MGM released Child’s Play on 9 November 1988.

I like this film well enough. Because it’s well-made and fun. But people — And critics! — love the film. And I don’t really get that.

Michael Weldon wrote in his second guide, “It’s way too much like the old Twilight Zone episode ‘Talking Tina’…” But he’s wrong about the title, which is “Living Doll.” And I think he’s overstating to say it is too much like the episode. But he is right that the idea for Child’s Play is not new.

But it is part of a horror subgenre that I love. Let’s call it “murder doll.” One of my all-time favorite films fits here, Dolls. And more recently, Benny Loves You is a classic.

This subgenre works well with low budgets. A great example of this is Killer Piñata (2015). It was made for just a few thousand dollars. And it doesn’t look great. But it’s a hoot! (Note: a sequel came out a couple of years back, Bride of the Killer Piñata. I haven’t seen it yet but it looks very much like the original.)

And there are others like the micro-budget films CarousHELL and Llamageddon.

The subgenre is good for that. Most people can forgive bad special effects when the monster is a space alien llama, a pissed off carousel unicorn, or just a creepy doll. Not that Child’s Play had a low budget. But it could have been made with a low budget. And it probably would have been better!

But it’s still a fine film. It’s helped a lot that Chucky is an incredibly creepy doll. And it pairs well with Brad Dourif’s creepy “death camp doctor” voice. So let’s celebrate the 37th anniversary of Child’s Play by watching the film. But this will be my last. There are just too many other killer doll films to see!

---

Child’s Play (1988) poster via Wikipedia under Fair Use.

20th Century Fox released Magic on 8 November 1978.

As a kid, I saw Magic in the theater. The MPAA (Bastards!) rated it R. But my parents let me see lots of movies I shouldn’t! I also read the novel. I was really into magic when I was young.

It’s not a great film for kids. I didn’t identify with the whole love story. But I’ve revisited it as an adult. It holds up well. I genuinely like it. But I’m shocked that it was made or even that the novel was published.

Producer Joseph E Levine gave William Goldman a million dollars for the screenplay! That’s $5 million today. For what? A story about a ventriloquist who goes insane? That’s almost as common as “boy meets girl.”

But I get it. There aren’t that many original stories. It’s all about the rendering. And Goldman (as usual) does a fine job of rendering this story. What’s more, it does end well in a sweet way that resonates with me.

Just the same, it isn’t nearly as good as “The Ventriloquist’s Dummy” in Dead of Night. And I prefer supernatural ventriloquist stories. My favorite is the exceptional Devil Doll.

I still think everyone should watch Magic. It works. And it looks great. The budget ends up on the screen in terms of production design, filming, and acting.

So let’s celebrate the 47th anniversary of Magic by watching this free copy:

---

Magic (1978) poster via Wikipedia under Fair Use.

Lucille La Verne was born on 7 November 1872.

I didn’t know who she was before today. Although she has a fair number of film credits, she wasn’t really a film actor. She was a big star on Broadway and as a touring actor. In fact, she eventually ran her own company.

She started acting as a child. She played Juliet and Lady Macbeth back-to-back at the age of 14. This was the hallmark of her career. She was always a very versatile actor. And she made it to Broadway at the age of 16.

In addition to acting, she wrote and directed plays — including on Broadway.

But I’m talking about her today for one reason. In her best-known film role, Lucille La Verne provided the voice for the Evil Queen in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.

I’m not a huge fan of Disney animated features. But the first five of them were amazing. After Snow White, Disney produced Pinocchio, Fantasia, Dumbo, and Bambi. When I was a kid, I found them all terrifying. They are not kid films!

(Note: there is something of an exception. The Reluctant Dragon was a feature. But most of it is live action. The animated part is very light and silly. Interestingly, it is the only early Disney feature that I did not see as a kid!)

Anyway, La Verne performed as the Evil Queen as her final performance. It doesn’t look like she did any more theater. And she definitely didn’t do any more films. But it is a fine performance. In fact, it’s really the only performance in the film that anyone remembers!

So let’s watch Snow White to celebrate Lucille La Verne’s birthday!

---

Lucille La Verne via IMDb. It is in the public domain.

Bryanston Distributing released Blood for Dracula in the United States on 6 November 1974. Many other companies were responsible for its distribution elsewhere. West Germany and Japan saw the film months before it came to the US.

It is a remarkable film. It looks beautiful. And the script is sly. The problem is that it is a comedy in the mold of Steven Spielberg’s 1941. That is: it’s a great film but one that is almost impossible to find funny. Dracula falls to the floor and licks the blood of a virgin who was just deflowered. I know it is funny in theory. It’s funny in the way The Metamorphosis is.

What I most like about it is that Dracula is anemic and weak. And he lives a life of boredom and pain. No one would want to change places with him. He is the most pitiable vampire ever.

There is one part of the film that’s hard to take. The hero rapes a 14-year-old virgin girl so that Dracula cannot take her. That might be okay if the girl didn’t quickly get into the rape. I don’t know quite what to think about that. But the whole idea of virgins drives me crazy. I don’t even know what the concept means anymore. And I certainly don’t think having coitus changes the nature of blood. But Catholics believe in transubstantiation, so who knows?!

