King of the Zombies (1941) – Review

It’s hard to believe that at one time the zombie genre didn’t exist and that the “zombie” was just one of the lesser-utilized monsters populating the horror genre. Universal’s White Zombie with Bela Lugosi was one of the rare movies that took the subject matter somewhat seriously, which was definitely not the case with King of the Zombies, a film that played the zombies for laughs long before Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg took to the scene.

The plot of King of the Zombies follows a group of characters who are stranded after their plane crashes on a remote Caribbean Island, this consists of Intelligence Agent Bill Summers (John Archer), pilot James “Mac” McCarthy (Dick Purcell) and Bill’s servant Jefferson Jackson (Manton Moreland) who find themselves lost in bad weather while flying over the West Indies. When they intercept a radio signal from an island below them they decide to make an emergency/crash landing and after miraculously surviving a rather violent landing they seek refuge in a mansion inhabited by Dr. Miklos Sangre (Henry Victor).  This rather imposing man claims to be an Austrian refugee and he lives on the island with his catatonic wife Alyce (Patricia Stacey) and niece Barbara Winslow (Joan Woodbury). Soon we have zombies wandering around the kitchen, phantom women disappearing down hidden passageways and a mad scientist conducting bizarre experiments involving mind control and zombies. As the plot unfolds, the protagonists uncover a plot involving the kidnapping of Admiral Wainwright (Guy Usher) and the use of local voodoo superstition to create an army of biddable “zombie” servants.

 

This is how you avoid the minimum wage laws.

From a critical standpoint, King of the Zombies is a mixed bag. On one hand, it offers a fascinating glimpse into the cinematic conventions of the era, with its low-budget production values and reliance on stock characters and situations, but on the other, we have performances that range from hammy to wooden, with Mantan Moreland’s portrayal of the comic relief valet providing the film’s most memorable moments. Moreland’s character, though steeped in racial stereotypes typical of the time, manages to inject energy and humour into an otherwise formulaic narrative. However, the film’s treatment of race is undeniably problematic by today’s standards and may make some viewers uncomfortable. African American characters like Jeff were often relegated to comedic roles and portrayed as superstitious and cowardly—a reflection of the pervasive racism of the period. While Moreland’s performance is undeniably charismatic, it’s difficult to overlook the racial caricatures that pervade the film.

 

Moreland is the one bright spot in an otherwise formulaic film.

Stray Observations:

• The role of Dr. Miklos Sangre was designed for Bela Lugosi who had starred in White Zombie, sadly, he wasn’t available so we got stuck with this low-rent villain.
• Mac and Bill overhear a foreign language on their radio but are too dim to realize that the language is German, which in the 1940s would have been quite recognizable by just about anyone let alone a government agent.
• The plot of this film deals with a “secret agent for a European government” but the script tactically avoids the mention of Germans or Nazis. America hadn’t entered the war yet and the German market was still important to studios.
• Jefferson Jackson states “Were there’s light there’s hope. I need all the hope I can dig up tonight.” This could be a nod to Bob Hope and his appearance in the horror comedies The Cat and the Canary and The Ghost Breakers.
• While a zombie, Mac is shot several times at point-blank range by Dr. Sangre but we later learn he is fine. Bill states “Those bullets didn’t help him any, he’ll need little patching up when the Coast Guard Cutter gets here, but he says he raring to go again.” This is kind of amazing, also incredibly stupid.

 

Who knew hypnotism makes you unkillable?

This film was initially to be a straight-up horror/thriller but with the success of the Bob Hope and Paulette Goddard horror/comedy The Ghost Breakers the original director was replaced with Jean Yarbrough, who had prior experience directing comedies, and the character of Jeff Jackson was added to the script with Monogram’s premier comedy relief actor Mantan Moreland to play the part. After watching the film it’s safe to say that he’s the star of the picture as Moreland has more screen time than the supposed leading man and his scenes with Dr. Sangre’s black maid (Marguerite Whitten) are easily the film’s best moments. Their back and forth banter injected life into what was an otherwise fairly dull script.

 

The true stars of this film.

In terms of its horror elements, King of the Zombies offers little in the way of genuine scares. The zombies themselves are more comical than menacing, with their stiff movements and blank expressions failing to evoke the sense of dread found in later iterations of the walking dead. The film’s reliance on voodoo mythology as a plot device also feels dated and clichéd, lacking the psychological depth and social commentary found in more sophisticated horror films.  The fact that the zombies are simply duped locals subjected to Sangre’s hypnotism certainly doesn’t help matters much. What is odd is that we also have Dr. Sangre planning to get the information from the Admiral via something called “transmigration” where the soul of one person could be transferred into the body of another, which is about as ridiculous as the concept of raising the dead. You either try and explain away magic with bullshit science or embrace the actual horror element, this film fails to do either.

