Compass International Pictures released Halloween on 25 October 1978. Shortly after, Aquarius Releasing distributed the film in the northeast. And eventually, Astral Films released it across the US. It was something of a sleeper. Although it went on to make a lot of money, it didn’t come out of the gate that strong.

Halloween is the film that made John Carpenter a star. He also started working with Debra Hill at this time — an important and underappreciated collaboration. I’m fond of Dark Star and Assault on Precinct 13. But it was very clear that Halloween is on a different level, even though it didn’t have that big a budget.

But the film raises an important question. Why don’t I enjoy it more? Why don’t I still watch it? The film works really well. The story is compelling. The acting is great. And it looks good — both the lighting and camera work are wonderful.

Others have copied Halloween so much over the years. But I don’t think that’s the problem. The film is still far better than pretty much everything that came later.

But was Halloween a big break from the past? The truth is that everything is does well was also done well in Black Christmas. And if I’m going to watch one of them, it will always be Black Christmas.

I think it is simple. Carpenter and Hill basically remade Black Christmas. But they did it in a much more accessible way. It presents a perfect heroine with thigh-high socks. Yes, she does smoke a bit of the demon weed, but she coughs a lot, so you know she doesn’t do it a lot.

The film also provides a happy ending. Black Christmas presents evil injected into a fallen world. Halloween presents evil injected into an idyllic, vaguely 1950s suburban world. And I think that explains why Black Christmas was only modestly successful at the box office and Halloween was a huge hit. And also, why I haven’t watched Halloween in decades (until today).

Or maybe it’s just the Captain Kirk mask…

---

Halloween (1978) poster via Wikipedia under Fair Use.

CBS premiered Dark Night of the Scarecrow on 24 October 1981.

Made-for-TV horror tends to be weak. There are notable exceptions. Night Gallery was generally excellent. And it wasn’t alone. Tobe Hooper made the excellent Salem’s Lot for TV. There were films like Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark. And there is pretty much anything Dan Curtis did during the 1970s.

This last exception is probably most telling. Horror on TV generally sufferred from groupthink. Curtis had power because of the success of Dark Shadows. But how did a film as outstanding as Dark Night of the Scarecrow manage to make its way onto TV screens without being defanged?

Sadly, the commentary track on the excellent Blu-ray release is laser-focused on the production, so we don’t learn much about how it got to be made. But there are a couple of things that stand out. One is that JD Feigelson didn’t write it for TV. And Frank De Felitta was the perfect person to direct. He was fundamentally a writer. But he also had a good, unpretentious visual style.

Why the network heads at CBS didn’t make changes to destroy it is not clear. It’s not like the film lacked for resources. It does seem fairly low-budget but quite reasonable for TV. I guess we can put it down to incompetence. If the CBS managers had been more on the ball, they could have destroyed this film too!

A big reason I love the film is that it’s a very effective revenge story. It’s a very clear plot. There is one truly evil man and three followers who are sort of idiots but also pretty evil. And I enjoy seeing them get justice.

Additionally, the acting in the film is exceptional. I can well imagine that at that time, none of these pros cost much money. And only Charles Durning would go on to be anything like a star. But everyone in the cast does a great job. I think actors work harder when they have a great script, as they do here.

If you have never seen Dark Night of the Scarecrow, you really must. It’s so much fun — even after 46 years!

---

Dark Night of the Scarecrow via Wikipedia under Fair Use.

Philip Kaufman is 89 years old today. He was born on 23 October 1936.

I wouldn’t call Kaufman a psychotronic filmmaker. He certainly made a number of genre films. But mostly, he was just a very good director. He made whatever films he could.

But there is one major exception: Invasion of the Body Snatchers. The first Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) is a classic. But I do have some minor criticisms of it. Too much of it takes place in suburban homes — typical of 1950s B movies. But this is minor. The film moves along quickly and we never stay anywhere too long.

The frame story is the biggest problem, as pretty much everyone acknowledges. (People hated it at the time!) That’s 75 seconds at the beginning and just under two minutes at the end. It takes a terrifying story and reframes it as a story about American “can do” pluckiness.