Regardless, the last ten minutes of the film are awesome. Dracula finally gets the virgin blood he needs. So he’s all set for the final confrontation. Mario the handyman (with a ridiculous Brooklyn accent) chops off all Dracula’s limbs before staking him. It really is worth sitting through the rest, which is largely just a melodrama with a hint of danger

If I seem a bit down on the film, that’s doubtless just because I’m not keen on vampires as characters. I want vampires to rip out throats. When I see two tiny holes, I don’t know what I’m supposed to think. Do vampire fangs have holes in them that they suck blood into? Vampire films should always be extremely bloody. And they never are.

But Blood for Dracula is definitely one of the better vampire films. At least Dracula is a villain, which is something you can’t say for a lot of vampire films over the past few decades. So on this 51st anniversary, let’s watch it. But I won’t hold it against you if you skip to one hour and 38 minutes!

Personally, I think you are better off watching Dracula AD 1972. But that could be just me. It combines the Gothic with the Groovy.

---

Blood for Dracula (1974) poster via Wikipedia under Fair Use.

Orion Pictures released RoboCop 3 in the United States on 5 November 1993. (Columbia Pictures released it earlier in the year in Japan.)

I highlight the film today because I really like it. Critics hated it, of course. And I would like to highlight Richard Harrington’s review in The Washington Post. He called it “downright silly.”

Wow! I bet that came as a shock to the filmmakers! In my own review, I wrote that it was “the silliest of the RoboCop films.” But note the difference. All of the RoboCop films are silly! A critic complaining that the third film in the series is silly shows he didn’t follow the first two.

But Harrington wasn’t the only idiotic critic. The film has a 9% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. They all show the same ignorance of the earlier films — thinking they were somehow serious.

What’s more, they seem to all miss the intent of the film. MPAA rated the first two films R. It rated the third PG-13. Clearly, the producers figured the brand had reached the point at which it was basically for kids. The main character in the film is a little girl! And the TV series following it was aimed at kids. Get a clue, critics!

I think the first film is probably the best. But I only ever watch RoboCop 3 anymore. It’s mindless fun.

And this gets to something I still don’t understand. Hollywood now produces a ton of silly films. And critics are mostly fine with that. As long as a film has a big enough budget, critics treat it as serious art.

I don’t particularly care. But why do they attack films like RoboCop 3 while pretending that Wonder Woman is serious art? Critics take themselves very seriously. But their work is silly — way sillier than the films they dismiss.

So let’s have some fun and watch RoboCop 3!

---

RoboCop 3 (1993) poster via Wikipedia under Fair Use.

Universal Pictures released They Live in the United States on 4 November 1988. And this little low-budget film did surprisingly well with critics and at the box office.

I like the film. But it isn’t great. In particular, the fight scene in the middle goes on way too long. And its politics are of the fluffy kind that can appeal to everyone even though they are all thinking different things. But I do like those politics because I know what Carpenter means, and I agree with it.

You see, the film was a criticism of the Reagan presidency. Carpenter has been pretty clear about that.

John Carpenter wrote the film with Kurt Russell in mind. But Russell didn’t want to do the film. He said he didn’t want to be a one-director actor. Over the years, he’s stated other reasons. But I think it’s very simple: he knew what Carpenter was doing and he didn’t like it. Russell has been very clear that celebrities shouldn’t talk about politics, but he does all the time. And it is well known that he admires Ronald Reagan.

So they game Roddy Piper the role. Unlike Russell, Piper didn’t talk a lot about how he didn’t talk about politics. So we don’t know what he thought. Maybe it’s a Canadian thing?

So They Live isn’t as sharp as it could be. And it features a six-minute fight scene that should have been 90 seconds. But it’s a whole lot of fun. And you don’t even need to pay a lot of attention.

On its 37th birthday, let’s watch They Live!

---

They Live (1988) poster via Wikipedia under Fair Use.

Tom Savini is 79 years old today. He was born on 3 November 1946 in Pittsburgh. I only mention this because Ohio and Pennsylvania were something of a hotbed for horror when Savini was making his name.

We know Savini primarily for special makeup effects. Dawn of the Dead and other Romero films are a high point. And his many appearances showing off his work on Late Night With David Letterman were a highlight of my college days.

But he is beloved in the industry. As a result, he has appeared as an actor in dozens of films. This includes From Dusk Till Dawn where he wears Robert Rodriguez’s most bizarre invention, the crotch gun.

Savini directs a fair amount. His work is limited to segments of anthology films and TV series. But there is one major exception. And it is the main reason I’m writing about him today. Night of the Living Dead.

I’m not talking about the original film. It’s a classic. I enjoy it. I don’t need to see it again. I’m talking about the 1990 remake. The one everyone said should not be made. But then it came out and the critics had to admit: they hated it as much as they thought they would. All these critics would have hated the original if they had been writing at the time. It’s not even clear if Owen Gleiberman saw the film based on his review.

