Category: Directors and Filmmakers

MonsterGirl’s 150 Days of Classic Horror #57 The Eyes of Laura Mars 1978

THE EYES OF LAURA MARS 1978

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) is a film that pulses with the energy and anxieties of late-70s New York—a glossy, dangerous world where art, fashion, and violence collide. Directed by Irvin Kershner, with a screenplay by John Carpenter (before his Halloween breakthrough), the film is a stylish blend of supernatural thriller, giallo-inspired murder mystery, and psycho-sexual melodrama.

Faye Dunaway, fresh off her Oscar win for Network 1976, stars as Laura Mars, a celebrated fashion photographer whose provocative, S&M-tinged images—shot for the film by real-life icons Helmut Newton and Rebecca Blake—have made her both famous and infamous.

The story thrusts Laura into a waking nightmare: she begins to witness brutal murders through the eyes of the killer, her visions synchronizing with each new death in her orbit. The city itself is a character—Victor J. Kemper’s cinematography captures New York’s grit and glamour, from the high-gloss world of fashion shoots to the shadowy, rain-slicked streets.

The film’s set and production design, overseen by Gene Callahan, creates a world that’s both sharply modern and eerily dreamlike, with art direction that blurs the line between Laura’s controversial photographs and the violence stalking her life. The models’ costumes, with their bold, fetishistic flair, reflect the era’s fascination with pushing boundaries—both sexual and artistic.

Dunaway leads an eclectic cast, including Tommy Lee Jones as Detective John Neville, whose stern skepticism gives way to a complicated romance with Laura; Brad Dourif as her twitchy, loyal driver Tommy; René Auberjonois as her manager Donald, who brings genuine warmth and depth to a character often played for stereotype; and Raul Julia as Laura’s enigmatic ex-husband, Michael. Each performance adds a layer of ambiguity and tension, with Dourif (his breakout role was as the vulnerable, stuttering Billy Bibbit in Milos Forman’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest 1975) and Auberjonois, in particular, imbuing their roles with unexpected sympathy and complexity.

Key moments in the film are as much about spectacle as suspense: a show-stopping Columbus Circle shoot with lingerie-clad models framed by burning cars, voyeuristic murder sequences shot in a killer’s-eye POV, and a tense, rain-drenched pursuit through the streets of Manhattan. The film’s most memorable scenes are often the most visually audacious, echoing the Italian giallo tradition with their lurid, stylized violence and erotic charge. The film’s murders are notably brutal, and the killer’s signature is stabbing his victims in the eyes with an ice pick. This gruesome detail is established early on: Laura’s photo editor is found murdered with her eyes gouged, and subsequent victims are killed in a similar fashion.

Barbra Streisand, who was originally considered for the lead, declined the role due to the film’s “kinky nature,” but she left her mark by recording the torch song “Prisoner” (Love Theme from Eyes of Laura Mars),” which became a Billboard hit and lingers as the film’s sultry, melancholic anthem. Composer Artie Kane’s score weaves together disco, suspense, and romance, amplifying the film’s mood of glamour tinged with dread.

The Eyes of Laura Mars is steeped in the psycho-sexual themes that defined 70s horror and thrillers: voyeurism, the blurred line between art and violence, and the dangers of seeing too much. The film’s fashion-world setting is not just a backdrop but a lens through which to explore the era’s anxieties about sexuality, power, and the objectification and exploitation of female bodies.

Critics at the time were divided—Janet Maslin of The New York Times praised its “superlative casting” and “eerie, lavish dreamland” vision of New York, even as she found the ending “dumb.”

Roger Ebert, less impressed, dismissed it as a clichéd “woman in trouble” story, while others have since recognized it as an “upmarket slasher” and a cult classic with fingerprints all over later genre films.

Kershner’s direction, Carpenter’s script, and the film’s bold visual style make The Eyes of Laura Mars a fascinating artifact of its moment—a film that’s as much about the act of looking as it is about what’s seen, and one that turns the glossy veneer of late-70s fashion into a mirror for the era’s darkest fears. I think it captures that vibe well and grabs you by the throat while it makes that point. It’s a film where beauty and brutality are inseparable, and where every glamorous image hides the possibility of violence just out of frame.

#57 down, 93 to go! Your EverLovin’ Joey, formally & affectionately known as MonsterGirl!

MonsterGirl’s 150 Days of Classic Horror #56 THE EVICTORS 1979 & THE TOWN THAT DREADED SUNDOWN 1976

THE EVICTORS 1979

SPOILER ALERT!

Charles B. Pierce’s The Evictors (1979) is a Southern Gothic chiller that quietly burrows under your skin, trading in the same rural unease and period authenticity that defined his earlier cult favorites like Pierce’s The Town That Dreaded Sundown. Set in 1942 Louisiana, the film follows Ben and Ruth Watkins, played by Michael Parks and Jessica Harper, as they settle into a seemingly idyllic farmhouse, only to find themselves ensnared in a decades-old cycle of vendetta and violence. The house, sold to them by the affable but evasive realtor Jake Rudd (Vic Morrow), comes with more than its share of baggage—namely, a string of unsolved murders stretching back to the late 1920s, when the Monroe family was gunned down during a brutal foreclosure standoff.

Pierce, who also handled cinematography, leans into a moody, sepia-tinged palette for the film’s numerous flashbacks, evoking the passage of time and the weight of local legend. These flashbacks, set in 1928, 1934, and 1939, are shot with a chilling, almost photographic stillness, each one peeling back another layer of the house’s bloody history. The present-day scenes are shot with a gritty, naturalistic style that grounds the film in its rural setting—Pierce’s camera lingers on the overgrown fields, creaking porches, and shadowy interiors, creating a sense of claustrophobia and isolation that only tightens as the danger draws closer.

The score by Jaime Mendoza-Nava adds a brooding, sinister undercurrent, amplifying the film’s slow-burn tension. Mendoza-Nava was a prolific Bolivian-American composer and conductor whose career spanned classical music, television, and a wide range of film genres. Trained at prestigious institutions like Juilliard, the Madrid Royal Conservatory, and the Sorbonne, Mendoza-Nava brought a sophisticated musical approach to everything he touched, often weaving in the pentatonic rhythms of his Andean heritage.

In Hollywood, he worked for Walt Disney Studios, composing for classic TV shows such as The Mickey Mouse Club and Zorro, and contributed to the Mr. Magoo cartoon series. He later became a sought-after composer for independent and B-movies, especially in the horror, sci-fi, and exploitation genres, with credits for more than 200 films. Some notable titles include: Five Minutes to Love (1963), Orgy of the Dead (1965), The Black Klansman (1966), The Legend of Boggy Creek (1972), The Brotherhood of Satan (1971), Grave of the Vampire (1972), The Town That Dreaded Sundown (1976), Mausoleum (1983), Vampire Hookers (1978) and The Boys in Company C (1978).

Jessica Harper, best known for her iconic roles in Suspiria 1977 and Phantom of the Paradise 1974, brings a quiet vulnerability to Ruth, who finds herself increasingly isolated as her husband is often away for work. Harper’s performance is understated but powerful; she’s the emotional anchor of the film, and her growing paranoia and dread are evident.

Harper’s acting style is often described as naturalistic and quietly magnetic, a quality that has made her a cult favorite and a memorable presence in some of the most visually arresting films of the 1970s and ’80s. Critics and fans alike have noted her “regular-girl charm” and “wide-eyed girl-next-door appearance,” which lend her a relatable vulnerability, but beneath that surface lies a subtle strength and intelligence that grounds even the most surreal or heightened stories.

A gentle, almost minimalist approach marks Harper’s performances—she conveys emotion through nuanced facial expressions and body language rather than melodrama, making her reactions feel authentic even in the most bizarre circumstances. This quality is especially evident in her horror roles, where she often serves as the audience’s surrogate, guiding viewers through grotesque or nightmarish worlds with a sense of skepticism, resolve, and quiet courage. Her looks have frequently been described as striking yet approachable: large, expressive eyes, delicate features, and a softness that evokes both innocence and a kind of classic, fairy-tale beauty. She’s been called a “pinup for cult film fanatics,” and her “deer in the headlights” quality—often compared to Snow White—has been noted by both critics and Harper herself. Yet, as Harper has pointed out, there’s a “serious strength” and “power” beneath that vulnerable exterior, a duality that makes her such a compelling screen presence.

In Dario Argento’s Suspiria (1977), Harper plays Suzy Bannion, an American ballet student who arrives at a prestigious German dance academy only to discover it’s a front for a coven of witches. The film is renowned for its operatic, nightmarish style—brilliant splashes of primary color, expressionistic production design, and a thunderous prog-rock score by the evocative group Goblin.

In Phantom of the Paradise (1974), directed by Brian De Palma, Harper made her film debut as Phoenix, an aspiring singer caught in a Faustian struggle between a disfigured composer (William Finley) and a manipulative music producer (iconic songwriter Paul Williams). The film is a wild, satirical rock opera, blending horror, comedy, and musical spectacle with De Palma’s trademark visual flair—split screens, bold lighting, and kinetic camera work. As Phoenix, Harper stands out for her unaffected, sincere performance; she plays the only truly likable character in a world of grotesques and egomaniacs. Her singing voice and subtle acting bring warmth and humanity to the film, and her cautious optimism and wariness make her a believable object of obsession for both Finley’s and Williams’s characters.

In The Evictors, Michael Parks, as Ben, is solid and likable. Parks was a remarkably versatile and intense actor whose career spanned over five decades and more than 100 film and television roles. He first gained widespread attention as the soulful drifter Jim Bronson in the late 1960s TV series Then Came Bronson, a role that showcased both his acting and musical talents— the enigmatic French-Canadian gangster Jean Renault in Twin Peaks, and Texas Ranger Earl McGraw in Quentin Tarantino’s Kill Bill films and Robert Rodriguez’s From Dusk Till Dawn series. Directors like Tarantino wrote roles specifically for him, with director Kevin Smith calling Parks so compelling that all you had to do was “turn on the camera” to get a masterful performance.

Vic Morrow was cast as Jake—the real estate agent with secrets to spare—that gives the film its sly, menacing edge. Sue Anne Langdon also stands out as the seemingly friendly neighbor Olie Gibson, whose wheelchair-bound warmth masks deeper layers of involvement in the house’s dark legacy.

The film’s plot unfolds with a deliberate pace, building tension through suggestion and atmosphere rather than outright violence. Ruth is terrorized by a mysterious, slow-moving figure—often glimpsed lurking in the shadows, overalls and knife in hand—while Ben remains skeptical, leaving Ruth to fend for herself as the sense of threat escalates.

The narrative cleverly weaves in the house’s past through flashbacks, each one revealing another grisly fate met by previous tenants. As the truth unravels, it’s revealed that the Monroe family, thought to have been wiped out in the original shootout, has been orchestrating a real estate scam for years: Jake (actually Todd Monroe), his sister-in-law Olie (Anna/Olie Monroe), and their brother Dwayne (the lurking killer) repeatedly sell the house to unsuspecting couples, then terrorize and murder them, reclaiming the property to sell again.