The worst thing about this is that it diminishes the remake. If the film had ended where it should, we would find Kevin McCarthy ranting on the highway as cars pass him by. And that sets up the best scene in the remake where McCarthy (22 years older) shouts at our 1978 heroes, “They’re coming!”

And then, Kaufman kills him — instantly. Because this version ain’t playing pattycake!

None of this is to say that the remake is perfect. I think the late second act drags a big. The film should probably be about 10 minutes shorter. But coming from me — who thinks most films should be a half-hour shorter — that isn’t a great criticism.

I’m not sure that the 1978 version of the film had that much bigger a budget than the 1956 version did. But it feels so much bigger. Part of it is that they set it in San Francisco. So even the home interiors are more interesting. Plus the pods being shipped overseas is just wonderful and horific. Of course, credit for this should go to producer Robert H Solo.

But Philip Kaufman should get credit for what is best in this film, which is its 1970s-era paranoia. Just as we can say that the original was about the Cold War, this version is about Richard Nixon and Watergate.

Plus, there’s Leonard Nimoy, who was always best as a villain — in particular, this kind of villain!

As time has gone on, I find it hard to say why one film works and another doesn’t. And sure, I can justify any film’s brilliance. But the bottom line is that this film does work. And it is still fun to watch today.

---

Image cropped from Philip Kaufman by Gorup de Besanez under CC BY-SA 3.0.

Paramount Pictures released Bringing Out the Dead on 22 October 1999.

Normally, I would have highlighted Lady Frankenstein (1971), but I’ve already written about it in depth.

I think Martin Scorsese is an excellent film director. But the way many film fans talk about him would make you think he had cured cancer. In that way, he’s a lot like Alfred Hitchcock — but with substantially more talent.

Bringing Out the Dead is his greatest film. Paul Schrader made Joe Connelly’s novel less metaphorical — more concrete. Beyond that, Scorsese’s crew fires on all cylinders. Unlike most of his films, this one doesn’t use a cinematic technique that doesn’t help the narrative.

I’m not religious but I was raised Catholic. And I find it a wonderfully creepy and horrific religion. Bringing Out the Dead plays into this. Frank lives in Purgatory. He tries to find redemption. And he ultimately does, even if it may only be temporary. And throughout the film, Frank and Mary are the most sane people — but also the most unhappy. So, you know, it’s realistic.

There are two lines from the film that stand out to me. I think of them both all the time:

“After a while, I grew to understand that my role was less about saving lives than about bearing witness. I was a grief mop. It was enough that I simply showed up.”

“What haunted me now was more savage. Spirits born half-finished. Homicides. Suicides. Overdoses. Accusing me of being there, witnessing a humiliation, which they could never forgive.”

Although it isn’t considered such, I think Bringing Out the Dead is a horror film. Rose’s face showing up everywhere is often frightening. But mostly, it’s just everything. His partners all lack empathy — something Frank has far too much of given his profession. He lives in a world that neither understands nor cares about him. And his only option is to hide away with someone as broken as he is.

I can’t embed the film here but it is available for free on Pluto. I highly recommend it!

---

Bringing Out the Dead poster via Wikipedia under Fair Use.

American International Pictures released A Bucket of Blood on 21 October 1959.

I’m not a huge fan of Roger Corman. And I think he was predatory as a businessman. But there is no doubt that he was a good director. And no one was better at making one-room films interesting. Outside of the Poe Cycle, I think A Bucket of Blood was his best film. As I’ve noted before, “It’s funny and gruesome and kind of sweet.”

Dick Miller plays Walter Paisley. He is a waiter at a beatnik club. He’s a simple-minded guy. But he wants the hipcats who surround him to appreciate him. Luckily for him, his accidental killing of a cat and subsequent effort to hide this fact leads to everyone thinking he is a brilliant sculptor.

Unfortunately, when you luck into creating sculpture, there is no clear path forward. But his luck holds. Until it doesn’t. You know Walter ain’t getting out of this film alive!

There isn’t a lot to A Bucket of Blood. But it is irresistible. There is a very dark basis for the film. But the film itself is breezy and fun. And Miller is great in the role — especially if you are familiar with his whole career where he didn’t play characters like this.

