krugstilo-1

THE MANSON FAMILY really is a work of art, and I rarely use that term. It's a savage, carefully made, justifiably violent mix of docu-crime film and '70s drive-in aesthetics. The strange thing is, I've seen low-budget films made for five or six million that look like garbage compared to THE MANSON FAMILY, and, if I'm not mistaken, all told, THE MANSON FAMILY cost less than two million. The editing is nothing short of mad genius. The effects are always convincing - and again, I've seen movies with much bigger budgets whose effects aren't half as real-looking. The acting is fine and, if T&A's your thing, the flick has gobs and gobs of nudity. Contrary to most reviews, I found it more beautiful than disturbing, although I completely agree with director VanBebber - the Manson family slaughtered virtually defenseless people like cattle and should never be viewed as some "hip" counterculture icon. I've always been a huge fan and proponent of VanBebber's work, ever since the early '90s when I purchased a VHS copy of DEADBEAT AT DAWN. It saddens me that VanBebber's script for a TOOLBOX MURDERS remake wasn't used (the ultimate Tobe Hooper remake was laughable and forgettable). I'm glad Phil Anselmo helped VanBebber get THE MANSON FAMILY finished. And, personally, I feel directors such as Tarantino should throw VanBebber a few million and just let him do whatever he wants. If I were in, for example, Tarantino's position, I'd write VanBebber a check and tell him, "Do whatever you want. Don't worry about paying it back, either." Jim VanBebber's a visionary and THE MANSON FAMILY is wholly unique and shouldn't have been so difficult to fund and finish. I'm eagerly awaiting VanBebber's next movie.

George Barry is a genius. "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" is a prototype for much of the 'slipstream' fiction and camp surrealism that is so chic now. Truly innovative, maverick, and just effing brilliant. Hyper-strange acting, subtly nightmarish atmosphere. I recommend reading Stephen Thrower's book "Nightmare USA" (there is a chapter devoted to Barry and "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats"). Available from FAB Press. On a related note, "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" and "Beyond Dream's Door" make a perfect double-bill. Furthermore, it's trite and tired - and ultimately stupidly ironic - to criticize a low-budget cult film for being 'poorly made' or 'technically inept.' The B-movie aesthetic is part of these films' charm. No amount of CGI could duplicate the cumulative effect "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" has on the viewer with an advanced palate.

Jeff Lieberman is a legend. His films SQUIRM, BLUE SUNSHINE, JUST BEFORE DAWN, and REMOTE CONTROL are undeniable cult classics. (REMOTE CONTROL, in particular, is a wonderful oddity, and a kind of sci-fi/camp reaction to the video boom of the 1980s; for VHS lovers such as myself, REMOTE CONTROL is now like a nostalgic dirge for all of those fantastic local video-stores that transmogrified or became extinct after DVDs usurped the role of VHS.) Lieberman's SATAN'S LITTLE HELPER, a return to directing from Lieberman after a 20-some-year hiatus, while not of the caliber of his earlier work, is a sardonic little horror piece that plays much, much better if you listen to the director's commentary before viewing the actual movie. More thought went into SATAN'S LITTLE HELPER than you may think. But Lieberman has always been a director with brilliant premises. SATAN'S LITTLE HELPER is perhaps his very best premise. And personally, I loved the gaudy, bright, ghoulish Halloween imagery - the dollar-store-take on Halloween. (Satan's mask is iconic, I daresay.) I, for one, am glad that Lieberman made another movie, and hope he makes several more. He is one of America's most interesting directors. My only problem with SATAN'S LITTLE HELPER is I don't feel it went far enough. The premise is sick and disturbing; it could've been some sort of morbid masterpiece. As is, it's worth a rental, and I'm just happy Lieberman's still doing something different.