The climax is a bleak, nihilistic twist—after a final confrontation that leaves Ben dead and Dwayne killed by Jake, Ruth, now unhinged, marries Jake and willingly joins the murderous scheme, perpetuating the cycle for the next wave of victims. It’s a dark, circular ending that lingers, refusing to give us any sense of closure or justice.

While The Evictors is “supposedly based on true events,” as some sources note, the film takes considerable liberties, blending local legend and period detail into a fictional narrative that feels rooted in the anxieties of rural America. Pierce’s knack for evoking a raw, lived-in atmosphere—helped by his own cinematography and a cast of strong character actors—makes the film more than just a haunted house story. It’s a meditation on isolation, paranoia, and the way violence can echo through generations, all wrapped in a deliberately paced, old-fashioned package. Though overshadowed by Pierce’s more famous works, The Evictors stands as an overlooked gem—one that trades jump scares for slow-creeping dread. Once again, this film from Pierce’s imagination has stuck with me all these years.

THE TOWN THAT DREADED SUNDOWN 1976

A Trailer a Day Keeps the Boogeyman Away! Boggy Creeks, Dreaded Sundowns and Mysterious Evictors!

The Town That Dreaded Sundown is a film that lingers in the mind like a half-remembered lucid nightmare, its unsettling grip rooted not just in the brutality of its story, but in the way Charles B. Pierce tells all his stories—with a style that blurs the line between cinéma vérité, true crime drama, police procedural and all with a regional authenticity that seeps into every frame.

I find myself strangely and endlessly captivated by The Town That Dreaded Sundown and the real-life events that inspired it. There’s something about the eerie blend of history and legend, the unsettling atmosphere of Texarkana, and the film’s docu-style storytelling that keeps pulling me back in. No matter how many times I revisit the story, I’m fascinated by the way the mystery and the film give me the willies—and how the line between fact and folklore blurs. I can’t quite explain it, but the effect never seems to fade. The film dramatizes the brutal attacks with a stark intensity that makes the violence feel both on the spot and deeply unsettling.

Pierce, who grew up in the very area haunted by the Texarkana Moonlight Murders, channels his personal memory and local knowledge into a film that feels as much like a piece of oral history as a horror movie. The result is a movie that’s both unnerving and immediate, and oddly intimate. It’s definitely work that stands out in the landscape of 1970s American horror for its rawness and its refusal to sensationalize, well, mostly, yet it does amplify the chilling story.

The film’s style is as noteworthy as its story. Pierce’s The Town That Dreaded Sundown is visually defined by its distinctive, almost documentary-like cinematography. The grit and dramatic tension contribute powerfully to the film’s unsettling atmosphere. The lighting throughout the film is often stark and utilitarian, favoring naturalistic sources rather than decorative aesthetics, enhancing the sense of realism and immediacy. Night scenes are bathed in a harsh, sometimes unforgiving light that casts deep, ominous shadows, while daylight exteriors capture the washed-out, sun-bleached look of the lush rural Arkansas countryside. Shot with a documentarian’s eye—Pierce’s camera lingers on the lonely fields, sunlit days filled with small-town quaintness and the innocence of children playing, contrasted with rain-soaked streets and nights and the sinister, shadowy, quiet, now dangerous woods of Texarkana, using the natural landscape to evoke both nostalgia and dread. The attacks themselves are shot with a jarring, almost clinical detachment. This approach gives the film an authenticity that feels as if you’re watching a piece of true crime reportage rather than a stylized horror movie.

Scenes are shot with a such a matter-of-fact realism that amplifies their horror, making The Town That Dreaded Sundown a film that doesn’t just recount violence, but forces viewers to feel its shock and brutality.

The low-budget 16mm film stock used by Pierce conveys a rough, gritty quality to the images, which not only grounds the story in a specific time and place but also blows up the sense of unease. A key element of the film’s visual identity is its grainy texture. The graininess makes the violence and suspense feel like one of those memories that hits you in … like a memory that flickers in and out, rough around the edges, you almost feel it under your skin, as if the camera is a silent witness to real events rather than an outsider to what is happening. We are literally watching the murders as they happen. This “grimy little flash” of the original film, as later critics have called it, is part of what gives The Town That Dreaded Sundown its lasting power—it feels unvarnished and lived-in, never slick or showy. Pierce’s work never feels overproduced or overanalyzed.

The film’s most notorious scenes—like the horrific trombone murder scene—are shot with a kind of raw intensity, the lighting and beauty of imperfection combining to make the horror feel both surreal and disturbingly plausible.

The film is infamous for its depiction of several gruesome murders, each echoing the real-life terror of the Texarkana Moonlight Murders.

Key moments in the film stick with you: the first attack at Lover’s Lane, where the Phantom’s hooded figure emerges from the darkness; the tense chase through the woods as Peggy Loomis is stalked and murdered with a trombone;  the final home invasion, shot with striking point-of-view angles that anticipate the style of later horror classics. The killer’s anonymity and the film’s refusal to offer closure only heighten the sense of unease. The story ends as it began, with the Phantom still at large, his footsteps echoing in the collective memory of Texarkana as the police chase him through the railroad yard over the tracks only to disappear into oblivion.

One of the most notorious murders portrayed is the infamous “trombone killing.” The murder is staged with minimal music, relying instead on the killer’s heavy breathing and the victim’s anguished cries to create a sense of horror that’s more psychological than graphic, which does more to heighten the terror than diminish or obscure it.

The editing is quick, the camerawork unfussy, and the violence, though not especially bloody, feels brutally real—so much so that Pierce was criticized for its intensity, particularly since his then-wife played the victim in the trombone scene.

In this scene, the Phantom attacks a young couple parked on a lovers’ lane. After subduing the male victim, he chases down the girl, Peggy Loomis ties her to a tree, and then attaches a knife to the end of her trombone. In a chilling display, he repeatedly plays the instrument, each movement driving the blade into her back, creating a moment that is both bizarre and horrifying in its cruelty. That segment of the film still leaves me shaken to my core. As a musician, it would be the equivalent of someone bashing my head to a bloody pulp with the lid of a grand piano.
—The scene is brutal, jarring, and impossible to shake.

Another harrowing sequence is based on the real attack of Paul Martin and Betty Jo Booker. Martin is found shot four times—once in the back of the neck, the shoulder, the right hand, and finally in the face. Trails of blood show that after being shot, he crawled across the road before succumbing to his injuries. Booker’s body is discovered miles away, shot twice and left behind a tree, her body posed in a haunting tableau.

The film also recreates the home invasion of Virgil and Katie Starks. Virgil is shot twice in the back of the head while reading in his armchair, blood seeping down his neck. Katie, upon discovering her husband’s body, is shot in the face through the window as she attempts to call for help. Despite being gravely wounded, she manages to escape the house as the Phantom tries to break in, leaving behind bloody handprints throughout the home—a scene that lingers for its sheer savagery and the desperate, chaotic flight for survival.

The first attack depicted in the film is equally disturbing. The Phantom confronts a couple parked in their car, ordering the man to remove his pants before pistol-whipping him so violently that his skull is fractured. The woman is then struck and ordered to run, only to be chased down and assaulted, a moment that underscores the killer’s sadism and the raw vulnerability of his victims.

The story behind The Town That Dreaded Sundown is itself the stuff of American folklore. In the spring of 1946, just as postwar optimism was blooming, a masked killer known as the Phantom began stalking the lovers’ lanes and quiet homes of Texarkana, attacking eight people and killing five. The real-life “Texarkana Moonlight Murders” cast a pall over the town, and the killer was never caught—a fact that lends the film its persistent sense of nihilism and unresolved fear. Pierce’s film, released in 1976, dramatizes these events with a blunt sensibility, an almost procedural tone, narrated by Vern Stierman in the style of a true-crime TV special. This omniscient narration, paired with Pierce’s lo-fi visuals and location shooting, gives the movie an authenticity that is rattling, as if you’re watching the nightmare unfold in your own backyard.

Pierce’s legacy as a filmmaker is tied to this distinctive approach. Before Sundown, he made his mark with The Legend of Boggy Creek 1972, a faux-documentary about a sasquatch-like creature in Arkansas, which became a surprise box office cult hit.

Both films share a fascination with local legend and collective memory, and both use nonprofessional actors and real locations to ground their stories in a sense of place. In Sundown, aside from a handful of familiar faces like Ben Johnson (as the determined Texas Ranger Morales) and Andrew Prine, who plays Deputy Ramsey, who is earnest and dogged in hunting down the hooded boogeyman.

A Trailer a Day Keeps the Boogeyman Away : Goodbye Andrew Prine Oct 31, 2022

Andrew Prine is one of those versatile American actors who is the opposite of the everyman. I’ve always been drawn to his unique, elegantly languid, unhurried, urbane tone and his lanky and high-cheekboned, tousled hair good looks. His career spanned stage, film, and television, with a particular knack for memorable roles in horror and cult cinema. For instance, in the 1971 psychedelic horror film Simon, King of the Witches 1971, Prine starred as Simon Sinestrari, a cynical and charismatic ceremonial magician living on society’s fringes, dabbling in occult rituals and seeking godhood through magic—a performance praised for its offbeat charm and countercultural energy.

Andrew Prine had been married to his co-star Brenda Scott, who played his love interest Linda in Simon, King of the Witches (1971). In fact, Prine and Scott were already married at the time of filming, and their real-life relationship added an extra layer of chemistry to their on-screen pairing. Their marriage was notable for its on-again, off-again nature; they married and divorced multiple times, ultimately being married during the period when Simon, King of the Witches, was made and released.

Prine also made a notable appearance in the horror TV landscape with the cult series Kolchak: The Night Stalker, playing the snobbish intellectual Professor Evan Spate in the episode “Demon in Lace,” where his skeptical academic character becomes entangled in a supernatural murder mystery involving an ancient Mesopotamian curse and a shapeshifting succubus. Throughout his career, Prine brought depth and presence to a wide range of genre roles, including appearances in The Evil (1978), Amityville II: The Possession (1982), and other horror favorites, making him a familiar and welcome face for fans of the macabre.

The film also features Dawn Wells (as a victim), forever remembered as Mary Ann from Gilligan’s Island, delivers a performance of genuine terror and vulnerability as she flees into the night after being attacked by The Phantom. Ben Johnson brings a stoic presence, while And the rest of the cast is filled out by locals and unknowns, lending the film a rough-edged realism. Pierce even inserts himself into the film as a bumbling comic relief character, a tonal misstep for some, but one that underscores the film’s oddball regional charm.

The Phantom killer’s trademark mask in The Town That Dreaded Sundown is a simple yet haunting creation: a rough burlap sack pulled over his head, its coarse weave obscuring all facial features except for two crude, diamond-shaped eyeholes. These slits are just wide enough to reveal unsettling glimpses of his eyes, adding a chilling, inhuman quality to his presence. The mask’s handmade, plain, homemade look—lumpy, ill-fitting, and devoid of any decoration—makes it all the more unnerving, as if the killer could be anyone, hiding in plain sight. The stark anonymity of the burlap mask transforms the Phantom into a faceless embodiment of fear, his gaze peering out from the darkness with a cold, menacing resolve that lingers long after he disappears into the night.