The film is a great starter for anyone who thinks they might like psychotronic film. It’s extremely low budget, features only two real locations, and treats death as kind of a joke. Plus, it’s funny! It’s the kind of film you want to watch in your pick-up truck with your sweetheart at the drive-in!

So let’s celebrate the 66th birthday of this classic film by watching it in a way it was never meant to be watched: streaming at home on a computer!

---

A Buck of Blood poster via Wikipedia under Fair Use.

Has it really been 143 years?! Time does fly! Bela Lugosi was born on 20 October 1882.

You know what that means? Lugosi was almost 50 years old when he starred in Dracula.

Over the years, I’ve done a lot of research on Bela Lugosi — including reading a couple of biographies. He’s one of those people I’ve long thought I should love.

But here’s the thing: I don’t. I mean, he’s good. And I enjoy seeing anything that features him. The truth is, he lived a fascinating life. He started as a political radical fleeing the right-wing Horthy government in Austria-Hungary. Then he saw success for his acting in the US. Next came his inevitable decline and work in low-budget horror his final years. And I love all that!

But on screen? He was no Boris Karloff! And I own that. I’m a Karloff fan. The voice? The look? Whatever it is, it works for me.

But Lugosi’s accent really hurt him. Sadly, he doubtless never would have become a star outside of horror. This was strange! The man was seriously good-looking (see the photo above). And in Austria-Hungary, he played leading roles. But once in America, he was limited to “European ambassador” type roles.

I guess what this all means is that horror is best for the facially delinquent. As such, Lugosi was kind of a tragic figure. I think it is sad that his decline is so often dismissed as due to his addictions. In fact, this is backwards. His drug use was the result of the decline.

Today, we tend to think everything worked out well for Karloff. But it didn’t! By the 1960s, he was making AIP films, going to Europe to make films, doing spoken word recordings, and working in TV. That’s all fine but hardly what would happen today to such a culturally important actor.

But the two men made 8 films total (every one of them pretty good):

1. The Black Cat (1934)
2. Gift of Gab (1934) — cameos
3. The Raven (1935)
4. The Invisible Ray (1935)
5. Son of Frankenstein (1939)
6. Black Friday (1940)
7. You’ll Find Out (1940) — supporting roles
8. The Body Snatcher (1945).

So the worse outcome for Lugosi is more an issue of timing. Ten years younger, and he would have fared like Karloff. Forty years later, he would have died on a beach in Anguilla surrounded by supermodels.

Bela Lugosi added so much to film history — psychotronic film history most of all! As with Karloff, much of his best work was done because of the decline of his career. But I think we should celebrate his birthday by watching a film from his prime, White Zombie.

---

Bela Lugosi via Wikipedia. It is in the public domain.

Tor Johnson was born on 19 October 1903. Or 1902. His tombstone says 1903. But tombstones are not authoritative. My grandfather’s tombstone is wrong, for example.

Johnson was a big guy. He stood three inches over six feet. He is widely reported to have weighed as much as 440 pounds. But he appeared on You Bet Your Life in 1959. And at that time, he said he was “387 pounds… soaking wet.”

He was born in Sweden. But it appears that he immigrated to the United States in 1919. At that time, he was already wrestling. By the early 1930s, he was a successful professional wrestler in Southern California. For this role, he shaved his head. He apparently had a full head of hair. This was a good idea since it allowed him to leverage his act into a decent career as a bit actor and extra. This included the role of Strongman in the Tony Curtis and Janet Leigh film Houdini.

But we remember Tor Johnson today for a handful of low-budget films in the 1950s and early-1960s. In three of these films, he played the same character, Lobo: Bride of the Monster, The Unearthly, and Night of the Ghouls. He is also remembered for his starring role in The Beast of Yucca Flats and his part as Inspector Daniel Clay in Plan 9 From Outer Space.

I assume everyone has seen Plan 9. (But revisit it! It’s always better than I remember.) So let’s watch Yucca Flats to celebrate the life of Tor Johnson. It’s a surprisingly good film. A lot of it seems more like an art than exploitation. Of course, we don’t get to hear Tor speak. The entire film was shot MOS with some dubbing and voice-over. But it works!

