Showing posts with label Lance Henrikson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lance Henrikson. Show all posts

Monday, June 22, 2015

Pumpkinheads!


Spent several hours yesterday immersed in the lore of the 1988 monster flick Pumpkinhead. This is a movie I've known about forever, and I thought I'd seen it before, but now I realize I had not. I'd only seen a sequel, or part of one, and so I had a somewhat skewed impression. I'm not saying the movie is suddenly startling better than I'd always imagined, but it is somewhat elevated in my view.


The tale begins in 1957 when young Tom Harley has to witness the killing of a neighbor at the hands of an fog-shrouded demon. He grows up, has his own son, but must raise him alone when his wife dies. Trying his best he is forced to leave the boy alone when a group of motorcycle-riding teens accidentally kill the boy. Though not all of them are culpable, Harley nonetheless seeks vengeance on them all and seeks out an old witch who instructs him out to raise a demon called "Pumpkinhead". He does and the demon begins to seek out the teens and kill them one by one. But Harley soon realizes the error of what he has done and takes steps to stop the monsters he has himself unleashed.


The movie is unevenly acted and the story does suffer a bit from necessity with some limited regard to motivation. Characters do things which make limited sense in the moment, but which are needed to keep the story chugging along. But the theme of revenge is neatly kindled in a story which does evoke a real atmosphere. It's by no means scary, but it is diverting.



Lance Henrikson is pretty good as Tom Harley and his slow destruction is really the essence of the story. The teens are mostly props, but offer up enough of a distraction to keep the story standing. What this movie has in abundance is some (for the time and budget) pretty effective special effects which present a monster who is limited but in moments quite convincing. The director is Stan Winston, a guy who made his bones in special effects, so it's no surprise that base is covered. Older movies, pre-digital, offer up creatures who still require some imagination and this one is a decent example. 



I also got to see Pumpkinhead II: Blood Wings, a straight-to-video sequel from 1994 and this is the one I'd seen part of before thinking it was the original. This is movie is inept, a cheapo repeat of the standard teenagers getting slashed efforts which dominated the horror scene for so long. But as the original focused our attention on the man who became a monster, this movie shifts its base around all the time and seems actually to have had two storylines which editing blended into one.

Back in 1958 a gang of teen thugs called "The Red Wings" attack and kill a deformed boy. Decades later a man returns to the town to become sheriff and brings along his wife and troublesome teen daughter. She quickly hooks up with the local troubled teens and they almost immediately (for reasons which make no sense ever besides an often re-gurgitated goal for "thrills") end up mixed up with the local witch who curses them as they dig up the body of the deformed boy who of course becomes the monster demon Pumpkinhead. Then confusingly the creature starts to kill off local men in the town, ignoring the teens, and eventually we learn he's taking vengeance on the gang who tormented and killed him long ago and who have since grown up and become in some instances pillars of the community. Later he starts to stalk the teens as the Sheriff suddenly remembers his own personal connection with the boy.


It's screamingly funny in places as the rattletrap storyline tumbles along doing what it needs to evoke a reaction. Characters become good and bad depending on the scene and the ultimate fate of most seem not to be related to their own sins, but those of the script writers. The movie also depends a lot on stunt casting using the daughter of Monkees drummer Mickey Dolenz and the brother of then-President Bill Clinton. The former is the lead and does a workmanlike job, but the latter is truly terrible and thankfully only in a few oddball scenes. Blaxploitation diva Gloria Hendry is along for the ride as the coroner and she does a weirdly bad job in a role which seemed to hint at a romance with the sheriff played Andy Robinson (Scorpio from Dirty Harry), but which never actually goes there. Like I said, the script seems either to have been rewritten greatly, or they were writing on the fly because a lot of stuff doesn't hang together too well.

I can recommend the original Pumpkinhead for its atmosphere and the bravura performance of Henrikson who rarely was given a chance to expand on his dour expression in most movies he's in. The second one is a nigh total loss save for someone looking to get a laugh at some remarkably jacked up movie-making.

Rip Off

Saturday, April 3, 2010

The Fall Of The Western Vampire!