 

Failing to have your cake and eating it too.

Despite its flaws, King of the Zombies remains an intriguing artifact of its time—a window into the anxieties and preoccupations of 1940s America. Its blend of horror, comedy and wartime propaganda offers a unique perspective on the cultural landscape of the era, even as its racial stereotypes and simplistic storytelling serve as a reminder of the progress yet to be made in Hollywood representation. As a piece of cinematic history, King of the Zombies is worthy of study and analysis, but as a standalone film, it fails to leave a lasting impression beyond its quaint nostalgia.

Dr. Cyclops (1940) – Review

In today’s climate, a scientist trying to reduce humanity’s impact on the environment would most likely be considered noble character, if not a downright heroic, but in the 1940s Paramount Pictures took what could have been an altruistic premise and shifted it into the “mad scientist” genre.  The result was a little classic called Dr. Cyclops.

The film begins with the introduction of the brilliant but eccentric scientist Dr. Alexander Thorkel (Albert Dekker), who is working somewhere in the Peruvian jungle.  He has invited a group of scientists to this remote jungle laboratory to aid him with his incredible discovery; this group consists of Dr. Mary Robinson (Janice Logan), Dr. Rupert Bulfinch (Charles Halton), mineralogist Bill Stockton (Thomas Coley) and a local miner along for the ride, Steve Baker (Victor Kilian). Upon arrival, they find themselves a little perturbed when all that Thorkel needs from them is a couple of observations through a microscope, his eyes having deteriorated too much for him to do this himself, but once he learns all he needs to know from them he dismisses the group out of hand.

 

“Thanks for your help, now kindly fuck off.”

Needless to say, our intrepid scientists do not take such an insult lightly and they decide to investigate on their own, and their disdain for the man grows when they come to the conclusion that he has gone mad. That they see Thorkel hunting for a shrunken horse increases their belief in his suspect sanity, but when Thorkel discovers them going through his things he accuses them of trying to steal his work and take all the credit. This is when the other shoe drops, it turns out that he’s not completely crazy, or at least not in the way they originally thought.  They are in the presence of a scientific breakthrough that surpasses their wildest imagination.  It seems that Dr. Thorkel has actually perfected a method to shrink living organisms to miniature size, unfortunately, he decides to use this method to get rid of a few unwanted guests.

 

“Honey, I shrunk the scientists.”

With our poor group of scientists shrunk down to miniature sizes things become dangerous rather quickly and for the remained of the film it becomes a literal cat-and-mouse game between our heroes, who along with a miniaturized Pedro Caroz (Frank Yaconelli) – he was Thorkel’s assistant who, like the others, learned too much – must now join forces to escape the giant clutches of this mad doctor. But can our heroes escape into the jungle and if so is that any safer? This is but one of many dilemmas facing our tiny heroes and director Ernest B. Schoedsack is able to keep the momentum going and the dangers mounting to make a very thrilling and original science fiction flick.  As the story progresses we quickly learn just how cuckoo for cocoa puffs Dr. Thorkel is.

 

“I’m going to put you in my Barbie Dreamhouse.”

Stray Observation:

• The man aiding Dr. Thorkel in his research loses his nerve and demands that the doctor stop with the experiments, which is not something you tell a mad scientist if you have plans to live to retirement age.
• Our group of tiny humans is threatened by a particularly nasty house cat, which is a particular type of villain that will plague miniaturized people in movies for years to come.
• Mary Robinson is a doctor in her own right but because she’s a woman when it comes to fashioning clothing for the group she is the one sewing them new outfits.
• When Dr. Rupert Bulfinch learns that they will eventually regain their normal size he declares to Thorkel that “There will be a reckoning!” Which is another thing you don’t tell a mad scientist if you plan on living to retirement age.

 

Sometimes scientists can be the dumbest people on the planet.

This movie excels at creating an atmosphere of wonder and terror as the characters are reduced to mere inches, confronting a world of giant insects, menacing plants and the omnipotent presence of Dr. Cyclops himself. This film is also one of the earliest examples of the “improved” Technicolor two-strip “Process 3” and the first one to be used for the science fiction genre, the other two entries being Doctor X and Mystery of the Wax Museum, and it was nominated at the Academy Awards for its exceptional special effects by Farciot Edouart and Gordon Jennings, whose efforts here, despite the limitations of the era, are surprisingly impressive and breathe life into the miniaturized sets and creatures that fill the screen with a sense of otherworldly menace.

