in front of a mirror putting on make-up as the killer suddenly appears in her room in a jogging outfit and a Halloween mask.

She sees him in the mirror, but is not frightened. He removes the mask, and reveals himself to be Richard Sullivan, her husband. She is not frightened by his presence because she has no idea he is the killer. As the couple gets into an elevator, it becomes evident to Kelly that her husband is the killer.

He holds a knife up to her and saying:“I’m fed up . . . You’re just like all the other women in my life. Women are manipulative, deceitful, immoral and very, very selfish!”

His reasoning for killing here seems very petty and unnecessary. Wouldn’t his actions make him “manipulative, deceitful, immoral and selfish?” If he was so fed up with his wife, why didn’t he just request a divorce from her? Why go through the troubles of killing several innocent women to get to her? In the post O.J. Simpson and Scott Peterson world we live in today, it seems highly unlikely that a man would go on a killing spree killing innocent victims just to prove a point with his wife.

However, I realize this film was made long before the O.J. Simpson ordeal of the1990s, and the Scott Peterson ordeal early in this decade. As the film comes to an end, Richard chains his wife to the bottom of the elevator and is chased by policemen who fire shots at him. He is chased to the top balcony of the building, where he puts the Halloween mask back on and jumps off the building, committing suicide. His son emotionally removes the mask from him.

The film ends with a shot of Kelly being wheeled into an ambulance. The driver of the ambulance is wearing Richard’s Halloween mask, and the paramedic on the passenger side lies dead on the floor of the ambulance. Could the killer now be Kelly’s son?

NEW YEAR’S EVIL follows in the long line-up of so many 1980s slasher/horror films. Like Silent Night, Deadly Night, My Bloody Valentine, Christmas Evil, Don’t Open ‘Til Christmas, April Fool’s Day, Mother’s Day, and so many others, NEW YEAR’S EVIL is an attempt to use a holiday title to cash in on the slasher craze of the 1980s.

-- Steve D. Stones

Splatter University: Earn a higher degree in terror

By Steve D. Stones

Pretty Julie Parker is hired as a sociology professor at St. Trinians College to replace a woman named Janet Phillips, who was murdered the previous semester. Father Jensen, a paraplegic, warns Parker that her classroom may be cursed as a result of Phillips being murdered in the same classroom she is being assigned to. Ms. Parker is not one bit fearful of this, and proceeds with her first day of classes. Her first day of class doesn’t go so well. Her students are easily bored and uninterested in the class. I know the feeling. Trying to maintain the attention span of easily-bored students is like trying to lead a cat to water to swim.

Father Perkins is asked by Father Jensen to observe Parker’s class on the first day. He is unimpressed with Parker’s teaching methods after observing her discussing abortion with her students. She is called into Father Jensen’s office for discipline. Father Jensen insists that the school has a strict curriculum that she must adhere to. Academic freedom has no place at a religious school. What else is new?

Parker moves into a new apartment near campus and is constantly hounded by her talkative landlady Mrs. Bloom. Soon Parker begins dating another sociology professor named Mark. She asks him about the murder that took place in her classroom. It appears he once dated the woman, but pretends not to have known her. One of Parker’s pregnant students named Kathy goes to the drive-in movies with her boyfriend. The two make out in the back seat of the car. After an argument, Kathy leaves the car to look for her boyfriend. While wandering around in the dark, someone slashes her throat and murders her. Father Jensen expresses condolences to Kathy’s mother for the murder.

A female colleague of Parker tells her that Mark was suspected of Janet Phillips’ murder because the two were dating at the time. To find out for herself, Parker breaks into Mark’s apartment to look for clues. There she finds newspaper clippings about the murder in Mark’s desk. The next day Parker finds her colleague murdered in the classroom closet with her throat cut. This confirms to her that Mark has got to be the murderer.

She decides to leave the school and gives Father Jensen her resignation for fear she will become the next victim. Jensen tries to convince her to stay. While packing her belongings to move away, Mark confronts her at her apartment. He tries to explain to Parker that he is not the murderer. She panics and beats him over the head with her telephone. She flees the apartment and goes back to Father Jensen for his advice. While trying to comfort Parker, Father Jensen gets up out of his wheelchair and pulls a knife on Parker. Here we discover that Jensen is the murderer. She escapes from his office and runs down the halls of the school, hiding in an elevator. Jensen soon catches up to her and stabs her in the back. This scene is the most graphically violent of the entire film.

Unfortunately Mark arrives too late and discovers Parker dead in the elevator. He confronts Father Jensen in his office as Jensen attempts to quickly wipe blood off his hands. Jensen has sat back in his wheelchair, pretending to be disabled again. Mark looks up on the wall behind Father Jensen to see a bleeding crucifix of Jesus.

The film ends with two psychiatric orderlies looking through a window at Jensen in a straightjacket sitting in a padded room. He has been placed in a psychiatric ward.

Of all the “slasher flicks” that stormed the box office in the 1980s, this one seemed to stand out to me. Perhaps it was because I found myself developing a crush on the main character Julie Parker. We’ve all been “hot for teacher” at some point in our school career. She is a very classy, easygoing, laid-back kind of schoolteacher. I can actually say that I hated to see her get killed at the end of the film. I was hopeful that she would rise as the heroine of the film.