What sets The Town That Dreaded Sundown apart from the slasher films it prefigured—John Carpenter’s Halloween was still two years away—is its docu-drama structure. The film shifts from scenes of terror to procedural investigation, as Morales and Ramsey canvas the town, interview witnesses, and follow leads. This police procedural element, combined with the omnipresent narration, makes the horror feel inescapable and communal, as if the whole town is holding its breath, waiting for the next attack.

Pierce’s work, sometimes dismissed in his own time as regional schlock, has grown in stature with each passing year. His films are now recognized for their understated visual sophistication, their reverence for American myth, and their innovative blending of documentary and fiction. The Town That Dreaded Sundown stands as a testament to his singular vision—a film that doesn’t just recount a legend, but immerses you in the fear, uncertainty, and strange fascination that legends are made of. It’s a haunting reminder that sometimes the scariest stories are the ones that just happen to be true.

As for the real-life case that inspired The Town That Dreaded Sundown —the Texarkana Moonlight Murders—the Phantom Killer was never officially caught. The attacks occurred in 1946 and resulted in five deaths and three injuries, causing widespread panic in Texarkana. Law enforcement pursued numerous leads and had several suspects, the most prominent being Youell Swinney, a career criminal. Although some investigators believed Swinney was responsible, there was never enough evidence to charge him with the murders, and he was only convicted of unrelated crimes. The case remains unsolved to this day, and the Phantom Killer’s identity is still a mystery.

#56 down, 94 to go! Your EverLovin’ Joey formally & affectionately known as MonsterGirl!

Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960) We All Go a Little Mad Sometimes

“It wasn’t a message that stirred the audiences, nor was it a great performance… they were aroused by pure film.” – Alfred Hitchcock told Francois Truffaut about Psycho, adding that it “belongs to filmmakers, to you and me.” Hitchcock deliberately wanted Psycho to look like a cheap exploitation film.

Upon release, Psycho1960 polarized critics. Bosley Crowther of The New York Times initially dismissed it as “sicko” but later included it in his Top Ten of 1960, praising its “bold psychological mystery.”

film critic Roger Ebert that captures the enduring praise for Hitchcock’s Psycho: “What makes Psycho immortal, when so many films are already half-forgotten as we leave the theater, is that it connects directly with our fears: Our fears that we might impulsively commit a crime, our fears of the police, our fears of becoming the victim of a madman, and of course our fears of disappointing our mothers.”

Critics like David Thomson dismissed Psycho as a “concession to slasher trash,” arguing that Hitchcock “lost interest” post-Marion’s death. However, film scholars Raymond Durgnat and William Rothman argue that Psycho’s second half intensifies its psychological depth, particularly as Norman Bates spirals further into his fractured psyche. The chilling climax, revealing “Mother” as a mummified corpse, forces audiences to confront the unsettling reality of dissociative identity —a theme Hitchcock explores with meticulous rigor and haunting, unsettling intimacy.

From the very first jarring notes and the fractured lines that slice across the screen, spelling out “Psycho” in stark relief, we’re warned that we’re stepping into a story where nothing is as it seems. A ripple of unease builds, echoing the rising strings, as Hitchcock draws us into a world stitched together from secrets, betrayals, and broken minds. Joseph Stefano’s adaptation of Robert Bloch’s novel doesn’t just give us a tale of stolen money and shadowy murders—it peels back the wallpaper of ordinary life to reveal deeper questions about who we are and what we desire. Beneath its surface, Psycho is a mirror reflecting the anxieties of a society obsessed with appearances and haunted by what lurks beneath: the pull of forbidden wants, the tension between who we pretend to be and what we can’t admit even to ourselves. The film quietly warns us that when people are forced to hide or deny their true selves, when identity and desire are locked away, darkness finds a way to seep through the cracks, and the most shocking horrors can wear the most familiar faces.

Before Psycho, most of Hitchcock’s films focused on building suspense and tension between characters, often using color and rarely diving deep into truly deviant or taboo subject matter—aside from a few exceptions like Shadow of a Doubt and Strangers on a Train. Hitchcock himself was known around Hollywood as a bit of an oddball: a perfectionist, sometimes difficult on set, and with a reputation for being both controlling and flirtatious. What’s fascinating is that, right as the 1960s were about to shake up society, Hitchcock decided to reinvent himself as a director with Psycho. Working with Joseph Stefano’s daring script, he delivered a film that shocked audiences with its sexual undertones, glimpses of nudity, and that now-legendary, brutally intense shower scene, pushing boundaries in ways he never had before and helping to usher in a new era of psychological horror.

Hitchcock shot Psycho on a modest $800,000 budget, using the crew from his television series Alfred Hitchcock Presents rather than his usual feature film team. Filmed in black and white, with long stretches of silence and minimalist sets, the Bates Motel and looming Bates house were constructed on Universal’s backlot. In its raw, visceral style, Psycho shares more with gritty noir films like Detour than with Hitchcock’s polished classics such as Rear Window 1954 or Vertigo 1958.

No other Hitchcock film left a greater impression or such a powerful impact on its audience.

The runaway success of Psycho took Hitchcock aback so much that he reached out to the Stanford Research Institute to investigate what made it such a phenomenon. The film was a stark departure from his earlier, more polished, and high-budget productions, which made its impact all the more surprising to him. What truly astonished Hitchcock was how deeply Psycho connected with audiences in ways he hadn’t fully anticipated. Its unique blend of extreme terror and dark humor created an emotional rollercoaster unlike anything he had achieved before, leaving audiences with a strange mix of both terror and his sardonic sense of humor.

According to film scholar Linda Williams, “Genre study has sometimes been the one place in film studies where repeatable audience pleasures…have been scrutinized” (“Discipline and Fun” 359).

“I was directing the viewers,” the director told Truffaut in their book-length interview. “You might say I was playing them like an organ.”

Hitchcock announced, “The late-comers would have been waiting to see Janet Leigh after she had disappeared from the screen action.” For its original audience, it was the most shocking film they had ever experienced. Hitchcock insisted, “Do not reveal the surprises!”

Janet Leigh pays for Anthony Perkin’s psychosis. Molly Haskell, in From Reverence to Rape makes an observation about the treatment of the Hitchcock woman “She must be punished, her complacency shattered; and so he submits his heroines to excruciating ordeals, long trips through terror in which they may be raped, violated by birds, killed. The plot itself becomes a mechanism for destroying their icy self-possession and their emotional detachment…

… Like Norman Bates ‘mother’ in Psycho, who might, by a stretch of the Oedipal complex, be categorized among the brunettes, they are inclined to be possessive and even a little sticky. The Hitchcock protagonist is attracted to the girl he can’t have, and the misogynist in Hitchcock invests the character with poisonous personality traits to punish her for rejecting him. If Hitchcock’s women must be tortured and punished, his men are fully implicated in the deed — and the more detached they seem, the more guilty and morally responsible. “

The ads proclaimed it loudly, yet no audience could have foreseen Hitchcock’s shocking twists—the brutal murder of Marion Crane (Janet Leigh), the apparent heroine, just a third of the way into the film, and the chilling revelation of Norman Bates’s mother. Psycho was marketed with the flair of a William Castle exploitation thriller, heightening its sensational impact. “It is required that you see ‘Psycho’ from the very beginning!”

Slavoj Žižek examines the unsettling narrative shift in Psycho following Marion’s death. The first third of the film highlights how it transitions from her story to a murder mystery centered around Norman Bates. Žižek notes that both Marion’s and Norman’s arcs could function as complete narratives on their own, yet Hitchcock disrupts this structure, creating a jarring effect that reorients the audience’s focus. This deliberate fragmentation underscores the film’s innovative storytelling and its ability to challenge traditional cinematic conventions.

Hitchcock’s decision to kill off Marion Crane in the first part of Psycho shattered the framework of storytelling, transforming the film from a crime thriller to a psycho-sexual shocker and destabilizing audience expectations. This bold move shifted the focus onto Norman Bates, the deeply troubled motel owner whose fractured psyche became a defining template for psychological horror. Hitchcock didn’t stop at narrative shocks—he layered the film with visual cues like mirrors and high-angle shots to evoke voyeurism and duality, drawing viewers deeper into Norman’s disturbed world. And then there’s Bernard Herrmann’s iconic score: among the film’s most indelible elements, and perhaps its most evocative hallmarks, are the shrieking violins during the shower scene, which contrast sharply with the eerie silence of Norman’s final stare, leaving audiences haunted by both sound and stillness.

“The first part (Marion’s story) could well stand alone: it is easy to perform a mental experiment and to imagine it as a thirty-minute TV story, a kind of morality play in which the heroine gives way to temptation and enters the path of damnation, only to be cured by the encounter with Norman, who confronts her with the abyss that awaits her at the end of the road — in him, she sees a mirror- image of her own future; sobered, she decides to return to normal life […] The film’s second part, Norman’s story, is also easy to imagine as a closed whole, a rather traditional unraveling of the mystery of a pathological serial killer.” (Žižek)

Although the twists in Psycho—Marion Crane’s shocking murder and the truth about Norman’s mother–  are now common knowledge, the film remains a chilling thriller. This enduring impact lies in Hitchcock’s skillful crafting of two less obvious elements: Marion’s story setup and her complex dynamic with Norman Bates. Hitchcock treats these early moments with meticulous care, as though they will carry the entire narrative, making their eventual subversion all the more unsettling.

Alfred Hitchcock, Anthony Perkins, and Janet Leigh on the set of Psycho 1960.

Anthony Perkins and Janet Leigh, who played Norman Bates and Marion Crane, respectively, had a license to improvise their parts in Psycho to some degree. Hitchcock gave them free rein within scenes, as long as their ad-libbing didn’t change the angle required for a shot.

The film’s screenwriter, Joseph Stefano, would later describe one piece of improvisation by Perkins as his “most magical moment” in the film. It was the actor’s own decision to have Norman chewing on candy corn, nervously watching on as Marion’s car descends ever-so-slowly down into a swamp.” – (Source – during the scene where Norman disposes of Marion’s body – according to Guy Howie’s article published Mon, 25 March 2024, 11:00, UK from FAR OUT).

The setup revolves around a recurring Hitchcock theme: the guilt of an ordinary individual ensnared in a criminal act. Though Marion Crane steals $40,000, she remains emblematic of Hitchcock’s archetype—an otherwise innocent person caught in the web of wrongdoing.

This is not unlike Hitchcock’s Marnie (1964), in which he revisits his fascination with women on the run and the symbolic significance of their possessions, particularly their suitcases. In the film’s opening scenes, even before we meet Marnie herself, we are introduced to the items she has acquired: a bright yellow handbag containing stolen money, a new suitcase, freshly purchased clothes, and gifts for her mother. These objects are meticulously packed into her suitcase, reflecting not only Marnie’s compulsive need for control but also her attempts to construct a new identity.

Marion Crane’s introduction is far from glamorous—a clandestine afternoon in a dingy hotel room with her divorced lover, Sam Loomis (John Gavin), whose alimony keeps marriage out of reach. Enter $40,000, courtesy of a sleazy real estate client, Mr. Cassidy (Frank Albertson), who all but implies that Marion herself might have a price. Ironically, her crime is born of love, and her victim is hardly worth pity—a slimy opportunist who practically invites his own downfall.