 

I always admire the giant props in these kinds of movies.

Albert Dekker’s portrayal of Dr. Thorkel is nothing short of mesmerizing as he captures the character’s genius and madness with conviction, effortlessly transforming from a seemingly benevolent scientist into a diabolical antagonist. His commanding presence dominates every scene, leaving us torn between admiration and fear. Aside from the fun performance by Dekker, which can’t be overstated, one of the film’s more notable achievements is its ability to blend scientific marvels with a haunting sense of dread. The miniaturized world feels genuinely eerie, showcasing the dark side of unchecked scientific curiosity. Schoedsack skilfully utilizes lighting and camera angles to enhance the suspenseful moments, eliciting a range of emotions from the viewers.

Note: The look of Dr. Thorkel has become a science fiction staple among mad doctors and Albert Dekker gives a landmark performance that all other mad scientists will be measured by.

The supporting cast all contribute to the film’s overall quality with solid performances giving each character distinct traits that add depth to the narrative and heighten the tension as they face the dangers of their shrunken world. While Dr. Cyclops does adhere to certain clichés of its time, such as the underdeveloped female characters and the occasionally predictable plot progression, it remains an engaging and entertaining piece of science fiction history. The film’s pacing is swift, with each scene offering a new spectacle or peril that keeps the audience engrossed.

 

Just watch where you step or the little people may shoot you.

In conclusion, Dr. Cyclops remains an engaging and visually impressive science fiction horror film from the 1940s, with impressive special effects and a captivating performance by Albert Dekker.  It is also one of the seminal moments in the genre and while it may not have the same level of character depth and nuanced storytelling found in contemporary cinema, it still offers an entertaining and imaginative experience for fans of classic horror movies. If you can appreciate the charm of early special effects, and the thrill of a mad scientist’s experiments gone wrong, then Dr. Cyclops is worth a watch.

Reign of Fire (2002) – Review

Hollywood has provided moviegoers with many post-apocalyptic movies, from the Planet of the Apes franchise to the Mad Max series – the aftermath of “The End of the World” has always been great cinema fodder – but with Disney’s Reign of Fire we get a rather odd entry as it tosses a fantasy element into the mix.

The movie opens with a young boy named Quinn Abercromby (Ben Thornton) stumbling upon a dragon that has just woken up from hibernation, this rude awakening caused by subway construction, and the creature flies up and away killing the poor kid’s mother in the process.  Maybe having a “take your kid to work day” in a dangerous underground construction site was a bad idea. This majestic creature then goes off to wreak havoc on the populace. Flash forward a couple of decades where we find a mostly destroyed Earth and humanity barely hanging by its collective fingernails. A now adult Quinn (Christian Bale) is amongst the survivors, hiding out in the ruins of an old castle, and while they seem to be living on the brink of starvation they are managing to hold on.  The true conflict kicks in when a group of American soldiers, led by the charismatic Van Zan (Mathew McConaughey), arrives at the castle claiming that they have the plan to kill the dragons and reclaim the world for humanity. Van Zan believes that there is a single male dragon that is the key to the species’ survival and if it is destroyed the dragon race will die off and mankind can take back the Earth.

Can his plan end this reign of fire?

The movie’s premise of dragons taking over the world is intriguing, and the special effects used to bring these mythical creatures to life is quite impressive, however, the dragons end up being more spectacle than substance and the story fails to explore their motivations or origins to any degree. Worst of all is the fact that the poster promised us helicopter gunships battling dragons over a burning London and none of that appears in this movie, instead, we get this quick explanation as to how mankind has been pushed to the brink of extinction by dragons “Who fill the sky like locusts” but the actual mechanics of humanity’s defeat is never properly explained. Later in the film, we see Van Zan take out a dragon using nothing more than a harpoon gun but if these things are susceptible to something as basic as a harpoon gun then how did the combined navies and air forces of the world lose to these things? Mathew McConaughey is amazing but are we to believe he’s more powerful than an United States Carrier Group?

“All right, all right, all right.”