Another aspect of this film that is appealing to me is the idea that a person can easily use religious fanaticism to hide behind his or her own personal evils and insecurities. Even members of the clergy are human and prone to committing acts of evil, such as Father Jensen murdering coeds at his school. The next time one of your religious leaders asks you if you have committed a sin, hold up a mirror and ask the same question of them.

Holiday terror: Silent Night Deadly Night

By Steve D. Stones

Just how sleazy is the holiday horror film SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT? Paige Hurley, a concerned parent from Minnesota said: "My 3-year old son saw the television commercial for SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT last week and now refuses to sit on Santa’s lap for our annual Christmas picture this year. What next? A marauding turkey at Thanksgiving?" Roxanne T. Mueller of the Cleveland Plain Dealer said: "SILENT NIGHT, DEALY NIGHT is a sleazy, miserable, insulting piece of garbage!" Actor Mickey Rooney said: "How dare they! I’m all for the First Amendment, but … don’t give me Santa Claus with a gun going to kill someone. The scum who made that movie should be run out of town." As you can see, critics were not very kind to this movie.

Like DON’T GO IN THE WOODS . . . ALONE, this film has a special appeal to me because it was filmed locally in Heber City, Utah. In fact, directors James Bryan and Charles Sellier Jr. both worked on the Grizzly Adams TV show of the 1970s.The story begins with a young family traveling to a Utah mental facility to visit their grandfather on Christmas Eve. For years, the grandfather has pretended to be unconscious and mute. After greeting the grandfather, the parents leave the room to attend to some formalities with the superintendent while Billy stays to watch his grandfather. The grandfather begins to warn little Billy that only good children can receive gifts from Santa, and Santa severely punishes all naughty children.

On their way back home, Billy expresses a lack of interest in Santa visiting their home on Christmas because he is afraid of being punished. Soon they encounter a man dressed in a Santa suit pulled off the side of the road with car trouble. The Santa has just robbed a local convenient store. The father pulls over to offer help, but the man points a gun at him. He quickly puts the car in reverse, crashing into a nearby ditch. The father is knocked out unconscious. Santa pulls the mother out of the car, raping and murdering her. Billy witnesses her murder after fleeing from the car and hiding in the brush near the ditch.

Four years later in December 1974, Billy is now living at Saint Mary’s Home For Orphaned Children. Mother Superior disciplines Billy for showing a violent crayon drawing of Santa to his classmates. While walking in the hallway to his room, Billy witnesses a young couple having sex in their room. This triggers a flashback in his mind of the rape and murder of his mother. Even sitting on Santa’s lap at the orphanage seems to trigger the violent flashbacks of his mother.
It is now Christmas time 1984, and Billy is a grown up teenager working at a toy store. One of his co-workers constantly teases and bullies him at work. He develops a crush on a pretty brunette girl who also works at the toy store. He even has sexual fantasies about her in his dreams. His boss insists that he dress up as Santa to greet costumers. He is very hesitant to take on this assignment because of what he witnessed of his mother many years ago, but soon agrees to dress up as Jolly O’ Saint Nick.

One night while leaving the store, he witnesses his bully co-worker raping the pretty brunette girl in the back storage room. Once again, this triggers another flashback of his mother being raped. This time he becomes violent and kills the man by hanging him with Christmas lights. For the rest of the film, Billy goes on a murdering rampage with an axe and dressed in his Santa suit.
One particularly sleazy and gratuitous scene in the film shows Linnea Quigley, the most famous star of the film, having sex on a pool table with her boyfriend. She hears a cat outside the house and decides to open the front door topless to let it inside. How many women would really open the front door topless to let a cat in the house? This is not very believable. Soon Billy enters the home and picks Quigley up, impaling her on the antlers of an antelope head hanging above the fireplace. The real Santa will have quite a surprise when he comes down this particular chimney tonight!

Although I’m a fan of this film, I do have my criticisms of it. This film is an obvious attempt to cash in on the success of John Carpenter’s Halloween some six years earlier. The 1980s ushered in the "slasher genre" as a result of Halloween, and this is one of many 1980s films that fits this category.

What makes Michael Meyers such a believable killer is that we really do not know why he kills, and we never see his face. Plus, we feel Meyers is evil and has no remorse for his actions because he is not aware they are wrong. The Billy character in this film is not quite believable because we are given a long history into his life, and he appears to be the typical all American boy up until he witnesses the girl at the toy store being raped by his co-worker. He does not come across as being evil and seems to be killing for only the sake of witnessing a rape. Perhaps this is one of many reasons why parents all across America were protesting and banning movie theatres for screening this film.

SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT is a film I would only recommend to fans of the "slasher genre" of the 1980s. If you’re looking for a well-made, classic holiday horror film, I would highly recommend BLACK CHRISTMASfrom 1974. BLACK CHRISTMAS pre-dates the "slasher genre" by nearly a decade, and is said to be John Carpenter’s inspiration for Halloween.