Unveiling the Layers of Madness: Hitchcock’s “Psycho” and the Birth of Modern Horror:

Let’s face it: Anthony Perkins’ Norman Bates is an enigmatic anti-hero. Similarly, in Shadow of a Doubt (1943), Joseph Cotton’s Uncle Charlie’s chilling monologue about widows deserving death is framed from his niece’s horrified point of view. This juxtaposition of intimacy and menace creates both empathy for her fear and fascination with his charisma. By fostering empathy for antagonists, Hitchcock challenged traditional notions of good versus evil in horror storytelling.

Alfred Hitchcock’s cinematic virtuosity with his seminal psycho-sexual thriller, Psycho, has elevated the film to an unparalleled status in the history of cinema, rendering it instantly recognizable and profoundly influential. And let’s face it, what Jaws did for swimming in the ocean, Psycho did as the first horror movie that took away the safety of taking showers in your own home!

With his adaptation of Robert Bloch’s 1959 pulp novel of the same name, Bloch conjured Norman Bates, his mysterious and elusive mother, and the Bates Motel, helping it become a landmark in film history, renowned for its masterful direction and psychological depth. But his conjuration had its roots in the deeply disturbing, grim reality that defies the realm of myth and fantasy.

Continue reading “Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960) We All Go a Little Mad Sometimes” →

MonsterGirl’s 150 Days of Classic Horror #55 THE EVIL DEAD 1981 & PHANTASM 1979

THE EVIL DEAD 1981

If you’re craving a horror flick that takes place one night in a rundown, demon-infested, rickety, cursed woodland cabin that becomes ground zero for ancient, face-melting evil, The Evil Dead 1981 is a sure thing! A supernatural carnage with buckets of blood… part slapstick slaughterhouse, and all-around mayhem… where the only thing older than the floorboards is the evil lurking beneath them – and is – all bonkers!

Sam Raimi’s The Evil Dead (1981) is your ticket to the wildest cabin in the woods you’ll ever visit. Raimi, in his feature debut, wrangled his childhood friends—including the now-legendary Bruce Campbell—into the Tennessee wilderness, armed them with a shoestring budget, gallons of Karo syrup, and a devilish sense of humor, and unleashed a supernatural shocker that would change horror forever. It’s like a gory version of Gumby on acid!

Let’s set the scene: five college friends (Ash, Cheryl, Linda, Scott, and Shelly) retreat to a rickety cabin for a weekend getaway. Instead of s’mores and ghost stories, they find a mysterious tape recorder and the Necronomicon—a Sumerian Book of the Dead bound in human flesh. One ill-advised listen later, and they’ve summoned a demonic force that possesses the living, animates the trees, and turns their woodland escape into a blood-soaked carnival of chaos. Ash, played with jaw-clenching gusto by Campbell, is forced to fight off his increasingly possessed friends, dismembering, decapitating, and generally enduring more fake blood than any actor should have to wash out of their hair!

Raimi’s originality is what truly sets The Evil Dead apart. Instead of the typical masked slasher, the threat here is everywhere—an unseen, malevolent force that’s as likely to possess a tree as a person. Raimi’s camera becomes a character itself, swooping and racing through the woods in those now-iconic “demon POV” shots, achieved with little more than a greased-up plank and sheer relentless determination.

The Evil Dead’s low-budget effects, courtesy of Tom Sullivan, are a glorious testament to DIY horror: stop-motion melting faces, rubber limbs, and geysers of viscous, brightly colored blood that somehow make the grotesque both horrifying and hilarious simultaneously.

The cast, all relative unknowns at the time, give it their all—sometimes literally, as the punishing shoot left them bruised, battered, and occasionally stabbed by accident. Bruce Campbell’s Ash is the standout, transforming from hapless goof to chainsaw-wielding horror icon, his physical comedy and deadpan reactions laying the groundwork for the sequels, The Evil Dead 2 (1987) and Army of Darkness 1992, with a more overtly comedic tone.

Ellen Sandweiss as Cheryl delivers a particularly memorable performance, both as the terrified sister and as the first, utterly unhinged Deadite. But it’s Raimi’s exuberant, prankster spirit that gives the film its spark. Every time the audience gets a moment to breathe, he yanks the rug out—sometimes with a literal gush of blood from a lightbulb or a possessed hand bursting from the floor.

Composer Joseph LoDuca’s score ratchets up the tension, only to be gleefully undercut by Raimi’s next outrageous shock or visual gag.

Critics and audiences alike were initially stunned by the film’s sheer audacity. Stephen King’s rave review at Cannes helped catapult the film to cult status, and over the years, The Evil Dead has been recognized as a landmark in independent horror, spawning sequels, a TV series, and an entire franchise, turning it into a cultural icon. Its blend of visceral gore, inventive camerawork, and anarchic humor has inspired filmmakers like Peter Jackson and Edgar Wright with his Shaun of the Dead in 2004.

The Evil Dead is a delirious, blood-spattered rollercoaster—it’s a hilarious slapstick bloodbath, and possesses a madcap ingenuity. This film takes its low budget and turns it into a creative superpower. It’s as much a love letter to horror as it is a gleeful desecration of it, and Raimi’s fingerprints (and maybe some of Campbell’s fake blood) are all over every unforgettable frame!

PHANTASM 1979

Don Coscarelli’s Phantasm (1979) is a fever dream of grief, mortality, and otherworldly dread—a film that feels less like a traditional horror story and more like a hallucination scribbled into a teenager’s diary after a particularly bad nightmare. That’s how it affected me when I first saw it, and let me tell you, it felt like a nightmare and gave me nightmares.

Phantasm feels like one of those wild comic books I used to snatch up from the local stationery store for a quarter and voraciously devour—Phantasm translates like one of those stories bursting with impossible monsters and shadowy heroes, each panel bleeding into the next with the reckless abandon of a fevered imagination. Watching the film is like falling asleep clutching a stack of those comics, only to find yourself trapped inside their pages, where the rules and boundaries of reality are rewritten by fantastical nightmare logic, and every turn brings a new, surreal jolt of terror drawn in bold, impossible lines and awe-inspiring dread. Especially when the Tall Man hurls one of those steel-spiked spheres at you, full pace.

At its heart, it’s a surreal odyssey about a young boy named Mike (A. Michael Baldwin) grappling with loss and the incomprehensible horrors lurking in his small town’s mortuary, presided over by the gaunt, otherworldly Tall Man (Angus Scrimm). With his corpse-pale complexion, predatory glare, and deepened voice that vibrates with sinister, bone-deep resonance, this lanky undertaker sends chills down the spine.

Unlike other horror icons with detailed backstories, the Tall Man’s origins remain elusive, only partially revealed as Jebediah Morningside, a 19th-century mortician who becomes something far more sinister after experimenting with interdimensional travel. This ambiguity fuels the existential dread at the heart of the Phantasm series: death is not an end, but a gateway to something unknowable and possibly malevolent.

Scrimm is a cerebral, manipulative force of evil, played with chilling gravitas with his towering 6’4” frame, that piercing stare, and the iconic, guttural “Boy!” catchphrase, altering his posture, deepening his voice, and perfecting that insidious eyebrow raise, transforming the character into a mythic figure. He isn’t just burying the dead; he’s shrinking them into dwarf zombies, packaging them like sardines, and shipping them off to another dimension for slave labor.

If that premise sounds unhinged, it’s because Phantasm thrives on its refusal to make sense.

It’s a film in which logic dissolves into dreamlike absurdity, chrome spheres with razor blades and drills hunt humans like mechanical wasps, and the line between reality and nightmare blurs into oblivion.

Coscarelli, then just 23, wore nearly every hat on set—director, writer, cinematographer, editor—and his DIY ethos bleeds into every frame. The visuals are a brilliant example of low-budget ingenuity: comic book color-drenched corridors of the mausoleum stretch into infinity, the Tall Man’s looming silhouette haunts like a Gothic specter, and those infamous silver spheres (practical effects marvels made of fishing line and sheer audacity) zip through the air with lethal intent.

One scene, where Mike flees the sphere through the mortuary’s labyrinthine halls, is pure kinetic terror, the camera lunging and weaving as if possessed. Yet for all its grotesquerie, Phantasm is oddly poetic. The mortuary becomes a metaphor for Mike’s unresolved grief—his brother Jody (Bill Thornbury) dismisses his fears, mirroring the way adults often trivialize a child’s trauma. Even Reggie (Reggie Bannister), the ice cream-truck-driving sidekick, feels less like a hero and more like a hapless everyman dragged into a cosmic nightmare he’ll never understand.

One of Phantasm’s most unforgettable moments comes when Mike lies in bed, trying to convince himself that the terrors of the day are behind him. Night presses in around his bedroom. The room is dark and still, the black is as thick as velvet. There’s a kind of quiet that makes every shadow seem alive, like an uneasy breath. He lies rigid beneath the covers, eyes wide and searching the gloom of darkness for shapes that shouldn’t be there. The darkness at the foot of his bed sits atop soil and grass, and the cold earth below seems to ripple, like a black tide-gathering force. With tombstones surrounding Mike in a ceremonial circle, the Tall Man hovers, summoning up his minions. An impossible pale collection of hands and small black hoods emerge from the inky voice, their fingers stretching, reaching out, surrounding his bed and grabbing at him, yanking him down toward the abyss that yawns beneath his bed. His cry is swallowed by the darkness, his body dragged into nightmare’s waiting maw as if the shadows themselves have come alive to claim him. In that moment, the boundaries between waking and dreaming dissolve.

What makes it so effective is how suddenly the ordinary safety of a childhood bedroom is shattered. The hands don’t just grab him—they yank him down, as if the darkness itself is trying to swallow him whole. It’s a moment that perfectly captures the film’s nightmarish logic, where the line between reality and nightmare is razor thin, and nowhere—not even your own bed—feels safe.

The film’s haunting score, composed by Fred Myrow and Malcolm Seagrave, is a character in itself. Their main theme—a melancholic, theremin-tinged melody—wraps the film in an eerie, almost elegiac atmosphere, juxtaposing the chaos onscreen with a strange, mournful beauty.

Critics have compared it to John Carpenter’s Halloween score, but where Carpenter’s synths evoke sharp, clinical fear, Myrow’s work feels like a lullaby sung at a funeral. It’s no wonder the soundtrack became iconic, its notes lingering like the Tall Man’s malevolent grin.

Phantasm’s release in 1979 arrived at a pivotal moment for horror. The genre was shifting from the gritty realism of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and Halloween toward more fantastical, even psychedelic terrain. Yet Coscarelli’s film defied categorization—part Twilight Zone episode, part Gothic fairy tale, part sci-fi freakout. Critics were initially baffled. Vincent Canby of The New York Times dismissed it as “incoherent,” while others recoiled at its disjointed narrative. However, as scholar John Kenneth Muir notes, the film’s power lies in its “subconscious fantasy,” a child’s attempt to process death through surreal symbolism.

Scholars like Muir argue it redefined indie horror, proving that ambition could overcome budget limitations. Its dream logic and refusal to explain itself paved the way for David Lynch and Twin Peaks, while its blend of horror and sci-fi echoes in films like its particularly close cousin – Stuart Gordon’s From Beyond (1986), which, like Phantasm, dives into otherworldly dimensions and features grotesque body horror and mad science. The film’s story of a machine that opens a gateway to a terrifying parallel reality is steeped in the same kind of hallucinatory, reality-bending horror that defines Phantasm.

