Dolls (1986) – Review

Killer dolls have been a popular horror mainstay ever since Talky Tina murdered Telly Savalas in that classic Twilight Zone episode, so leave it to B-movie producer Charles Band to proclaim “Hold my beer” and give us a dark and gloomy mansion that was simply chock full of tiny toy terrors with dash of gore and death.

With producer Charles Band teaming up with director Stuart Gordon you knew you were in for a treat and Dolls does not disappoint.  Gordon was already well known for his work in the genre with such horror films as Re-Animator and From Beyond but with this entry he takes viewers into the realm of dark fantasy and it is a twisted journey filled with creepy dolls, atmospheric settings and a unique blend of horror elements. The story revolves around a group of individuals who find themselves stranded in a storm and seek refuge in an old mansion inhabited by a peculiar doll maker named Gabriel Hartwicke (Guy Rolfe) and his wife (Hillary Mason) and as the night unfolds these characters become trapped in a nightmare as the dolls that inhabit the house come to life and unleash their sinister intentions.

 

“How about a nice fairy tale to set the mood?”

While Stuart Gordon’s Dolls is a dark fantasy fairy tale it also has the classic “Old Dark House” setting, with a group of disparate people holding up inside a gloomy mansion, and in this story those visitors include David Bower (Ian Patrick Williams), his seven-year-old daughter Judy (Carrie Lorraine) and wicked stepmother Rosemary (Carolyn Purdy-Gordon), who not only does her best to channel every evil stepmother from Disney but also a little of Cruella de Ville as well. Of course, even at a meagre 77-minute running time the film needed more victims so we also have two hitchhikers, Isabel Prange (Bunty Bailey) and Enid (Cassie Stuart), who couldn’t have been more 80s if they tried.  They are picked up by the child-at-heart Ralph Morris (Stephen Lee) and are they are all brought to this scary abode to get their just deserts.

 

“Hey Isabel, Madonna called, she wants her outfit back.”

The stories told by the Brothers Grimm were cautionary tales for children, such as don’t take candy from strangers especially if their house is made of something as structurally unsound as gingerbread, but this film is more a warning to adults about not being complete asshats. While Judy is your typical evil stepmother David isn’t much better, wanting to ditch his daughter so that can run off and spend his new wife’s money – who needs a kid spoiling all his fun – and both Isabel and Enid are self-centred women who think that the world owes them something and will take whatever they want. It’s only Ralph who shows any sign of humanity and it’s his childhood love of toys and a budding friendship with Judy that will see him “safely” through the night.

 

“To infinity and From Beyond!”

Stray Observations:

• The movie opens with Judy sitting in the backseat of their car reading Hansel and Gretel which gives us an early clue that this is a modern take on a Grimm’s fairy tale.
• Even before we get to the creepy house full of dolls, Judy imagines her Teddy bear transforming into a full-sized monstrous bear that mauls her father and stepmother to death. Is this what we are calling foreshadowing now?
• The porcelain dolls with bloody sharp teeth reminded a lot of the killer dolls from the science fiction classic Barbarella.
• I don’t know if exploring bloodstained hallways on a stormy night, with a little girl in tow, can be considered brave but I do know you wouldn’t find me holding a candelabra and traipsing up and down dark attic stairways looking for someone who had presumably been dragged off by elves.
• It’s never explained why some dolls are hollow porcelain or plastic while others have organic skeletons beneath their facades.

 

Is this an answer to the question “How can you make dolls creepier?”

Apparently, the dolls have various magical origins and we have to assume some of them were animated by witchcraft while others are dark fairies, and the rest used to be terrible humans who were transformed into dolls to pay for their crimes. That we get no on-screen explanation of any of this isn’t surprising as the dolls weren’t initially meant to have an organic structure but director Stuart Gordon wasn’t fond of the dolls being wholly toys and came up with the idea of having organic skeletal systems underneath their porcelain faces to make them creepier. In fact, one of the notable aspects of Dolls is its imaginative and skilful use of practical effects to pull off each variety of killer toys. The dolls were brought to life through an impressive combination of puppetry, stop-motion animation and animatronics, giving them an eerie and lifelike presence on screen. The attention to detail in the doll designs and their movements adds to the film’s unsettling atmosphere, making them truly memorable and chilling entities.

