Perversions of Science, S1, E10: People's Choice

Starring:

Patrick Cassidy as Todd Sorenson

Maxine Bahns as Betty Sorenson

Barry Williams as Neighbor

Richard Riehle as Gorn

Debbie Lee Carrington as Alien #1
Gary Friedkin as Alien #2
Katherine Gaskin as Glenda 6
Olivia Hack as Jenna Sorenson
Roger W. Morrissey as Liberty 1
Betty Murphy as Nana

Maureen Teefy as Chrome

Written by: Scott Nimerfro, based on the "Weird Science" comic books, by William M. Gaines

Directed by: Russell Mulcahy

Well here it is at last: the final episode of “Perversions of Science”, and the most surprising thing about it is, even in the face of a surefire cancellation, just how much of a whimper it goes out with. I have mentioned before how it never really pushed any boundaries, despite being on a channel known for doing it; when I mentioned it the first time, it was more of a stray observation. Suddenly, it has become a point of contempt: this was a chance for the show to pull out all the stops and deliver one final “fuck you” to its audience, and instead it delivers us its typical droll, restrained sci-fi “goods”. This is a textbook example of how to go out with your tail between your legs.

Not surprisingly, it is the future in “The People's Choice”, and this vision is made up of long-haired women robots, called “domestics”, that perform chores for well-off families in suburbia. Todd Sorenson is the “leader” of one such family, the ultimate douchebag who respects no one and, in return, is respected by no one. In the beginning of the episode, he is verbally harassing “Nana”, the family's long-serving domestic, exploding on her for having “medical” issues that are costing him a lot of money. But his wife and child seem to love “Nana” more than they love him, and as much as he apparently dislikes the robot, he's such a penny-pinching miser that he refuses to upgrade to another model.

The deep depths he will go to keep his family “intact” are made obvious when “Nana” sneaks out of the house one night, and by morning ends up swimming in oil after an unspecified accident amputates her arm. Rather than pony up the cash to buy a new one, he has the local robot sales/repairman Gorn (Richard Riehle, who is probably the king of “I know I've seen that guy somewhere before!”) fix her up to be as good as new. Wondering what lead Nana to receive such a horrible injury, he feigns sleep the following evening, catching her slipping outside in the middle of the night, where all the robots gather in the middle of the street to fight to the death. (No one else has ever noticed this before?) This means Nana is going up against much more current models, which explains why she is always in failing health. Facing a “Glenda 6”, one of the top consumer-grade robots available, she is about to be dealt a death blow when Todd comes to her rescue, allowing her to turn the tables and “win”.

All it does it postpone the inevitable: the very next day, a group of robots come by and attack her, cutting her into unrepairable pieces. Todd demands answers from Gorn, who reveals that the fighting is all a tactic from manufacturer Ultrabot to eventually force people to upgrade their domestics to a more current model. The stress of losing “Nana”, along with a rivalry with his neighbor, leads him to purchase the “Liberty 1”, a new patriotic model that everyone has to have. But in typical “Perversions” overkill, it turns out each robot in the “Liberty” line is controlled by a miniature alien, and all of them are combining to take over the world! And that's not only the end of the episode, but the entire series. Ho-hum.

The acting is pretty good, but it's clear that everyone was told to “ham it up” in this one; it seems to be striving for more of a lighthearted approach than some earlier eps, and also frequently aims for comedy (often failing miserably). The special effects are mainly kept “physical”, but the final shot is yet another example of piss-poor '90s CGI, the type of which this show has sadly excelled at. I hope I haven't made this sound like a horrible episode, because parts of it were enjoyable, but given this was its last chance to make an impression on its dwindling viewer base, it's sad to see “Perversions” stick to its code of restraint all the way through to the bitter end; a code that is what helped to send it to an early grave in the first place.

EPISODE RATING: 5/10

FULL EPISODE

The Hitcher (1986)

Director: Robert Harmon
Writer(s): Eric Red
Starring: Rutger Hauer, C. Thomas Howell, Jennifer Jason Leigh, and Jeffery DeMunn

Movies like The Hitcher are a rare breed: It’s a movie so implausible and idiotic that, by all accounts, it should be simple to cast aside and forget. But its weaknesses, at least up until the second half, actually become its strengths; its desolate, barren landscape allows the film to work by giving it an atmosphere that borders on the surreal, while the killer’s impossibly-constant presence gives the work an unshakable sense of evil. It becomes the antithesis of its own genre. It doesn’t try to build you up or creep you out, nor is it concerned with typical horror tactics like fake scares, or “reality as a dream”; it simply throws one threat right after another at our hero from the first few minutes, all the way up until the end. If it weren’t for a shaky final act that inexplicably decides to break down and follow the horror formula, this very well could have been one of the greatest horror films of all time. Even in its finished, flawed form, its infinitely more potent than it has any right to be; a slasher film that cancels out all the “boring” parts in between the killings, and focuses on the killer stalking its victim over the entire movie. 