Over time, its reputation grew, with Roger Ebert later praising its “nightmarish illogic” and “sheer originality.”

The Tall Man, played with bone-chilling gravity by Angus Scrimm, became an instant icon. His elongated frame and sepulchral voice turned a simple mortician into a mythic boogeyman, a precursor to Freddy Krueger and Pennywise. Scrimm’s performance—equal parts camp and menace—anchors the film’s chaos, making the absurd feel terrifyingly plausible. Meanwhile, Michael Baldwin’s wide-eyed vulnerability as Mike grounds the madness in raw, adolescent fear.

Phantasm’s legacy is undeniable. It spawned four sequels, inspired Sam Raimi’s Evil Dead series, and even caught the attention of J.J. Abrams, who spearheaded a 4K restoration through Bad Robot.

Yet for all its influence, Phantasm remains singular-a weird, wistful meditation on loss disguised as a B-movie. As Coscarelli himself once said, “If this one doesn’t scare you, you’re already dead”. And after 46 years, the Tall Man’s laughter still echoes—a reminder – like great comic books – some nightmares never truly end.

#55 down, 95 to go! Your EverLovin’ Joey, formally & affectionately known as MonsterGirl!

MonsterGirl’s 150 Days of Classic Horror #54 Eyes Without A Face 1960

EYES WITHOUT A FACE 1960

Georges Franju’s Eyes Without a Face (Les Yeux sans visage, 1960) stands as a singular landmark in the evolution of Euro horror cinema, not only as one of the first scientific ambitions with the medical body horror film, but also as a work whose poetic, unsettling beauty continues to reverberate through the genre. At its core, the film is a chilling fable about a brilliant but deranged surgeon, Dr. Génessier, who, driven by guilt and obsession, kidnaps young women to harvest their faces in a desperate attempt to restore his daughter Christiane’s disfigured beauty. The film’s narrative, adapted from Jean Redon’s novel, is deceptively simple, but Franju’s approach imbues it with an almost dreamlike lyricism, elevating the material far beyond its pulp origins.

Franju’s direction is marked by a meticulous balance of clinical detachment and operatic emotion, a style that both subverts and transcends the conventions of the mad scientist trope.

The infamous shuddery face-removal sequence—shot with documentary-like precision—remains one of the most graphic and realistic depictions of surgery in early cinema, so much so that it reportedly caused fainting spells among original audiences and led to bans in several countries. Yet, the film’s horror is never gratuitous; instead, it is woven into a manifestation of guilt, grief, and the obsessive pursuit of beauty.

The film’s legacy is immense. It has directly influenced a lineage of European and global horror, from Jesús Franco’s Gritos en la noche and its sequels, to Italian films like Atom Age Vampire 1960, and British variations such as Corruption 1968 starring Peter Cushing.

Pedro Almodóvar has cited Eyes Without a Face as a major inspiration for his own medical horror, the disturbing and transgressive The Skin I Live In 2011, while echoes of Franju’s masked, tragic protagonist can be seen in the likes of John Carpenter’s Michael Myers, , and even in the psychological horror of David Lynch. The film’s exploration of identity and the horror of the mask—both literal and metaphorical—helped establish a trope that would become central to slasher and body horror cinema. Critics and film historians have noted that both directors create horror by juxtaposing the familiar with the strange, using an unsettling, poetic atmosphere, ambiguity, and surrealism to evoke unease rather than relying on explicit violence or gore. The film invokes the inexpressible anxieties pushing to be revealed, manifesting in strange, ambiguous, symbolic, and uncanny ways. Both directors tap into horror by blending fractured identity, physical and psychological transformation, and the ordinary with the deeply unsettling potential hidden within the familiar. Franju’s calm, almost dreamlike approach to the surgical horror of a father disfiguring and imprisoning his daughter is echoed through Lynch’s knack for turning everyday life into the surreal unraveling of self and reality in films like Blue Velvet 1986 and Lost Highway 1997.

Visually, Eyes Without a Face is a marvel. Eugen Schüfftan’s (best known for inventing the Schüfftan process, a groundbreaking special effects technique first popularized in Fritz Lang’s Metropolis 1927, The Hustler 1961, Something Wild 1961) crisp, high-contrast black-and-white cinematography lends the film a haunting, almost unreal quality, drawing on the aesthetics of German Expressionism, film noir, and the surrealism of Jean Cocteau.

The imagery is indelible: Christiane, played with ethereal fragility by Edith Scob, glides through her father’s palatial home like a living ghost or fairy princess held captive in a sterile prison, her blank, porcelain mask both concealing and amplifying her suffering. Scob’s performance is a wonderment in physical acting; with her face hidden for much of the film, she communicates Christiane’s anguish and longing through posture and movement, her presence both vulnerable and otherworldly.

Scob would go on to become a muse for Franju, appearing in several of his later films, and her iconic masked visage would be revisited decades later in Leos Carax’s Holy Motors.

The supporting cast is equally strong: Pierre Brasseur brings a chilling gravitas to Dr. Génessier, embodying both paternal tenderness and clinical coldness, while Alida Valli, as the devoted and complicit Louise, exudes an unsettling calm as she lures victims to their fate. Both actors were established stars in European cinema—Brasseur, known for Children of Paradise 1946, and Valli for The Third Man 1950—and later as the severe and unsettling Miss Tanner in Argento’s Suspiria 1977, and their acting prowess anchors the film’s more fantastical elements.

Maurice Jarre’s score is another key element in the film’s enduring power. Rather than opting for traditional horror cues, Jarre composed a score that is by turns ironic, whimsical, and haunting. The main theme—a carnivalesque waltz—accompanies Louise’s predatory excursions, its jaunty melody creating a dissonant counterpoint to the unfolding horror. For Christiane, Jarre employs a gentle, melancholic motif, underscoring her tragic innocence and the film’s undercurrent of lost beauty. Jarre, who would later win Oscars for his work on Lawrence of Arabia 1962 and Doctor Zhivago 1965, considered his work for Franju among his most innovative, and critics have praised the score’s subtlety and its ability to heighten the film’s surreal, icy atmosphere.

Upon its initial release, Eyes Without a Face was met with controversy and discomfort, its graphic scenes and ambiguous morality unsettling both censors and critics. Over time, however, the film has undergone a critical reevaluation, now widely regarded as a masterpiece of horror and a poetic meditation on the limits of science, the nature of identity, and the price of obsession.

The Criterion Collection’s restoration and release of the unexpurgated cut has cemented its status as an essential work, and contemporary critics frequently cite its “ghastly elegance” and “tastefully done and exquisitely horrific” artistry.

Film historians have noted that Franju’s film occupies a unique space: it is at once a product of postwar anxieties about science and the body, and a timeless fable about the dangers of unchecked ambition. Franju himself called it “an anguish film,” aiming for a horror more internal, more penetrating than the genre’s usual shocks. In this, he succeeded: Eyes Without a Face remains a film that lingers in the mind, its images and ideas as unsettling and beautiful as ever, a testament to the enduring power of cinema to disturb, provoke, and at the same time, as brilliant horror can do… enchant.

#54 down, 96 to go! Your EverLovin’ Joey formally & affectionately known as MonsterGirl!

MonsterGirl’s 150 Days of Classic Horror #53 Eye of the Devil 1966

EYE OF THE DEVIL 1966

Sunday Nite Surreal- Eye of the Devil (1966) The Grapes of Death!

Eye of the Devil (1966) is perhaps one of the moodiest, atmospheric gems in the canon of the 1960s horror films – a haunting blend of occult, folk horror, and psychological thriller, steeped in Gothic ambience and existential dread. Its themes of rural paganism and sacrificial logic prefigure The Wicker Man (1973).

A setting where the shadows of ancient ritual and the anxieties of modernity wind around each other like the gnarled vines of its doomed French vineyard setting. Directed by J. Lee Thompson—whose earlier works, from the relentless suspense of Cape Fear 1962 starring Robert Mitchum in one of his most rampant hyper-masculine roles to the epic sweep of The Guns of Navarone, proved his versatility. Eye of the Devil finds him at his most restrained and sinister, creating a world where every stone corridor and misty forest spaces seems to pulse with hidden meaning.

Thompson’s camera prowls the château’s labyrinthine halls and darkly shrouded woods, framing scenes with Erwin Hillier’s (Hammer’s Curse of the Werewolf 1961) stark black-and-white cinematography—all angular shadows and chiaroscuro contrasts that evoke a nightmarish fairy tale.

The film’s contemporary mythical aesthetic is a marriage of Gothic grandeur and modernist unease. The Château de Hautefort becomes a character itself—its crumbling stone walls, candlelit crypts, and the sense of barren vineyards symbolizing decayed aristocracy and primal superstition that drives the narrative to its dark place.

The clandestine legacy of the Niven family’s secrets is an ancient, tangled vine winding its way through the centuries, hidden beneath the surface, shaping the lives and choices of each new generation. No matter how much time passes, the secrets have left their mark on everyone who comes after.

These secrets are not merely buried relics; they are living, breathing presences, kept alive by silences, whispers, and ritual, binding the family together even as the legacy quietly dictates their fate. Like a shadow that hangs over everything. The hidden history stretches long and unbroken, touching each descendant and quietly guiding the fears and destinies of those who inherit its burden.

Niven trades his usual charm for stoic fatalism, while Kerr, replaced an injured Kim Novak, mid-production. Kim Novak was originally cast in the lead role of Catherine de Montfaucon, but her involvement with the film became one of the most notorious production stories of the 1960s. Novak had signed a three-picture deal with producer Martin Ransohoff and began filming in the fall of 1965 at the Château de Hautefort in France. Nearly all of her scenes were completed when, two weeks before the scheduled end of shooting, she suffered a serious back injury after being thrown from a horse while performing a key scene.Still, given that tragedy, Kerr delivers a performance of fraying resolve, echoing her role in The Innocents (1961).

Sharon Tate, in her feature film debut, embodies ethereal menace as Odile, a pagan acolyte whose glacial beauty – and luminous presence, like a candle in a velvet-dark room, is portrayed with a striking mystique and supernatural abandon. In reality, Tate possessed a stunning, glowing beauty graced with tenderness, radiance, and a gentle vulnerability. A mythical creature—euphoric, radiates sexuality and intelligence, always a little otherworldly, and is an American icon of the 1960s. In Eye of the Devil, Tate is dubbed with a British accent to amplify her otherworldly aura.

Donald Pleasence and Flora Robson round out the ensemble, their roles dripping with ominous ambiguity. The cast also includes a host of acclaimed British actors, Robson as Countess Estelle, Edward Mulhare as Jean-Claude Ibert, Emlyn Williams as Alain de Montfaucon, and John Le Mesurier as Dr. Monnet.

The story follows Philippe de Montfaucon, played by David Niven, a nobleman whose calm, aristocratic exterior masks a man drawn inexorably toward a fate dictated by centuries-old superstition and pagan ritual demanding his sacrifice to restore fertility to the land.