Stray Observations:

• The movie opens with a male dragon waking up but where exactly did the females come from, was there Mail Order Bride service for dragons?
• The film posits an alternative history in which the dinosaurs were killed off by dragons, rather than the K-T asteroid, which I’ll admit is definitely a cooler theory but also rather silly.
• The “dragons” in this film are actually Wyverns because they only have two legs, whereas dragons have four.
• Gerard Butler and Christian Bale put on a stage play version of The Empire Strikes Back for the children and this is easily one of the best moments in this film.
• It’s never explained how Van Zan kept an armoured column of vehicles and a helicopter fuelled in a world that fell two decades ago. It is especially odd when you consider the fact that gasoline has a shelf-life between three months and three years.
• Van Zan is convinced there is only one male dragon on the entire planet, but as dragons are spread around the entire globe how does he know this? Does he subscribe to a Dragon newsletter?
• With one fly-by, a dragon wipes out Van Zan’s entire convoy and kills all of his men, which begs the question “How has he been surviving all these years if that is his casualty rate?”

“Now, shall you deal with ME, Van Zan, and all the powers of HELL!”

The acting is solid, with Christian Bale giving a strong performance as the stoic leader of a small group of survivors, but it’s Matthew McConaughey who steals the show as the charismatic and unhinged dragon hunter. He brings a lot of energy and intensity to the film and his scenes with Bale are some of the most memorable, which is odd considering the movie is about a war against dragons and not two angry dudes. Unfortunately, as good as McConaughy and Bale are as actors the characters they are portraying are somewhat underdeveloped, feeling like one-note stereotypes instead of fully-fledged individuals. Bale does his best to present a nuanced and emotional portrayal of a man who has lost everything and is fighting to protect what little he has left, while McConaughy gives us a cross between George S. Patton and Yosemite Sam.

“You rackin’ frackin’ varmint!”

The movie is visually impressive, with some of the most realistic dragon effects ever seen on screen, but it should be noted that these dragons are not portrayed as magical creatures, instead, there are depicted as biological beings that behave and move like animals.  Sadly, this does take away the majesty of these creatures and turns them into what can best be described as Jurassic Park knock-offs. The film’s pacing is also a bit uneven, with the first half feeling slow and ponderous at times, however, the film’s distinctive and striking visual style makes up for this with its desolate, apocalyptic landscape that perfectly captures the sense of hopelessness and despair that our protagonists feel. Of course, the biggest issue is the decision to give us “science-based” dragons and if one takes but a second’s thought about the “science” we are spoon fed it all falls apart.

The Dodgy Science of Dragons in Reign of Fire

• The movie depicts the dragons as being able to breathe fire due to a flammable liquid stored in a sac located in their throats, however, this is biologically implausible as it would require the dragons to be able to create and store an immense amount of flammable liquid without it causing harm to their own bodies.
• We are told the dragons survive by digesting ash, and while ash is a good source of potassium, phosphorus, and magnesium it is biologically implausible for such large animals to live on that kind of diet as something this huge would require a lot of food and water to survive and reproduce.
• The movie depicts dragons as being able to fly despite their size and weight.  This would not be possible as their wingspan would need to be disproportionately large to support their body mass, and their bones would need to be hollow to reduce weight.  For a dragon to fly it must be a creature of magic.
• We see dragon fire being able to cause massive destruction, even to steel structures like tanks and trucks, however, this is not scientifically accurate as steel has a very high melting point and is fairly resistant to heat damage.
• The movie suggests that there is but one male dragon that fertilizes all of the female dragon eggs, in reality, this would lead to a lack of genetic diversity and would then cause inbreeding and genetic disorders.

“It’s gonna be a great Easter with this egg.”

Overall, Reign of Fire is a flawed but entertaining movie that offers a unique and compelling take on the dragon mythos, one that abandoned the fantasy aspect of dragons and replaces it with testosterone-fuelled performances by Christian Bale and Matthew McConaughey.  This is not necessarily a bad thing and should satisfy anyone looking for a thrilling and visually stunning adventure, but I still prefer my dragons with a bit of magic, so my favourite dragon movie Dragonslayer and it remains the gold standard of the genre.

Dragonheart (1996) – Review

Before Peter Jackson’s adaptation of The Lord of the Rings proved that fantasy films could be legit blockbuster entertainment, a trilogy that not only brought in huge box office but Academy Awards as well, there was very little in the way of “big-budget offerings” in the fantasy genre.  The best examples I had while growing up were the films by legendary stop-motion artist Ray Harryhausen but with the advent of computer animation certain fantasy elements that were once hard to pull off now took a major leap forward, enter Dragonheart.