 

Nightmare fuel, pure and utter nightmare fuel.

The film benefits from its Gothic and claustrophobic setting, with the mansion serving as a character in itself. Its dark shadowy hallways, creaking staircases and dimly lit rooms create an oppressive sense of foreboding, amplifying the tension and suspense as the characters navigate their way through the house. The production design and cinematography work hand in hand to create a visually captivating and atmospheric experience and the film thrives on building an unsettling ambience, with the mansion becoming a character of its own. The creaky wooden floors, dimly lit hallways and endless corridors add an air of suspense to every scene, additionally, the unnerving doll collection is both mesmerizing and terrifying, making for some genuinely spine-tingling moments. On the acting side of things, the performances in Dolls are generally solid, with the standout being Guy Rolfe as Gabriel the doll maker, his portrayal of a seemingly benevolent yet enigmatic character is both engaging and unsettling as is Hillary Mason in a very bewitching performance as the doll maker’s wife and partner.

 

A kinder, gentler couple you will never meet.

While Dolls does deliver on its horror elements, it also offers deeper themes and commentary. The film explores the consequences of greed, materialism and the mistreatment of others with the dolls themselves serving as allegorical figures, embodying the retribution that befalls those who succumb to these vices and this underlying message adds depth to the film, elevating it beyond a mere horror spectacle. The film also strikes a delicate balance between horror and dark fantasy, incorporating those elements of morality tales and cautionary fables into a reminder of the importance of compassion and kindness in a world that can sometimes be cruel and unforgiving.

 

Be good or be punished is a pretty basic lesson plan.

In conclusion, Dolls is a creepy and atmospheric horror film that showcases Stuart Gordon’s talent for blending horror and fantasy elements. With its imaginative use of practical effects, Gothic setting and deeper thematic undertones, the film offers an unsettling and thought-provoking experience for fans of the genre and remains a cult classic that stands as a testament to the creative and macabre vision of its director. This haunting and atmospheric horror gem from 1987  effectively blends the charm of childhood innocence with the terror of the supernatural and is well worth checking out.

Lawnmower Man 2: Beyond Cyberspace (1996) – Review

First of all, one has to admit that the original Lawnmower Man was no cinematic masterpiece – not to mention a terrible adaptation of the source material – but the dodgy CGI and an even dodgier grasp of science that plagued that film is nothing compared to the cinematic disaster that is Lawnmower Man 2. Imagine taking everything that made the original film somewhat interesting and flushing it down the digital toilet.

When sitting down to watch this sequel, after first girding your loins with enough alcohol, it’s important to understand that this film should be viewed as a stand-alone movie as it seems to have ignored most of the events of the first Lawnmower Man. Despite this film’s opening scene including a flashback of the previous one’s conclusion – with the destruction of Virtual Space Industries and Jobe escaping into the World Wide Web and the subsequent ringing of all the phones in the world that announces his birth as a Cyber-God – this sequel ignores all of that and has the villains of this piece getting a hold of Jobe’s “corpse” so that they can hook him up to their database so he can help them perfect the Chiron Chip.

 

“Being a Cyber-God seems like a lot of work.”

But what is this Chiron Chip we speak of? We are told that Dr. Benjamin Trace (Patrick Bergin), the founder of virtual reality and who invented the most powerful worldwide communications chip ever, but then lost the legal battle to secure the patent, and it is now in the hands of a villainous tycoon and virtual reality entrepreneur Jonathan Walker (Kevin Conway). Walker runs Virtual Light Industries and he quickly realizes the potential of the Chiron Chip to dominate a society that has now become dependent on computers. It’s Walker’s team who gains possession of Jobe Smith’s (Matt Frewer) horrible burnt body, to which they will reconstruct his face and have his legs amputated, but not to worry, he is told by Dr. Cori Platt (Ely Pouget), who is Trace’s former partner and lover and now turned corporate scientist, that “There is nothing to be afraid of, virtual reality will rehabilitate your mind and eventually your body.” Call me crazy, but I don’t think these guys understand science or biology.