Summoned back to his remote ancestral French château to address the mysterious blight on his family’s vineyards, Philippe is soon joined by his wife Catherine, embodied by Deborah Kerr, whose performance of exquisite restraint begins to unravel. As Catherine navigates the labyrinthine estate, following her husband into a world of shadowy rites and hooded cultists, suspicion and dread seep into every interaction. Her husband’s evasive answers, the cryptic warnings of Donald Pleasence’s imposing priest, and the unsettling presence of Sharon Tate’s Odile, whose ethereal beauty and silent intensity mark her as both seductress, sentinel, and siren of the old ways, become a dangerous puzzle to solve.

Deborah Kerr’s character, Catherine de Montfaucon, is the emotional and narrative anchor of Eye of the Devil. As Philippe’s devoted wife, Catherine is thrust from the comfort of Parisian society into the unsettling world of her husband’s ancestral château, where ancient rituals and ominous secrets lie in wait.

With Catherine’s unyielding insistence on being by Philippe’s side, she brings along their children, until the dark winding path that lies open becomes a web she can’t escape. Kerr plays Catherine as both rational and fiercely protective, a woman determined to shield her family even as she’s drawn further into the shadows of pagan tradition and psychological disquiet, then panic.

Throughout the film, we experience the story almost entirely through Catherine’s perspective. She is the outsider, the audience’s surrogate, piecing together fragments of the estate’s dark history while encountering increasingly bizarre and threatening events. From the moment she arrives at Bellenac, Catherine is met with cryptic warnings, strange ceremonies, and the unnerving presence of siblings Christian (David Hemmings) and Odile de Caray, whose disturbing behavior toward her children and herself is both seductive and menacing.

Her journey is marked by a series of unsettling discoveries: a dove shot from the sky at her feet, robed figures conducting secret rituals, and her husband’s growing emotional distance and fatalistic resignation to something he refuses to put into clear words for Catherine, who pleads for answers. Catherine’s determination to uncover the truth and save her husband from a fate she only gradually understands drives the plot forward, even as those around her dismiss her fears as hysteria or superstition.

Kerr’s performance grounds the film’s supernatural elements in believable human emotion. She spends much of the narrative navigating the château’s labyrinthine corridors, haunted woods, and candlelit chambers—her mounting anxiety and confusion mirrored by the film’s shadowy, claustrophobic cinematography.

You can truly feel how alone Catherine is, stuck in the middle of a community where everyone else seems to be in on the secrets. Her isolation is palpable, and the people surrounding her are obviously complicit in the conspiracy of the estate’s arcane rites. She alone refuses to accept the inevitability of sacrifice, fighting against both her husband’s resignation and the inertia of relentless tradition. In this way, Catherine becomes a classic Gothic heroine, her courage and vulnerability at the center of the film’s coiling tension.

Psychologically, Catherine embodies the struggle between reason and the seductive pull of the irrational. Eye of the Devil plays with her—and the audience’s—sense of reality, blurring the line between nightmare and waking life.

Ultimately, Deborah Kerr’s heroine is the film’s conscience and its heart—a woman battling not only for her family’s survival but for the possibility that reason and love might break the cycle of inherited darkness. Her journey through suspicion, terror, and defiance is what gives Eye of the Devil its lingering psychological power and emotional resonance.

Flora Robson’s character, Countess Estell, is a figure steeped in both dignity and sorrow, embodying the heavy burden of bearing witness to the dark legacy of the Montfaucon family. As Philippe’s paternal aunt, Estell is portrayed as severe but ultimately caring, especially toward the children, whom she takes under her wing during the family’s ordeal.
Yet beneath her stern exterior lies a woman deeply marked by years of silent complicity and a similar resignation to Philippe’s.

Estell’s burden is profound: she has stood by, watching generation after generation of her family succumb to the same mysterious, ritualistic fate—a cycle of sacrifice that has haunted the Montfaucons for centuries.

She knows the truth behind the family’s tragedies, the pagan rites, and the price demanded by the land and the community’s ancient beliefs. This knowledge is isolating; she is caught between her love for her family and her inability or unwillingness to put an end to the madness. At one point, she confides that she would “rather die” than reveal the full truth to Catherine, begging Philippe to flee instead of facing his fate.

Her silence is both a shield and a prison, protecting the family’s secrets but also ensuring their repetition. Estell’s surrender is unmistakable; she has moved away from the castle in the past because she couldn’t bear to watch the rituals unfold, yet she remains emotionally tethered to the estate and its dark customs.

Estell is a foil to Catherine: where Catherine is frantic, desperate to save her husband and children, Estell is dour, knowing, and jaded—her spirit worn down by years of witnessing the same grim pageant play out. She cares deeply for the children and tries to shield them, but she is ultimately powerless against the weight of tradition and the collective will and fanaticism of the community.

In the end, Countess Estell’s burden is the quiet torment of the witness archetype: she is the keeper of secrets too dangerous to speak of, a guardian of the family’s cursed history, and a woman who has learned that some legacies are too deeply rooted to be easily escaped. Her presence in the film is a reminder of how the cost of silence and conspiracy can echo through generations, shaping destinies and perpetuating the very tragedies to repeat themselves even when she longs to finally prevent them.

Donald Pleasence plays the role of Père Dominic in Eye of the Devil, a character who embodies the sinister, enigmatic presence of the local priest. He often appears at moments of ritual or revelation, subtly guiding or observing the unfolding horror, and is pivotal in maintaining the film’s tone of creeping dread, as he exudes the old, hidden power that sustains the cult’s blood sacrifice. His presence is both authoritative and ominous, reinforcing the idea that the ancient forces at play are beyond the comprehension or control of the modern characters.

Pleasance has always given us a masterclass in subtle complexity. Here, his portrayal is marked by a quiet, unsettling menace within the film’s occult atmosphere. Père Dominic is not a straightforward villain; instead, he functions as a conduit of the ancient pagan rituals that underpin the story’s dark secrets. His calm, measured demeanor masks a deeper, more disturbing involvement in the sinister rites that threaten the family and the land.

The burden Père Dominic bears is immense—he is a keeper of secrets, tradition, repression and the inescapable pull of ancestral darkness. He is a guardian of the old ways, and a witness to the terrible sacrifices that have sustained the land for centuries.

One of the film’s most arresting moments unfolds atop the château’s ancient battlements, where Sharon Tate’s Odile, with her otherworldly calm and hypnotic gaze, lures Catherine dangerously close to the edge. The wind whips around them, the stone beneath their feet cold and indifferent, as Odile’s voice becomes a siren song. Catherine, entranced, teeters on the brink—her rational mind fighting to break free from the invisible threads Odile seems to weave around her. For a heartbeat, it’s as if the château itself is holding its breath, and I know we don’t exhale, as Odile’s soft, entrancing voice comes close to luring Cathrine off the edge of the battlements to fall to her death, claimed by the stones below.

Later, the film plunges Catherine—and the audience—into a fever dream of pursuit through the estate’s moonlit woods. Hooded figures, faces obscured and movements ritualistic, emerge from the trees like wraiths from a half-remembered nightmare. Catherine flees, her white dress a flash of panic among the shadows, the forest closing in with every frantic step. The chase is disorienting, both physically and psychologically: she is running not just from her pursuers, but from the suffocating weight of tradition and fate that seems to haunt every branch and root that inhabits the landscape.

At its core, Eye of the Devil explores the corrosion of reason by primal belief. Catherine’s journey mirrors a descent into madness, her grip on reality loosening as she uncovers pagan altars and blood rituals. The film toys with Gaslight-esque uncertainty: Is Philippe conspiring in his own sacrifice, or is Catherine projecting her fears onto a web of coincidences?

Throughout these scenes, the film’s artistry is ever-present. Each key moment a visual clue and a brushstroke in a Gothic fresco—at once haunting and hypnotic, and the darkness at its core. The stark black-and-white cinematography transforms the château into a Gothic dreamscape and carves every shadow deeper, while the score swells and recedes like a heartbeat, amplifying Catherine’s mounting paranoia, terror, and the story’s sense of inescapable doom.

The music for Eye of the Devil (1966) was composed by Gary McFarland. McFarland was an American composer, arranger, and vibraphonist known primarily for his work in jazz, but his atmospheric and haunting score for this film is widely praised for enhancing its eerie, psychological tone and Gothic atmosphere. McFarland’s score, swinging between mournful strings and jarring, dissonant bursts, mirrors Catherine’s psychological descent, heightening the tension without ever resorting to melodrama.

Hillier’s camera lingers on surreal details: a dove pierced by an arrow, a child’s eerie laughter echoing through empty corridors, and hooded figures processing through moonlit forests like a medieval death cult. The decision to shoot in black-and-white, unusual for 1966, heightens the stark, dreamlike quality, while Gary McFarland’s score oscillates between melancholic strings and dissonant crescendos, mirroring Catherine’s fractured psyche.

The decision to shoot in monochrome imbues the film with a timeless unease; the play of candlelight on stone, the deep wells of shadow in every hallway, and the spectral fog rolling over barren fields all conspire to create a sense of suspended reality.

The film’s artistic design by art director John Furness is as meticulous as it is evocative. The château de Hautefort, with its crumbling grandeur, becomes a character in its own right, its decayed elegance a reflection of the aristocracy’s moral and spiritual rot. Ritual objects, pagan altars, and inscrutable symbols pepper the landscape, hinting at a world where rationality is a thin veneer over primal belief.

As the narrative spirals toward its ritualistic climax, the film’s psychological themes crystallize. Catherine’s journey is as much an inward spiral as it is a physical investigation, her growing certainty that her husband is marked for sacrifice blurring the line between justified fear and delusional obsession. Thompson masterfully keeps the audience off-balance: is Catherine uncovering a genuine conspiracy, or is she losing her grip on reality in the face of grief and isolation?

The final scene, in which Philippe submits to a ritualistic pagan execution within a stone circle, is staged with a chilling sense of inevitability, both grotesque and hypnotic. Philippe, bound and crowned with antlers, becomes a Christ-like figure in a pagan Passion play. His transformation into a sacrificial king is rendered with both restraint and operatic dread.

This ambiguity peaks in this surreal nightmare sequence—a montage of distorted faces and sacrificial imagery—that blurs hallucination and reality. It’s as if the château remembers every sorrow and secret, the cold, ceremonial way the villagers close ranks, their faces unreadable, their loyalty to the old ways absolute.

The climax of Eye of the Devil is a masterclass in slow-burn dread and ritualistic horror. In the heart of a stone circle, beneath the cold gaze of ancestral statues and flickering torchlight, Philippe submits to the ancient rite that has claimed generations before him. The atmosphere is thick with fatalism—no one shouts, no one pleads.

Sharon Tate’s Odile glides through the ritual with serene detachment as she chants incantations. She lingers in the mind as an avatar of the old gods, her presence as mesmerizing as it is menacing. Odile and her brother Christian preside over the proceedings with chilling serenity, their roles as both witnesses and participants blurring the line between victim and executioner.

Catherine, powerless to intervene, is forced to watch as the cycle of sacrifice repeats, the land’s hunger for blood momentarily sated, and Philippe rides out on his horse unto his inevitable death, arrows piercing his heart, as Christian, the ever vigilant marksman, aims at his willing target. The violence is implied rather than explicit, yet the psychological weight leaves us to ponder the cost of tradition and the seductive power of the irrational.