The movie deals with an English knight named Sir Bowen (Dennis Quaid) who has spent his last few years training and mentoring the Saxon prince Einon (Lee Oakes), in the ways of  The Old Code, but when Einon’s tyrant king father is killed during a peasant uprising, and Einon himself is mortally wounded. Einon’s Celtic mother Aislinn (Julie Christie) has her mortally wounded son taken before a dragon and asks him to save the boy’s life. The dragon (Sean Connery) makes Einon promise to rule “justly and with honour” and replaces Einon’s wounded heart with half his own. Sadly, we don’t see much in the way of “ruling with honour” as Einon quickly proves to be even more oppressive of a ruler than his late father was He forces the former rebels into slavery and makes them rebuild an old Roman castle, which greatly distresses Bowen who now believes that the dragon’s heart has somehow corrupted Einon. With anger and revenge in his heart he vows to hunt all of these creatures down, of course, he’s wrong and Bowen was just blind to the fact that Einon was an evil little shit right from the start.

Our hero, the not-too-observant Sir Bowen.

We then jump ahead twelves years and Bowen has become a renowned dragon slayer, having hunted them to the brink of extinction, but when he encounters Draco, who he doesn’t know is the very creature who shared his heart with Einon, they get into a knock-down drag-out fight that ends in a stalemate – with Bowen in the dragon’s mouth but with his sword poised to strike up into the brain – and it’s here where the film starts to get a little wonky, with Draco pointing out that with him being the last of the dragons if Bowen kills him he will be out of a job.  Draco suggests a partnership and they agree not to kill each other, instead, they form a partnership to defraud local villagers with staged dragon “slayings.”  This is a take on the 1971 comedy The Skin Game where James Garner repeatedly sold Louis Gossett Jr. to various idiot slave owners, and while this leads to some fun moments plot-wise it doesn’t really go anywhere.  Worse is the fact that this change of heart makes no sense. Bowen blames the dragons for corrupting his Prince and thus vowing for vengeance, while Draco is the last of his kind due to the actions of Bowen the Dragon Slayer. How could either of these guys get past that hostile dichotomy?

Why doesn’t Draco think of using his ability to breathe fire to end this stalemate?

This buddy adventure aspect is only one element of Dragonheart as we also have Kara (Dina Meyer), daughter of the leader of the previous peasant revolt, who witnessed the now older Einon (David Thewlis) murder her father in cold blood, she now runs around trying to get the local peasants to give revolution another try. She gets less than stellar results. That is until she crosses paths with Bowen and Draco and they eventually go all Braveheart and somehow rally the people to march on Einon’s castle.  This all so we can have your standard medieval battle, a final confrontation between the hero and the villain, not to mention a noble sacrifice tossed in for good measure.  While some of this works a lot of it doesn’t and I’ll never buy Draco forgiving Bowen for hunting down and murdering all of his kind without even an “Oops, my bad” from this clueless knight.

“I’m too old for this shit.”

That all said, Quaid and Connery have excellent chemistry as the knight and dragon, despite the fact that their relationship makes no logical sense, and their banter is a highlight of the movie. This fantasy film also features some impressive special effects, and sure, they may be a bit dated by today’s standards but back in 1996, they were cutting-edge. The dragon’s design looks a little like a cross between a dinosaur and a dog but somehow it all works.  However, Dragonheart does have its flaws, the plot is fairly predictable and the supporting characters are poorly developed, not to mention the film’s constant struggle to balance its darker themes with its lighthearted moments.  It is in the addressing these themes of loss, betrayal and sacrifice, while injecting buddy comedy, where the film fails to strike a tonal imbalance.

Draco is really good at posing and looking cool.

Stray Observations:

• This was originally to be done with traditional stop-motion or go-motion effects but with the success of Jurassic Park it was decided to go the CGI route, so once again stop motion artist Phil Tippet was left in a supporting role to the computer animators. This time out he was relegated to the design department.
• At one point Bowen pours a mug of water and casually drinks while fencing with the young Prince, which was a clear nod to the sword fight between Danny Kaye and Basil Rathbone in The Court Jester.
• We get a “The peasants are revolting” joke, because why not rip off Mel Brooks while you’re at it?
• Bowen tries to free the peasant who had killed the King, and sure, Einon was being a cruel dick but the man was guilty of regicide. That Bowen isn’t then held accountable for trying to free him is also a bit daft.
• After slaying a dragon Bowen asks for a bag of gold for his services, from a group of Einon’s knights, but he is refused and this begs the question “If he wasn’t paid for this dragon slaying who exactly was paying him?”
• I know Einon is a bit crazy as well as evil but his trying to seduce Kara, who had just tried to assassinate him, moves well beyond crazy and into the realm of sheer stupidity.
• When an attempt to extort money out of the neighbouring peasants goes badly they decide to sacrifice Kara to the dragon instead of paying Bowen, and Bowen tells Draco to get rid of her, even suggesting that he eat the girl. Is this actually supposed to be our hero?
• The dragon slayers chain up the fallen dragon, but why? They were hired to kill the dragon and at this point in the film no one knew that Einon’s life was tied to that of Draco, so their chaining him up makes no sense.