I've been watching vampire movies all week. One particular sub-category of vampire movie that apparently has been somewhat popular is the vampire western. What's odd is that according to the commentaries by the directors on some of them, everyone thinks they thought this up for the first time, and that blending the two genres is a somewhat unique idea. It's been around a while.

The first one that I'm aware of is Curse of the Undead starring Eric Fleming. I don't own a copy of this movie, and I wish I did. It's apparently not available on dvd yet. I remember seeing it on Saturday afternoons when I was a kid, and being pretty dang frightened by this classic blend of two genres. This is an old fashioned western and an old fashioned vampire movie in one. It gets very good reviews, and I'd love to see it again.


One I have seen pretty recently, and might even have a copy around here of is Dracula Meets Billy the Kid. This ain't a good movie really, but it's got some very fun campy bits with an old John Carradine as the Count trying to find his way among all the cowpokes. It's more a curiosity than anything else.


Near Dark is a movie I've been hearing about forever. It's always one I wanted to see and it comes highly recommended. As a western it's a bit of a letdown, but it's not a half-bad vampire movie. The setting is the modern west and this is really a love story. A young man meets a mysterious young woman who changes him into a vampire, though that word is never used. He is kidnapped by her "family" a gang of vampires who roam the landscape seeking victims and just trying to get by. They are a disaffected bunch of different types, some cruel and some kind, but all willing to harvest humans as necessary.

Bill Paxton and Lance Henrikson are in this movie and they aren't bad as murderous vamps, but the whole deal never really comes together for me like I expected. Now that I've seen it a few times, I might get to liking it better, but I'll admit to being underwhelmed the first time through. The ending isn't all the compelling and frankly to my mind undermines some of the themes which the movies attempts to establish. The movie always simmers, but never really comes to a boil.


Another movie that taps this blend of genres is John Carpenter's Vampires. This is based on a John Steakely novel of the same name and essentially according to Carptenter was an attempt to have the Wild Bunch meet Dracula in the modern world. It's a rough and violent movie, but I've always found Carpenter's stuff to be my cup of tea. This movie starring James Woods as a very bitter and sadistic vampire hunter really makes you look hard and fast for a hero. This is a more existential battle, with vampires more akin to a rat infestation than a supernatural menace.

There are some nifty turns in the plot, and I always find myself caring more for the fate of the lovely Sheryl Lee who becomes a vampire against her will during the course of the movie.

There is a sequel titled Vampires: Los Muertos that stars Jon Bon Jovi and is better than it probably ought to be given its budget limitations. I actually like this one okay, but it's necessary to overlook its flaws.


The most famous of the "western vampire" movies is probably From Dusk Till Dawn by Quentin Tarrantino and Robert Rodriquez starring George Clooney and Harvey Keitel. This is an unabashed exploitation recreation which pits a pair of murderous brothers and a single-parent family against a mob of misbegotten Aztec vampires. It's got a lot going for it and features some really smart movie making and some better than average acting. The movie is extra gory and that's not something that I necessarily need, but it's not a problem either.

It's produced two sequels. From Dusk Till Dawn 2 - Texas Blood Money is a heist film but with vampires. It's a quickly-paced low-budget item with some fun set pieces, but it doesn't really succeed completely as a full story. There's an incredible amount of gore in this one, and it actually becomes distracting, hurting the overall effect of the movie. I do like it for what it is, a harmless distraction.

The second sequel is actually a prequel titled From Dusk Till Dawn 3 - The Hangman's Daughter and this is an actual western set in the time of the old west. This one does a good job of establishing itself and does offer a wonderful idea of having Ambrose Bierce become one of the main protagonists in the flick. It's a clever notion and gives the movie some points in my book. This is another exceedingly gory movie, but the gore seems more necessary in this one. Some really good acting jobs make this not a bad flick at all.

So as you can see there have been a great many "vampire westerns" and I'm probably forgetting some. It's a sub-genre that generates some pretty interesting diversions. Good stuff by and large. I just wish the directors would quit taking credit for "inventing" it.

Rip Off