---

Tor Johnson via Wikimedia. It is in the public domain.

Empire International Pictures released Re-Animator to the US market on 18 October 1985.

Re-Animator is arguably the greatest horror-comedy ever made. But it’s hard to say why. It was Stuart Gordon’s first film. And it is easy enough to give him the credit. But I frankly think the film is over-lit and this would be catastrophic if it weren’t for everything else that works in the film. It looks a lot like Gordon’s later Space Truckers.

Jeffrey Combs is a huge part of why the film (and its sequels) works so well. He went on to have a great career as a character actor. But he seems to have been born to play Herbert West. He behaves exactly as he should.

Of course, there is another reason the film works. And it has to do with that over-lighting I mentioned above. The special effects and gore are great. And this is notable in a film where you can see everything.

But Re-Animator is one of those films that defies words. It just is a ton of fun. And everyone should watch it. Even the people who don’t like scary movies. Because it isn’t scary! It’s just fun. With lots of green goop!

---

Re-Animator poster via Wikipedia under Fair Use.

Beverly Garland was born on 17 October 1926.

Garland had a great career. Regular people probably think of her as a TV actor. But she starred in a number of iconic psychotronic films.

She starred in 5 Roger Corman films over the course of 2 years:

1. Swamp Women
2. It Conquered the World
3. Gunslinger
4. Naked Paradise
5. Not of This Earth.

But she was in a lot more than that! One of her earliest roles was in The Neanderthal Man. In the middle of her Corman phase, she starred in Curucu, Beast of the Amazon. And her best-known film (outside the Corman catalogue) is The Alligator People.

She also starred in some 1950s psychotronic television. For example, she played a nightclub singer in “The Four of Us Are Dying” episode of The Twilight Zone.

She was the perfect heroine for this period. She was pretty and even delicate but she could also be a badass. And she did all this without ever acting in a way that would make an insecure man worry.

Gunslinger is a great example of this. I can’t watch it without thinking, “Incels would love this film!” After her sheriff husband is murdered, she takes his job because the town is filled with a bunch of beta men. But don’t worry, boys! After she cleans up the town, she’s back in her dress and headed out of town for a new life that will doubtless not include pants.

My favorite film that features Beverly Garland is It Conquered the World. But the film doesn’t give her a lot to do. Besides, it’s mostly the monster that I love. It’s up there with Ro-Man from Robot Monster in terms of ridiculous monsters.

So I think the best way to celebrate Garland’s birthday is to watch The Alligator People. Also: another ridiculous monster!

---

Beverly Garland via Wikipedia. It is in the public domain.

Republic Pictures released Barracuda on 16 October 1978 in Sweden. It didn’t make it to the United States (or anywhere else) until the following year.

I love Barracuda. Sadly, I have yet to see any “critic” who understands it. It combines two great trends at the time. First, it is a Jaws ripoff. Second, it is a 1970s paranoia film. (Thank you, Richard Nixon!) The film starts as a standard monster movie with environmental elements. The conspiracy stuff comes later.

But just the monster element is enough. The attacks are visceral. They hit me stronger than those in Jaws, for example.

The film is co-written and directed by Harry Kerwin, the younger brother of iconic psychotronic actor William Kerwin, who also stars in this film. Wayne Crawford co-wrote and directed the underwater sequences. Kerwin and Crawford worked together quite a lot. (Crawford went on to mainstream success with Valley Girl.)

Besides William Kerwin, the film stars a couple of psychotronic actors. These include Cliff Emmich and Jason Evers, the mad doctor in The Brain That Wouldn’t Die.

“Critics” hate this film. At least they do when they consider it at all. Mostly, the film has simply been forgotten. The fact that it premiered in Sweden says a lot.

So this 47th anniversary of the film’s release is a great time to watch it. That’s especially true since even most psychotronic fans have never seen it. If I’m wrong, I’ll give you all your money back from this free copy I dug up!

---

Barracuda (1978) poster via Wikipedia under Fair use.