I don’t even see Peter MacNicol among these dragon slayers.

The plot of the film hinges on the idea of a man struggling to recapture his idealism, which is a powerful theme that could have led to a very interesting movie, but the tone of the final script is a mess because any darker undercurrent is undercut by this “buddy-cop” banter.  Then there is the complete lack of chemistry between Quaid and Dina Meyer, who I think the film suggests are going to become romantically involved but don’t by that for a second. It should also be noted that there are some actors who can easily slip into any time period and accent, sadly, Dennis Quaid is not one of them. I’d put his portrayal of Sir Bowen up there with Kevin Costner’s casting in the title role of Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves as both of them should stay clear of anything prior to the 20th Century. This issue was not helped by the casting of such talented character actors as David Thewlis as Einon and Jason Isaacs and Brain Thompson as two of his more ruthless knights, because they work this era quite well and completely sell their parts.

“Who wants to apply for a job at Hogwarts?”

Overall, Dragonheart is your standard classic fantasy tale, with all the appropriate trappings, and if it’s mired in some dodgy storytelling and even dodgier attempts at humour it still holds up as a somewhat fun adventure and can be enjoyed as such. That is if you don’t take it seriously, which is the best way because it doesn’t take itself all that seriously either. So grab some popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the ride. And don’t forget to appreciate the fact that Sean Connery once voiced a dragon.

Dragonslayer (1981) – Review

The 1980s were a fun time when it came to dark fantasy films, with such entries as Ridley Scott’s Legend and Jim Henson’s The Dark Crystal making great strides in the genre, if not in great box office returns, but when it comes to fantasy offerings it’s hard not to mention Walt Disney Pictures as bringing classic fantasy tales to life was pretty much their business model.  While the studio had lost a little of the shine during the 80s they managed to team-up with Paramount Pictures to offer audiences a truly dark tale of fantasy and adventure.

The plot of Dragonslayer takes place in the sixth century and deals with a land terrorized by a 400-year-old dragon named Vermithrax Pejorative, who must be appeased by a virgin sacrifice twice a year. To handle this situation, Good King Casiodorus Ulfilas (Peter Eyre) had set up a lottery to chose which lucky girl would be sacrificed, to the beast needless to say, this is not something the villagers were all that happy about. Enter a delegation led by a young man called Valerian (Caitlin Clarke) who seeks help from the world’s last sorcerer, Ulrich of Cragganmore (Sir Ralph Richardson), who is their best hope of slaying the dragon. That he is possibly too old for the trip let alone slaying a dragon, is quickly put into question.

“Have you tried getting a hold of Gandalf the Grey?”

When Ulrich is killed by Tyrian (John Hallam), the brutal Captain of Casiodorus’s Royal Guard, it’s up to the wizard’s young apprentice, Galen (Peter MacNicol), to become our movie’s dragonslayer, stating to the delegation “All that you asked of him, you may now expect of me. The dangers he would face, I will now conquer. The task he would undertake, I will now fulfill. I’m Galen Brandwarden, inheritor of Ulrich’s craft and knowledge, and I am the sorcerer you seek.” These are pretty bold statements from a sorcerer’s apprentice, dragon slaying is not normally a gig for a novice. There are also some nasty wrinkles along the way, such as Tyrian murdering Hodge (Sydney Bromley), the wizard’s old retainer and keeper of secrets, but the most interesting twist is the discovery that Valerian is actually a young woman, who has been disguised since birth to avoid being selected for the lottery.  It should be less of a surprise that she will also become a somewhat love interest for the hero.

Galen is clearly shooting way above his pay grade.

Galen’s journey is not just a quest to defeat a monster but a coming-of-age story about the nature of power and responsibility and accepting one’s strengths and limitations. And then with the role of Valerian we don’t get the typical damsel in distress, who must be saved from clutches of the dragon by our stalwart hero, instead, with Dragonslayer we have Caitlin Clarke playing a spirited woman who has spent her entire life disguised a man and that is something that has definitely shaped the kind of person she has become, one who will challenge traditional gender roles and adds depth to the story.