It’s an outstanding film. It is the best zombie film ever (at least by an American). I’ve only heard one complaint about the film that has any credence. Barbara kind of turns into Ellen Ripley in the third act. But so what?! Do we really expect fresh and original characters to populate our films — especially our horror films? It’s an unreasonable ask.

But more important: it sets up the very disturbing ending. “That’s another one for the fire.” And it fixes the ending of the original film, which has always seemed tacked on and pointless.

What’s sad is that most people will talk about the original like it is holy scripture. But they don’t watch it. And they could be watching the remake. Fix that now! Celebrate Tom Savini’s birthday by watching his best film!

---

Image cropped from Ryota Nakanishi and Tom Savini by Brother87 under CC BY-SA 3.0.

Ray Walston was born on 2 November 1914. He was from Mississippi. You’d never know from his accent!

Walston had a broad career in movies and TV. And I think of his as mostly playing bad guys. He was certainly great in those kinds of roles. But he is most remembered for playing the title character in My Favorite Martian.

I was very fond of the show when I was a kid. I was also a big fan of Mr Ed. And it didn’t take me long to realize that they are the same show. Both shows feature an unusual character that must be hidden from the outside world. Why? Normally, the public cannot know for a silly reason that makes no sense.

This is a great comedic formula! We see it all over the place. Examples:

• Bewitched
• I Dream of Jeannie
• Mork & Mindy
• ET the Extra-Terrestrial
• Harry and the Hendersons

The most interesting example is ALF because it took the idea and made a show without any humor at all. This is quite the accomplishment!

Other than My Favorite Martian, Ray Walston never had what I consider a starring role in a film or TV show. That’s one of the great things about character actors: we get to see them in a lot of different stuff. But it does make it hard to highlight a single thing for articles like this.

Normally, I’d highlight Galaxy of Terror. But I did that one last month. And even though I love him in Popeye, it’s a small role. So My Favorite Martian it is!

Unfortunately, unlike many old TV series, you don’t find the show online that much. In fact, without commercials (Lots of commercials!) I could only find a colorized copy of the first episode. But it still works.

---

Ray Walston in My Favorite Martian via Wikimedia. It is in the public domain.

Edward Van Sloan was born on 1 November 1882. That was in Minnesota. I mention it only because I tend to think of him as British. But that’s because of the kind of roles he played.

But I know! Most people don’t know his name. But he had notable parts in Dracula, The Mummy, and Frankenstein.

This in itself is remarkable. He had major parts in the 3 most important horror films of the 1930s. He also reprised his role of Professor Von Helsing in Dracula’s Daughter.

And sure. You could write this off to him being just a Universal player. But the truth is, he was just right for these films. He pretty much defines the “learned professor” archetype in horror films.

Apparently, the producers of Frankenstein were afraid that the usual religious conservatives would protest the film. So they had Van Sloan come out on stage as himself and give the following introduction, which I don’t think would impress the censors at all! If you ask me, it adds to the thrills of the film:

How do you do? Mr Carl Laemmle feels it would be a little unkind to present this picture without just a word of friendly warning. We’re about to unfold the story of Frankenstein, a man of science who sought to create a man after his own image without reckoning upon God. It is one of the strangest tales ever told. It deals with the two great mysteries of creation: life and death. I think it will thrill you. It may shock you. It might even horrify you. So if any of you feel that you do not care to subject your nerves to such a strain, now is your chance to, uh… well, we’ve warned you!

Of the four important films Edward Van Sloan appeared in, my favorite is The Mummy. But he doesn’t have a big part in it. (We’ll have to watch for later this month when I do Boris Karloff’s birthday!) So let’s watch him in Dracula!

---

Edward Van Sloan as himself from the start of Frankenstein under Fair Use.

BBC One broadcast Ghostwatch on 31 October 1992. And no one has ever aired it again.

Ghostwatch was a fake documentary. And even with opening credits, you know how that goes. No? Viewers freaked out!

They always freak out. And that’s why I’m writing about it now. You know, people are easily confused. And you have to wonder, should we make films like this?

I really don’t know the answer to this. I enjoy stuff like this. But maybe it isn’t worth it.

I saw The Blair Witch Project with a large group. And I hung around afterward to hear what they thought. Most people thought it was real. And they loved it!

Personally, I hate films that are “based on a true story.” I want an original story that works. These kinds of films generally only work when they betray the “original story.” So when I see “actual” footage of the paranormal, I don’t buy it. Nor does it tend to engage me more than a completely made-up story.

But I love the idea that I would be fooled! And I tend to think the people who called up the BBC in fear during Ghostwatch actually got something special that I am missing out on.

Stephen Volk was the writer of this. And he co-wrote one of my all-time favorite films, The Awakening. So he’s okay in my book, regardless.

But I can’t say you should watch Ghostwatch. Out of context, it won’t grab you. You are better off watching the documentary, Ghostwatch: Behind the Curtains. Unfortunately, it isn’t available online. I don’t know where I saw it since the DVD release I have of the film doesn’t include it. (It’s a terrible release! There is a good one, if you are interested.)

But you can enjoy the film if you focus. It’s pretty subtle, so pay attention!

---

Ghostwatch via Wikipedia under Fair Use.