Eye of the Devil may not have found commercial success in its day, it was a flop overshadowed by Tate’s tragic death, but the film has gained cult admiration for its audacious mix of Gothic elegance, and eerieness, and its themes of rural paganism and sacrificial logic that precursor late 60s and early 70s folk horror, and remains strikingly original, with Thompson’s direction that perfectly illustrates the darkness lurking beneath civility. Every frame is charged with unease, every character a potential conspirator, and every shadow a portal to the past’s most primitive fears.

A film with psychological ambiguity and occult menace has earned it a lasting, impactful reputation. The film explores the seductive power of tradition and the fragility of reason —a haunting meditation on fate, faith, and the sacrifices demanded by both.

#53 down, 97 to go! Your EverLovin’ Joey formally & affectionately known as MonsterGirl!

MonsterGirl’s 150 Days of Classic Horror #52 Deathdream 1974

DEATHDREAM 1974

Deathdream (1974): A Haunting Reflection of Vietnam’s Ghosts and Familial Fracture

Bob Clark’s Deathdream (1974) is a film that pulses with the raw, unhealed wounds of the Vietnam era, a horror allegory as much about the rot within the American family as the literal decay of its undead protagonist. Released in the shadow of the war’s bitter end, the film—co-written with Alan Ormsby (Clark’s collaborator on Children Shouldn’t Play with Dead Things 1972)—reimagines W.W. Jacobs’ The Monkey’s Paw through a lens of existential dread, blending traditional horror tropes with searing social critique. At its core, it’s a story of grief, denial, and the toxic masculinity that festers beneath the surface of suburban normalcy, all wrapped in a shroud of supernatural unease. Heads up for animal lovers, there is a horrid scene where a little dog is killed.

Richard Backus (well known for his work in daytime television, notably as Barry Ryan on Ryan’s Hope (for which he received a Daytime Emmy nomination) plays Andy Brooks, a soldier who returns home to his family after being killed in Vietnam, after his resurrection granted by his mother Christine’s (Lynn Carlin – an Oscar-nominated actress best known for her powerful debut in Faces (1968), who went on to a thoughtful career playing complex wives and mothers in acclaimed films and television throughout the 1970s and 1980s) desperate wish. Backus’ portrayal is a profound exercise in understated horror: his Andy is hollow-eyed, eerily detached, and physically deteriorating, yet somehow still recognizably human. His slow-burn transformation from a sullen veteran to a bloodthirsty revenant is both tragic and terrifying, a metaphor for the psychological toll of war that feels agonizingly personal during the time of the film’s release. John Marley ( prolific, Oscar-nominated character actor best known for his roles in Faces (1968), Love Story (1970), and The Godfather (1972), whose long career spanned stage, film, and television, with memorable performances as complex fathers, industry moguls, and authority figures across decades of American cinema and TV, as Andy’s father Charles, embodies the patriarchal expectation of stoic masculinity, his initial pride in his son’s military service curdling into shame and rage as Andy’s behavior grows increasingly aberrant. The family’s dynamic—a mother clinging to denial, a father grappling with emasculation, and a sister (Anya Ormsby) caught in the crossfire—becomes a microcosm of a nation struggling to reconcile the myth of heroism with the reality of trauma.

Clark’s seamless direction infuses the film with a dreamlike bleakness, using shadow-drenched cinematography and claustrophobic framing to mirror the family’s spiraling despair. Key scenes linger like open wounds: Andy’s first appearance as a spectral silhouette in the doorway, his mother’s candlelit prayer dissolving into the headlights of the truck carrying his corpse; the gruesome murder of a truck driver, shot with a handheld rawness that feels ripped from a snuff film; and the chilling sequence in a doctor’s office, where Andy’s rotting face is revealed under fluorescent light, Tom Savini’s early makeup work rendering him a grotesque fushion of Karloff’s Frankenstein and a war-torn G.I. The film’s climax, set in a cemetery where Andy’s corpse writhes in a shallow grave, is a gut-punch of nihilism, rejecting catharsis in favor of desolate silence.

Deathdream’s impact on 1970s horror cannot be overstated. Arriving six years after Night of the Living Dead, it redefined the zombie not as a mindless horde but as a solitary, sympathetic monster—a precursor to George Romero’s Martin (1977) and a direct challenge to the era’s exploitation-driven war narratives. By framing Vietnam as a domestic horror, Clark and Ormsby exposed the lie of the “noble sacrifice,” instead presenting a generation of soldiers as collateral damage in a war that left families broken and souls unburied. The film’s unflinching focus on psychological decay over cheap thrills influenced the rise of character-driven horror, while its critique of toxic masculinity and suburban complacency echoed in later works like The Stepford Wives 1975 and Halloween 1978.

Yet Deathdream remains singular in its despair—only a mother cradling her son’s corpse in a smoldering car, whispering, “Andy’s home.” In that moment, Clark captures the irreparable cost of war and the fragility of the American dream, making Deathdream not just a horror classic but a requiem for a generation.

#52 down, 98 to go! Your EverLovin’ Joey formally & affectionately known as MonsterGirl!

MonsterGirl’s 150 Days of Horror #51 Doctor X (1932)

DOCTOR X (1932)

I fully intend to explore Doctor X in greater depth down the line, especially given its fascinating influence on the landscape of 1930s pre-Code horror. There’s so much to unpack about how it helped shape the genre during that wild, uncensored era.

Michael Curtiz’s Doctor X (1932) is a feverish, Technicolor marvel that stands as one of the most unique and transgressive entries in early American horror. Released at the height of Hollywood’s pre-Code era, the film is a wild concoction of mad science, tabloid sensationalism, and visual experimentation, all pulsing with the anarchic energy that defined the genre before the censors clamped down. Curtiz, who would later become famous for classics like Casablanca, here unleashes a prowling, restless camera that slinks through shadowy laboratories, moonlit docks, and angular, expressionistic sets—each frame a testament to the film’s commitment to both style and unease.

At the heart of the story is Lionel Atwill’s Dr. Xavier, a pathologist whose Academy of Surgical Research becomes the epicenter of a grisly murder spree. Yet again, Atwill’s performance is a masterclass in controlled mania, his icy exterior barely containing the desperation to protect his daughter, played by Fay Wray. Wray, just a year shy of her iconic turn in King Kong 1933, is already perfecting her scream queen persona—her presence both vulnerable and magnetic as she navigates the film’s nightmarish world. Lee Tracy injects a jolt of period-appropriate comic relief as a wisecracking reporter, his rapid-fire banter and irreverent attitude clashing with the film’s darker undertones and adding an unpredictable energy to the proceedings.

Surrounding Atwill is a gallery of eccentric colleagues—Preston Foster with his detachable artificial arm, John Wray as a lecherous brain specialist, and Arthur Edmund Carewe peering through a metallic eyepatch—each one a grotesque caricature that underscores the film’s fascination with science as a theater of the bizarre.

What truly sets Doctor X apart is its bold use of the two-strip Technicolor process, a rarity for horror at the time. The film’s color palette, limited to hues of magenta and green, becomes an instrument of disorientation: flesh glows an unnatural pink, shadows pulse with sickly greens, and the infamous “synthetic flesh” transformation unfolds in a riot of unsettling color that feels ripped from the pages of a pulp nightmare. Curtiz and art director Anton Grot lean into this surrealism, crafting sets that are both oppressive and dreamlike, mirroring the warped psyches of the characters and the film’s overall sense of instability.

The narrative itself is a heady brew of taboos and pre-Code provocations. Cannibalism, hinted-at sexual deviance, and a queasy fascination with dismemberment all simmer beneath the surface, giving the film a charge that the Hays Code would soon snuff out.

The killer’s grotesque metamorphosis—his face bubbling and reshaping into a synthetic monster—remains one of the most memorable sequences in early horror, a pioneering moment of body horror that would echo through the genre for decades. Even the comic relief carries a certain edge, as Tracy’s reporter comes off less as a hero and more as a voyeur, peering into a world of unchecked intellect and moral ambiguity.

Doctor X may not have achieved the lasting fame of Universal’s Frankenstein or Dracula, but its influence is undeniable. The film’s willingness to blend horror, comedy, and proto-noir elements, its prioritization of style over strict narrative logic, and its embrace of visual and thematic excess paved the way for later experiments in horror and science fiction. The “synthetic flesh” sequence alone became a touchstone for body horror, while Curtiz’s expressionistic flair would live on in films like Mystery of the Wax Museum 1933 and the Technicolor nightmares of the 1950s.

Watching Doctor X 1932 today is like discovering a forbidden relic—its garish Technicolor, campy humor, and taboo-shredding plot all combining to create a hypnotic artifact of a cinematic era when horror was as much about provocation as it was about scares. In Curtiz’s hands, the film becomes a gleeful tearing at the seams of decency, a madcap dance on the edge of the abyss, and a testament to the wild possibilities of pre-Code Hollywood.

#51 down, 99 to go! Your EverLovin’ Joey formally & affectionately known as MonsterGirl!

MonsterGirl’s 150 Days of Classic Horror #49 The Devil’s Rain 1975

THE DEVIL’S RAIN 1975

If you’re looking for a horror film that’s equal parts bonkers, star-studded, and gloriously gooey, look no further than The Devil’s Rain (1975). Directed by Robert Fuest—the same man who gave us the deliciously campy Dr. Phibes movies—this supernatural oddity is a fever dream of Satanic cults, melting faces, not the least of which is the eyeless victims whose empty windows to the soul speak of agony and torture. And there’s some of the most committed overacting you’ll ever see. It’s the kind of film that, as Roger Ebert quipped, “spends so much time melting people, you’ll feel like an exorcised popsicle by the end.”

Let’s start with the cast because The Devil’s Rain is a veritable who’s-who of 1970s pop culture. William Shatner, in full post-Star Trek pre-Motion Picture mode, stars as Mark Preston, a man whose family is cursed by a centuries-old Satanic feud. Shatner brings his signature staccato delivery and wide-eyed intensity, especially when reciting the Lord’s Prayer at a coven of eyeless cultists. Ida Lupino, the legendary actress, and director, plays his mother, Emma, who spends much of the film either in distress or, later, shuffling around as a black-eyed, soulless minion of the Devil. Tom Skerritt shows up as Mark’s brother, Eddie Albert as a psychic researcher, and—blink and you’ll miss him—a young John Travolta makes his film debut as a robed cultist, his eyes as black as his future disco shirts.

But the real star here is Ernest Borgnine, who chews the scenery (and possibly the script) as Jonathan Corbis, the Satanic cult leader. Borgnine is clearly having the time of his life, whether he’s cackling maniacally, vanishing in puffs of smoke, or transforming into a full-on Goat God, complete with curly horns and a face that looks like it wandered off the set of a particularly wild Renaissance fair.

As one critic put it, “It’s a treat getting to watch Ernest Borgnine (Marty himself), and it’s an added kick seeing him in monster makeup whenever he summons up a goat-demon from the pits of hell.”

In Delbert Mann’s film Marty 1955, Borgnine not only was nominated for Best Actor but won the Academy Award. His Oscar winning character Marty Piletti is the antithesis of Corbis, who really gets into his diabolical revelry.