“A woman’s place is in the kitchen or on a sacrificial altar.”

What makes Dragonslayer truly remarkable is its attention to detail, from the intricate costumes by Anthony Mendelson to the breathtaking sets by Elliot Scott, every element of the film creates a rich and immersive world that captures the imagination with every frame. That twenty-five percent of the budget went to the dragon itself should be a surprise to no one who has seen the film, this creature is a marvel of special effects and pretty awe inspiring. With its scaly skin and fire-breathing capabilities it fully capture the threat of such a mythical beast. Of course, the key test to any such creations isn’t so much on what marvel of technology was utilized to bring it to life but what character and personality it has on screen, and in the case of Vermithrax Pejorative you have an aging malevolent beast whose very appearance screams death and destruction.  But surprisingly, it also gets us to somewhat sympathize with this aging creature of a bygone age.

A literal baptism by fire.

Creating such a fantastic character required visual effects that were quite groundbreaking for its time – computer-generated monsters were not even a glint in ILM head Dennis Muren’s eyes at this point – and what this film provides the viewer more than holds up to today’s effects. The dragon itself is a marvel to behold, brought to life with a combination of animatronics and puppetry that seamlessly blends with the live-action footage. Stop-motion effects wizard Phil Tipped utilized a technique called “Go Motion” that would allow the animators to incorporate motion blur into each frame that involved motion, which removes the distinctive staccato effect found in traditional stop motion animation. As for the dragon’s design itself, graphic artist David Bunnett came up with the conceptual look of Vermithrax Pejorative, a look that even when not moving was bloody terrifying. With Phil Tippet and company bringing it to life they created one of the most imaginative and distinctly memorable creations in film history, one whose appearance has influenced countless fantasy films that followed.

We get a really electrifying finale.

Stray Observations:

• This is a Disney co-production about a sorcerer’s apprentice but it doesn’t include animated brooms and buckets, talk about a lost opportunity.
• This is the second co-production between Paramount Pictures and Walt Disney Productions, with Robert Altman’s Popeye being the first, and while both films had fantastic production value they also both had poor box office returns.
• If there is a better dragon name out there than Vermithrax Pejorative I haven’t come across it, and it roughly translates as “The Worm of Thrace Which Makes Things Worse” which is even cooler.
• The King’s whole plan behind the lottery was just to buy them time, with the dragon being four centuries old he hoped to outlive it, but who’s to say it wouldn’t live five centuries?
• A family that has a daughter chosen for sacrifice is excused from the lottery for five years, but looking at the size of this kingdom I can’t see how they could provide two sacrifices a year if they continually shrink the pool of eligible families.
• If one’s virginity was a prerequisite to be included in the lottery wouldn’t every maiden in the kingdom be doing her best to get laid? I could see an enterprising young man offering his services in a pinch.

“Want your daughter’s saved from sacrifice? One gold piece and five minutes is all I need.”

The movie does have some flaws, the pacing of the film can be slow at times and some of the characters and their motivations could have been more fleshed out. The noble Princess (Chloe Salaman) sacrificing herself when she learns that she’d be exempt from the lottery all these years, while everyone else lost daughters, could have used a little more screen time, yet the movie does a pretty damn good job of balancing horror and humour in an era when magic was dying and Christianity was on the rise.  Director co-writer Matthew Robbins tackled such topics masterfully and was unafraid to show the darker side of this medieval setting, with moments of brutality and cruelty that added weight to the story. The entire production was buoyed by a fantastic score by Alex North and the bombastic music provide the perfect amount of boost. In conclusion, Dragonslayer is a thrilling adventure film with heart and intelligence and is a must-see for fans of fantasy films, and is also a testament to the power of practical effects and strong storytelling.

Personal Note: I’d rather live in a world with dragons than one with pompous priests going on and on about hellfire and damnation.

The Exorcist III (1990) – Review

There aren’t many sequels out there that completely ignore the events of the previous chapter but John Boorman’s Exorcist II: The Heretic was so bonkers that William Peter Blatty, author of the original book, took it upon himself to helm the third instalment, which he adapted from his book Legion, and proceeded to ignore the idea that Richard Burton’s sweaty priest ever existed.