 

“I bring you to the “Bullshit 3000” the most powerful plot device ever.”

Meanwhile, we have the return of Peter Parkette (Austin O’Brien) who in the intervening six years has become a computer hacker and formed a group of Artful Dodgers who live in an old subway car on an abandoned subway line of a very Cyberpunk Los Angeles. As one is expected to do in this kind of movie. It’s while hacking into the “cyberspace” that Peter reconnects with Jobe and is asked by his former friend to track down Dr. Benjamin Trace so that he can learn about a hidden Nano routine called “Egypt” in the Chiron Chip’s design. Lucky for humanity, Trace realizes that Jobe is quite insane and he refuses to give him access to something that powerful, needless to say, this doesn’t go over that well and Jobe explodes with the threat “Tell me what “Egypt” means, Doctor, before I get really FUCKING PISSED OFF!” and he then hacks into subway system’s computer to send another train crashing into theirs. Thus begins the battle between our small band of heroes, a mentally deranged Cyber-God and an ineffectual group of corporate morons who don’t understand what the fuck they are dealing with. So yeah, it will be a bunch of kids who save the day.

 

“We need to hack the planet.”

Stray Observations:

• Despite the film taking place in “The Future” the computer labs are all outfitted with crappy old computers from the 1980s, stuff that even Tron wouldn’t bother trying to save.
• How do you solve the problem of the actor who played the title character in the first film not returning for the sequel? Simple, just have a doctor deliver the line “They’ve reconstructed his face” and then cast Matt Frewer.
• Casting Matt Frewer as a rogue computer villain has serious shades of his most famous role, that of Max Headroom.
• The only actor to return for this outing was Austin O’Brien, who is another good example of “Child Actors” whose careers never quite survived puberty.
• The virtual world that Peter Parkette and friends hack into looks like a precursor to Ernest Cline’s Ready Player One and the OASIS.
• This film is set six years after the original movie – which took place in the present day – yet in that small time frame the world has somehow turned into a Blade Runner/Cyberpunk reality.

 

That is some pretty quick urban development.

While the original Lawnmower Man flirted with intriguing concepts of virtual reality and the human mind, its sequel dives headfirst into a pool of convoluted plot lines and lacklustre execution. Furthermore, the film’s visual effects are a testament to the limitations of CGI technology in the mid-90s and certainly not much of an improvement from the original film. Some may argue that the dated graphics add a nostalgic charm, but they ultimately detract from the overall immersion of the viewing experience. Scenes that were likely intended to inspire awe and wonder instead elicit unintended chuckles if not outright laughter. But where it really fails is when our heroes venture into cyberspace the filmmakers decided to composite live-action elements with CGI backgrounds as it looks just godawful. To say it’s not a convincing amalgamation of techniques would be the understatement of the century.

 

“Second star to the right and straight on till we pixelate.”

In terms of performances, the cast struggles to breathe life into their thinly sketched characters. Even the talents of seasoned actors like Patrick Bergin and Matt Frewer are squandered amidst a sea of wooden dialogue and one-dimensional motivations. Frewer himself does look to be trying to breathe some life into this standard “Evil Computer” role but he drifts a little too far into his Max Headroom persona at times and each time this happened it took me out of the movie. Of course, the real problem with this movie was in its script and its convoluted plot, which meanders through a nonsensical maze of virtual reality jargon and shallow attempts at social commentary. The storyline is riddled with inconsistencies and absurdities, making it nearly impossible for us to become emotionally invested in the fate of the characters. The result is a mishmash of half-baked ideas and contrived conflicts that fail to bring things to a proper conclusion.