The plot? Let’s just say that coherence is not the film’s strong suit. The Preston family is being hunted by Corbis and his cult, who want a book of blood contracts that will give them dominion over the souls of the damned. There are flashbacks to Puritan times, psychic visions, and a Satanic church in the middle of the desert that looks like it was decorated by someone who’d just discovered Hieronymus Bosch’s art. The dialogue is often as bewildered as the audience—at one point, Eddie Albert’s character shrugs, “I don’t know, maybe the right moment. You’ll never find the reason.”

And honestly, you won’t.

Shatner is subjected to ritualistic torture and is chained to a cross-shaped altar as part of the Satanic cult’s ceremony. During the film’s climactic sequence, his character, Mark, is captured by Corbis and his followers. He is stripped, whipped, and tied to an altar that is cross-shaped, though the film doesn’t depict a full crucifixion with nails driven through his hands or feet. Instead, the imagery is meant to evoke sacrificial and religious overtones, emphasizing his helplessness and the cult’s power over him. Ultimately, Mark’s will is broken, his soul is transferred into a waxen image, and he becomes one of the cult’s eyeless, soulless minions, with his eyes hollowed out into black sockets. Even with no eyes, Shatner manages to invoke the ham within.

But what The Devil’s Rain lacks in narrative logic, it more than makes up for in atmosphere and spectacle. The film is shot in sun-bleached, dusty locations in Durango, Mexico, giving it a weird, otherworldly vibe- full of wide, empty landscapes and shadowy interiors, and the music by Al De Lory adds a layer of melodramatic doom.

The cinematography overseen by Alex Phillips, Jr. (Total Recall 1990 and Murphy’s Law 1986– two films that diverge like a rocket ship blasting off to Mars while a beat-up cop car’s axle falls off in a back alley.

And then there’s the special effects. Oh, the special effects. The film’s claim to fame is its nearly ten-minute “melting” finale, in which the cultists—having finally been doused by the titular Devil’s Rain—literally dissolve into puddles of goo. The effect was achieved by pumping colored methylcellulose, air, and smoke through prosthetics, resulting in a goopy, unforgettable spectacle that’s been called “absolutely the most incredible ending of any motion picture.” As Ebert noted, “If only they’d melted just a little, just enough to give us the idea. But no, they melt, and melt, and melt…”

The film’s production is just as wild as what’s on screen. Real-life Church of Satan founder Anton LaVey served as a technical advisor and even appeared in a cameo as a masked high priest. During filming, Joan Prather gave John Travolta a copy of Dianetics, leading to his conversion to Scientology—a bit of trivia as strange as anything in the movie itself.

For fans of cult cinema, the film’s strange hallucinatory atmosphere, impressively gloopy special effects, and unintentional hilarity have made it a beloved oddity.

So, if you’re in the mood for a horror movie where William Shatner gets his soul sucked out, Ida Lupino shuffles around with blacked-out eyes, Ernest Borgnine transforms into a goat demon while the cast melts for what feels like an eternity, The Devil’s Rain is your ticket to Satanic schlock heaven. Just don’t expect it to make sense—and don’t be surprised if you find yourself cackling right along with Borgnine as the Devil’s rain reigns down upon the screen with its nihilistic ending.

#49 down, 101 to go! Your EverLovin’ Joey, formally & affectionately known as MonsterGirl!

MonsterGirl’s 150 Days of Classic Horror #48 THE DEVIL COMMANDS 1941

THE DEVIL COMMANDS 1941

The Devil Commands (1941): A Somber, Atmospheric Classic of 1940s Horror:

The Devil Commands (1941) is a moody, atmospheric gem from the golden age of horror, directed by Edward Dmytryk, and is a more obscure classic horror film starring the legendary Boris Karloff. Adapted from William Sloane’s novel The Edge of Running Water, the film is one of those unique blends of science fiction, Gothic horror, and psychological tragedy—a combination that sets it apart from the more formulaic mad scientist films of its era.

What has always struck me about this particular Karloff foray is its quiet, aching meditation on grief—a story where his sorrow over his lost wife drives him to the very edge of reason and go to macabre extremes to reach out beyond the grave to find her again. There’s something deeply moving about Karloff’s character, cloaked in shadows and longing, risking everything for the faint hope of reaching his beloved once more. The Devil Command’s moody atmosphere is thick with melancholy and mystery, but beneath the Gothic trappings, it’s the tenderness of his desperation that lingers.

It’s haunting to see Karloff bend the laws of science in a desperate attempt to bridge the gap between worlds, all for love—a love so powerful it blurs the line between rational science and the unknowable supernatural realm to create a conduit to the dead. One of the elements that has always stayed with me about The Devil Commands is the beautifully constructed tableau of Karloff’s theater of communication. The set design, overseen by Lionel Banks, itself is a powerful character in the film. The eerie armored helmets used in The Devil Commands are large, metallic, and somewhat menacing—I liken them to medieval torture devices or oblate diving helmets.

These contraptions, which cover the entire head, are connected by wires to Dr. Blair’s elaborate brainwave machine. The laboratory is filled with banks of electrical equipment, stylus arms, and rolling slates to record brain patterns. The visual effect is both scientific and macabre, blending the aesthetics of early EEG technology with the Gothic atmosphere of a séance parlor.

The living medium who wears the helmet is Mrs. Blanche Walters, played by Anne Revere. Dr. Blair discovers that Mrs. Walters, a professional medium, has a unique ability to withstand intense electrical stimulation and emit strong brainwave signals, making her the ideal living subject for his experiments to contact the dead, especially his wife. Revere is repeatedly wired into the machine and serves as the central living participant in Karloff’s otherworldly experiments.

The other wearers of the helmets are actually corpses. As Dr. Blair’s experiments grow more desperate and unorthodox, he and Mrs. Walters exhume local bodies and seat them around a table, each corpse encased in one of those helmets and connected to the apparatus in a séance-like circle. This grisly setup is intended to amplify the psychic circuit and facilitate communication with the afterlife, resulting in some of the film’s most eerie and memorable imagery. I know it’s stuck with me all these years.

Imagine Karloff’s laboratory in The Devil Commands as a Gothic symphony of wires, dials, and humming coils—a place where the spiritualist movement of Victorian séance parlors collide headlong with the age of electricity. Here, the air is thick with the scent of ozone and longing, as if the very walls ache to bridge the chasm between the living and the dead. His contraptions are not mere machines but modern-day spirit cabinets and celestial telegraphs, echoing the Victorian obsession with communing beyond the veil.

Glass domes and helmeted headpieces glint in the candlelit gloom, their wires snaking like spectral tendrils across the floor. Oscillographs and galvanometers—descendants of the psychic “howlers” and vibration detectors of yesteryear—stand sentinel, ready to register the faintest tremor of a soul’s return to scribble its messages and electronically transcribe a disembodied voice, electronic waves of otherworldly wailing. Each device is a hybrid of science and mysticism: a spirit trumpet reimagined as a brainwave amplifier, a séance table transformed into a humming, sparking altar to lost love.

In this shadowy sanctum, the machinery becomes a kind of medium itself, channeling not just electricity but hope and desperation. The laboratory is a séance room for the atomic age, where the flicker of a bulb or the twitch of a needle might signal a message from the other side. It is as if the Victorian faith in ectoplasm has been rewired—copper and glass replacing velvet and lace, but the yearning for connection as palpable as ever.

Karloff’s setup is a poetic tangle of the rational and the supernatural, a place where the crackle of modern invention gives the ghostly ambitions of the nineteenth century new life. Here, the machinery does not just measure the invisible; it dares to summon it, blurring the line between séance and science, between grief and revelation.

The film opens with a classic Gothic flourish: a rain-soaked mansion, a voiceover from Anne Blair, and a sense of foreboding that never quite lifts. Dr. Julian Blair is at the heart of the story, played with poignant depth by Karloff. Blair is a respected scientist whose life is shattered by the sudden, accidental death of his beloved wife, Helen (Shirley Warde).

Dr. Blair, initially a figure of warmth and scientific curiosity, is devastated by his wife’s accidental death. Overcome by grief, he becomes obsessed with the idea that her consciousness might persist beyond death. This obsession drives him to the brink as he throws himself into experiments with a machine designed to record and amplify brainwaves, convinced he can communicate with his wife’s spirit—a quest that quickly spirals into dangerous territory.

Amanda Duff plays Anne Blair, Dr. Julian Blair’s devoted daughter, who serves as the film’s narrator and emotional anchor— and frames the story as a cautionary tale as she shows her concern for her father’s well-being and her warnings about his obsessive, dangerous experiments.

The film’s sensibility is steeped in loss and longing, with a heavy, somber atmosphere that never quite lifts. Directed bt Edward Dmytryk who was a highly regarded Hollywood director known for his influential 1940s film noirs like Murder, My Sweet 1944 and Crossfire 1947 (for which he received an Oscar nomination), his later classics such as The Caine Mutiny 1954, and a reputation marked by both artistic achievement and controversy, Dmytryk’s paired with Allen G. Siegler’s shadow-drenched cinematography, creates a world where grief and obsession seem to seep into every corner of the Blair mansion. The visuals are striking—there is, as one reviewer noted, “far more black on the screen than there is white,” a choice that heightens the sense of dread and isolation. The sound design, too, is masterful: the crackle of electricity, the howl of the wind, and the ominous silences all contribute to the film’s Gothic mood.

Karloff’s performance is central to the film’s impact. Unlike many mad scientist roles of the era, Dr. Blair is portrayed with genuine sympathy and complexity, like many of Karloff’s roles. His descent into obsession is not driven by malice or hubris but by love and the pain of loss. This makes his journey all the more tragic, as we can’t help but empathize with his desperate hope to reconnect with his wife. The supporting cast includes – Richard Fiske as Dr. Richard Sayles, Blair’s concerned colleague, Ralph Penney as Karl, the loyal assistant whose fate is as tragic as his masters, and Anne Revere delivers a chilling performance as Mrs. Blanche Walters, the manipulative medium whose own psychic abilities and greed push Blair further down his dark path.

One of the film’s most memorable sequences involves Blair’s attempt to use a circle of corpses as psychic amplifiers, culminating in a supernatural vortex that threatens to destroy everything. The special effects, though modest by today’s standards, are used sparingly and effectively, particularly in the scenes involving the brainwave machine and the climactic storm. These moments are not just visually arresting—they are deeply unsettling, tapping into primal fears of death, the unknown, and the consequences of tampering with forces beyond human understanding.

The Devil Commands is also notable for its narrative structure, which is told largely in flashbacks through Anne’s voiceover. This adds a layer of melancholy and inevitability, as we know from the outset that Blair’s quest will end in tragedy. The film’s tone is more in line with traditional ghost stories than the typical mad scientist fare, focusing on the emotional and psychological costs of obsession rather than just the spectacle of scientific hubris.

Behind the scenes, the film is interesting for several reasons. Director Edward Dmytryk would later become one of the Hollywood Ten, blacklisted during the McCarthy era, but here he demonstrates a flair for atmospheric horror and psychological complexity. The film’s blend of science fiction and supernatural elements and its tragic, almost operatic tone sets it apart from its contemporaries. For Boris Karloff, The Devil Commands is often cited as one of his more sympathetic and nuanced roles. For many fans, it remains a favorite among his Columbia Pictures films.

#48 down, 102 to go! Your EverLovin’ Joey, formally & affectionately known as MonsterGirl!