|
Post by wmcclain on Oct 1, 2019 14:38:49 GMT
Rawhead Rex (1986), directed by George Pavlou. An Irish farmer is determined to remove an ancient and strangely purposeful looking stone pillar from his field. Lightning strikes it and we find what it was holding down: a bloodthirsty terror everyone was trying to forget, now loose and ravaging the community. By strange coincidence, an American scholar researching the survival of pagan religion is vacationing in the area with his family. He'll collect a lot of material. And lose one the kids, which is rare in this sort of film. Minimal sexploitation, also rare. This is close to the cheeziness boundary past which I don't bother to review, which is not to say such films are not enjoyable, just that I don't have anything to say. We get to see the monster, which is good, but the rubber mask with glowing red eyes hurts the story, almost spoofing the genre. The score is overly dramatic 1980s synthesizer and the magical forces special effects are rudimentary. The plot apart from the creature feature elements is just padding. Filmed in Ireland. The director says they lost a huge amount of their funding when a backer pulled the plug during production. I review it because (1) it's on Blu-ray, (2) it's in that genre of British folk-horror like The Wicker Man (1973) and The Blood on Satan's Claw (1971) (also about digging up evil in a farm field), and (3) Clive Barker, who wrote the screenplay from his short story. He hated the film, although the director says he shot what was on the page with the actors and budget he had. Early in Barker's career I had a limited edition of his Books of Blood: black hardcover with a plain red jacket, Scream Press? It combined the volumes published separately. Did that get away from me? Probably worth something now. Anyway, it was a new thing: a book I had to put down several times. Horror themes I had never thought of before. I circulated it among a set of friends and they were all similarly dazed. Available on Blu-ray from Kino with a grainy image. The commentary track is an interview with the director. Both men claim to be happy with the results. There has been talk of a remake but now I hear Barker is going to reboot Hellraiser instead.
|
|
|
Post by lostinlimbo on Oct 4, 2019 4:03:47 GMT
While it obviously didn’t impress Clive Barker, it’s nothing more than a fun (and silly) monster film with a rubbery head-banging demon. Locations were picturesque, and it delivered on some shock moments. It was a lot more entertaining than the director’s previous film ‘Transmutations’, which was also penned by Clive Barker.
No wonder why Barker decided to direct the next film of his own material; Hellraiser.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Oct 4, 2019 11:12:09 GMT
While it obviously didn’t impress Clive Barker, it’s nothing more than a fun (and silly) monster film with a rubbery head-banging demon. Locations were picturesque, and it delivered on some shock moments. It was a lot more entertaining than the director’s previous film ‘Transmutations’, which was also penned by Clive Barker. No wonder why Barker decided to direct the next film of his own material; Hellraiser. The thing that especially doesn't work though, is that the script had a decisively serious tone, the performances are dramatic, the locations are beautiful and foreboding in equal mesaure, and some of the plot elements are heavy and tough... and then there's the creature. It's designed like a character from the sitcom Dinosaurs was going to a Judas Priest concert. If that's not bad enough it has all the professional quality, articulation, movement, and realism of a mask from the dollar store. It's seriously shocking how terrible this thing looks, and it's completely out of a different movie. It's like the director forgot what movie he was supposed to be making when he worked with the effects designer. It changes the tone completely every time it's on screen. If the movie was a silly, fun monster movie then that might have been fine, but the script doesn't really reflect that, and this stupid looking creature effect annihilates any chance of taking it seriously. So you're left with this weird muddled, unsure, weird movie with no decided identity. If the director says he shot what was on the page that may be true, but I can still see why Clive Barker hated the result. He could execute ot accurately and still get it wrong.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Oct 8, 2019 15:46:11 GMT
It was a lot more entertaining than the director’s previous film ‘Transmutations’, which was also penned by Clive Barker. Now that's a blast from the past. It was called Underworld in the UK. Even as a Barker obsessive at the time, I remember being disappointed. Great cast though
|
|
|
Post by lostinlimbo on Oct 10, 2019 13:37:10 GMT
It was a lot more entertaining than the director’s previous film ‘Transmutations’, which was also penned by Clive Barker. Now that's a blast from the past. It was called Underworld in the UK. Even as a Barker obsessive at the time, I remember being disappointed. Great cast though The German dvd I own provides both of the cuts. ‘Transmutations’ is longer but doesn’t add much to the story from what I remember. Steven Berkoff was probably the best thing it had going for it.
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Oct 26, 2019 11:59:59 GMT
I didn't warm to it when I saw it as a kid. It's a film I need to revisit as it's been a long time and my memory's completely faded. Thanks for the review.
|
|