 

“I’m a cliché, in a silly plot and wrapped in bad graphics.”

Ultimately, Lawnmower Man 2: Beyond Cyberspace falls short of its lofty ambitions, delivering a half-assed sequel that insults the intelligence of its audience. It’s a prime example of how not to make a science fiction film, lacking both substance and style. Viewers would be better off avoiding this cinematic misfire and seeking out more engaging entertainment elsewhere, but if you want a good laugh and do have decent amount of alcohol on hand, than this can be a fun diversion to watch among like-minded friends.

The Lawnmower Man (1992) – Review

When it comes to movie adaptations straying from the source material no author has suffered more than Stephen King – even Kubrick’s amazing adaptation of The Shining earned the ire of the author – but in the annals of adaptations none are as far off the mark as the 1992 adaptation “The Lawnmower Man” which took the title from King’s short story and absolutely nothing else.

I’m not being hyperbolic when I say there is absolutely nothing in this movie that pertains to Stephen King’s short story – well, other than they both contain a lawnmower – as the people at New Line Cinema had optioned a script called “Cyber God” and simply placed King’s title on the production to cash in on the fame of that author’s name provides. Needless to say, Stephen King was a little pissed, so he sued the studio to have his name and title removed from the film and promotion, which they refused to do, and this resulted in the courts ordering them to pay the author a $2.5 million dollar settlement.

 

“I will settle for redrum!”

But what is this movie about? Just how different is it from King’s short story? The short story dealt with a man who unknowling hires a lawn maintenance man who works for the ancient god Pan, while the plot of the film revolves around Dr. Lawrence Angelo (Pierce Brosnan), a scientist experimenting with virtual reality and intelligence enhancement. Yeah, not what you’d call all that similar in the premise department. The conflict of the film stems from the fact that Angelo is working for a shady government agency known as The Shop, who wants his experiments focused on military applications – training a chimpanzee to be a killing machine – and when his best test subject is shot dead after escaping the facility, he decides to try to go off on his own as he believes “Virtually reality holds the key to human advancement.” Logically, this means he should jump right into human testing – because the ape thing went so well – so he hires a mentally challenged gardener named Jobe Smith (Jeff Fahey) as a test subject for his experiments, hoping to increase Jobe’s cognitive abilities using a combination of drugs and virtual reality simulations.

 

“How do you feel about trying a little mad science?”

As anyone who has read or seen the many adaptations of Frankenstein or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde things will not go as planned. As the experiment progresses, Jobe begins to display extraordinary cognitive abilities, surpassing even Dr. Angelo’s expectations. However, the experiment takes a dark turn as Jobe’s newfound intelligence and powers begin to spiral out of control, leading to unforeseen consequences. Not only is Jobe’s intelligence enhanced, but he also develops psychokinesis and telepathy and becomes increasingly unstable. Even worse is that he starts using these new abilities to seek revenge on those who have wronged him in the past. Then we have The Director (Dean Norris) of The Shop sending goons to capture both the good doctor and Jobe, which results in a lot of dead or digitized goons. It’s at this point that Dr. Angelo realizes the danger of what he has unleashed and tries to stop Jobe, but he finds himself powerless against Jobe’s growing psychic abilities. As Jobe’s powers continue to spiral out of control, he becomes a threat to the entire world.

 

He’s also a very sexy threat to the world.

If that is the plot of the movie what is King’s short story about? In the story, a man named Harold Parkette hires a mowing service called “Pastoral Greenery” and the man who arrives is a hairy pot-bellied individual who strips naked and eats the newly cut grass like a goat while controlling his lawnmower with mystical powers. Turns out this man works for the pagan god Pan, who grants substantial benefits to his followers if customers are sacrificed, which leads to Harold being chased through his living room and “mowed down” by the motorized menace. Yeah, I can’t say there are a lot of similarities between the short story and the plot of this movie because even though we do get an asshole being chased through his living room by a lawnmower there are certainly no pagan inferences to be found.