The film picks up fifteen years after the events of the original The Exorcist, on the anniversary of the death of Father Karras (Jason Miller), with Lieutenant Kinderman (George C. Scott) investigating a series of gruesome murders in Georgetown, murders that have distinct religious overtones that consists of a young boy and a priest being brutally murdered. But it’s when his friend Father Dyer (Ed Flanders) ends up in the hospital that Kinderman begins to discover a connection to a “Patient X” (Jason Miller) in the mental wing of a nearby hospital, who seems to be possessed by an evil force that had tormented the world in the past. What’s interesting about The Exorcist III is that it starts out as your standard police procedural, with Kinderman trying to solve these murders, but we get a left-field turn into the supernatural when this mysterious patient claims to be The Gemini Killer (Brad Dourif), a serial murderer who also died fifteen years ago.  The highlight of the film is the dynamic dialogue between these two.

 

“Well, Kinderman. Have the lambs stopped screaming?”

Unfortunately, the higher-ups at the studio weren’t quite happy with that “simple” premise and were not happy that the film was completely lacking in an “exorcism” and so Blatty was forced to do major re-shoots to amp up the battle of good vs evil, which consisted of shoehorning in an entirely new character, Father Morning (Nicol Williamson), who will become the Lankester Merrin of this film, unfortunately, this character doesn’t fit organically into the plot and his inclusion comes as an interruption to the battle of wills between Kinderman and the Gemini Killer, which should have been the central focus of the film’s climax. On the plus side, these re-shoots involved the return of actor Jason Miller – originally rejected by Blatty due to the man’s poor health due to alcoholism – and the blend of his performance with that of Brad Dourif works surprisingly well, as for its big special effects extravaganza ending, that not so much.

 

“The critics are going to crucify me, aren’t they?”

Stray Observations:

• Lieutenant Kinderman claims that Father Karras was his best friend and that he loved him, which is odd considering that other than a nice piece of banter their relationship was about five to ten minutes long in the previous film.
• Kinderman connects the first victim to the MacNeil exorcism because the young African American boy’s mother was the one who determined that Reagan was speaking backward English, which is not true, in The Exorcist the person who determined the language was a man and who was Caucasian.
• This film has one of the all-time great jump scares, if you’ve seen the movie you know the one I’m talking about.
• When asked how he is able to get in and out of jail without being seen, The Gemini Killer replies, “It’s child’s play” which is a nice nod to Brad Dourif’s iconic role as Chucky in the Child’s Play movies.
• There is a dream sequence where Kinderman seems to be walking through purgatory, with angels organizing souls and sending them to their proper destination and it looks like something out of a Terry Gilliam film.

 

“Mam, I’m sorry, but Heaven Can’t Wait.”

One of the film’s greatest strengths lies in its ability to create a sense of dread and unease through atmospheric tension rather than relying solely on jump scares or excessive gore. Blatty, who also wrote the screenplay based on his own novel, masterfully crafts an eerie ambience, making effective use of shadowy cinematography, haunting music, and subtle yet powerful performances. Standing in for the late great Lee J. Cobb, we have George C. Scott delivering a standout performance as Lieutenant Kinderman, portraying a complex character haunted by personal demons while facing unimaginable horrors. Scott’s commanding presence and nuanced acting lend credibility to the unfolding supernatural events, and his chemistry with the supporting cast enhances the film’s overall quality.

 

Law and Order: Special Supernatural Unit.

This is not to say that The Exorcist III is not without its flaws, the film’s pacing occasionally falters, particularly in the middle act due to those forced additions, and the narrative takes some detours that may confuse or lose the audience’s interest. Additionally, while the movie builds tension effectively, the climax feels somewhat rushed and lacks the same impact as the film’s earlier scenes. Despite these shortcomings, The Exorcist III succeeds in delivering thought-provoking themes and exploring the nature of good and evil in a deeply unsettling manner. The film raises questions about the fragility of faith and the persistence of evil in the world, captivating viewers with its philosophical undertones amidst the terror. Moreover, the film also showcases some truly memorable and genuinely terrifying moments that will leave an indelible impression on horror enthusiasts. The movie’s carefully crafted set pieces and skilful use of practical effects contribute to a number of chilling sequences that are sure to make your skin crawl.

 

I particularly liked the appearance of a certain DC comic book villain.

While this third instalment may not reach the same iconic status as its predecessor, The Exorcist III is a solid horror film in its own right, with a strong performance from George C. Scott, an eerie atmosphere, and some truly chilling moments, not to mention Brad Dourif’s chilling portrayal as this film’s version of the Zodiac Killer, this entry offers up a captivating and disturbing viewing experience for fans of the genre. If you’re a horror aficionado or a fan of the original film. this one is definitely worth a watch.