 

He looks more like a Power Rangers cosplayer than a worshipper of Pan.

Stray Observations:

• The screenplay tosses in the government agency known as “The Shop” which appeared in separate works of King’s, such as Firestarter (1980) and The Tommyknockers (1987).
• It’s too bad that Jeff Fahey never met Tropic Thunder’s Kirk Lazarus as he could have used the advice offered in that film “Man, everyone knows you never go full retard.”
• Geoffrey Lewis plays a groundskeeper in this movie and he also played a groundskeeper in Tobe Hooper’s adaptation of Stephen King’s Salem’s Lot (1979).
• Dr. Angelo is supposed to be an altruistic scientist who wants to help humanity but he witnesses his neighbour physically abusing both his wife and son, on multiple occasions, yet never reports him to the authorities.
• At one point, Dr. Angelo places bombs rigged with timers and he tries to prevent Jobe from reading his mind and learning about them, this is either an homage or a lift from the classic Village of the Damned.
• Jobe’s customized lawnmower has a dual exhaust pipe that is aimed up at the user’s face, which would pump enough quantities of toxic carbon monoxide to give you a headache within minutes and poison you after prolonged use.

 

Luckily, telekinesis solves that problem.

Director Brett Leonard’s The Lawnmower Man is a prime example of a film that tries to dazzle audiences with its flashy special effects but ultimately leaves them with a hollow and unsatisfying experience. This is a misguided attempt at blending science fiction and horror that falls flat on almost every level, resulting in a film that is both laughably absurd and painfully dull. But the film’s greatest sin, however, lies in its egregious misuse of CGI and virtual reality technology. While it may have been groundbreaking for its time, the computer-generated effects in this outing will look hopelessly outdated and laughably amateurish to modern viewers – not that they looked all that great at the time either – and the so-called “virtual reality” sequences are particularly cringe-worthy, resembling something out of a low-budget ’90s video game rather than a cutting-edge cinematic experience.

 

If this is virtual reality sex I want no part of it.

Even if one were to look past its complete departure from Stephen King’s story and take it as a “CyberGod” story the film’s portrayal of virtual reality and its effects on the human mind is often exaggerated and a little silly at times, relying on outdated and unrealistic depictions of technology. While this may have been forgivable given the limitations of CGI at the time, it detracts from the film’s credibility and undermines its attempts at social commentary. The script regurgitates tired clichés and half-baked pseudo-intellectual babble and when Dr. Angelo rants at Jobe “This technology was meant to expand human communication, but you’re not even human anymore! What you’ve become terrifies me. You’re a freak!” they are laughably shallow and derivative.

 

“Kneel before CyberChrist!”

The performances in this outing are equally uninspired, with actors sleepwalking through their roles as if they can’t wait for the whole ordeal to be over. Jeff Fahey’s portrayal of the titular lawnmower man is particularly cringe-worthy, with his over-the-top mannerisms and wooden delivery robbing the character of any shred of credibility or humanity. The villains have fewer dimensions than what you’d find in an average Scooby-Doo cartoon and all the supporting characters wander in and out of the movie as if they were looking for the script or their agent’s phone number. When the final act kicks into gear, and Jobe attempts to infect the world wide web, you’ll be wishing you’d installed some Norton Anti-Virus or at least taken some anti-nausea medication.

 

We were actually supposed to take this seriously?

In conclusion, The Lawnmower Man remains an “interesting” entry in the history of CGI and virtual reality cinema, and while by today’s standards make it’s quite primitive it gets points for trying. However, the film’s flawed narrative execution and underdeveloped characters prevent it from achieving true greatness, not to mention the blatant abandonment of the source material. While it may hold nostalgic value for some viewers, it ultimately fails to live up to its ambitious premise and falls short of being a truly memorable or impactful film. Instead of wasting your time with this film I suggest you check out the short story “Flowers for Algernon” by Daniel Keyes or its film adaptation Charly, which deals with similar subject matters but in more thoughtful and intelligent manner.