C. Thomas Howell plays Jim Halsey, a man who is transporting a car from Illinois, to California. As the miles wear on, fatigue and exhaustion set in for poor Jim, and after he dozes off at the wheel and very nearly runs into a semi head on, he decides the best possible way for him to stay awake isn’t three shots of espresso, or scoring some speed, but rather picking up a hitchhiker to keep him company. See what I mean? This movie is pretty darn stupid.

It is certainly not his lucky day: Out of all the hitchers he could have had, he winds up with John Ryder (Rutger Hauer, in the role that he was born to play), a mysterious, creepy man who sets off red flags immediately by refusing to tell Jim where he’s headed. A little ways into their journey, before the depths of Ryder’s depravity is evident, they pass a stalled car sitting by the side of the road. Jim wants to stop to make sure the motorist is okay, but John has other ideas, pushing down on Jim’s leg so that he speeds passed it. At first, John is mum about why he did that, to Jim’s constant interrogation; after things seem to go back to normal, he reveals that the reason the car was stalled is because he killed the driver, and he would be killing Jim next. A struggle ensues, and all thanks to an improperly-closed door, Jim manages to shove him out of the car and make his escape.

But John’s smile as he slowly comes to his senses on the freeway tells us all that we need to know; that he sees this as a game, and in Jim he has found a capable contestant. Initially, we think that John’s ultimate goal is to get revenge and kill the one man that has escaped his clutches, but after each encounter, his motives seem to be going in a different direction. Is he merely toying with his prey before finishing him off? Or is he trying to psychologically destroy him as punishment for his daring escape?

It isn’t long after Jim celebrates his perceived victory that he is reintroduced to his would-be killer: A few miles later, a family on their way to vacation passes by him. In the backseat, playing with their young child, is John. Jim frantically tries to warn them of their new passenger’s intention, but in doing so, once again nearly ends up hitting a truck head-on, and has to swerve off the road to avoid becoming roadkill. In a scene of quiet effectiveness, he soon passes their stranded vehicle. Deep inside, he knows what happened, but desperately wants to believe that John was only kidding. He gets out, hoping to find a family alive, and simply in need of maintenance; whatever he sees, it leads him to retch all over the dusty desert sand.

But Jim’s problems with the hitcher aren’t just limited to direct encounters, as John makes sure to set him up for misery in any way he can. Like by informing the police of a murder, and then framing Jim for it by placing a bloody knife in his clothes (even though at no point, at least that we see, could it have been even remotely possible for him to do that), an act that sets off a furious manhunt. Jim is captured while trying enjoy a cheeseburger at a local diner, prepared for him by Nash (Jennifer Jason Leigh), the stereotypical simple “small-town” girl.

This is where the film starts to take even its own wide net of implausibility for granted, and starts to take a downhill roll: having only met him a few short minutes ago, and with absolutely nothing to go on in the way of evidence, she makes up her mind that he is innocent. Later on, the duo find themselves in the midst of a police chase, against incompetent cops that can’t even hit either one of them from as point blank as is physically possible in a speeding car. And then John shows up, to eliminate the police threat so that he can continue to harass Jim for his own morbid entertainment.

This storyline fails, if for no other reason than even the writers seemed to know that Nash is a completely unnecessary, throwaway character. She serves no purpose, other than to (literally) serve him a cheeseburger, and yet somehow, and unconvincingly, becomes a key part of the story. It’s almost as if studio execs demanded there be a love interest for Jim in a rather half-hearted attempt to appeal to a wider market, and it comes as no surprise that their short…acquaintanceship, for lack of a better term, just feels tacky and half-baked.

But you know what, ignore every complaint that I have lodged, and check this movie out anyway. Rutger Hauer’s underrated performance is at least on par with Michael Rooker’s in Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer; dare I say, it might be even better. The mark of a great performance is in the eyes, and Hauer’s has a cold sense of evil that chillingly makes it seem like it’s not acting at all. Many actors would have sensed the B-grade material in the screenplay, and decided to ham up the role, but Hauer wisely goes in the opposite direction, instead delivering his lines with such matter-of-factness that it’s almost impossible not to be completely fascinated by his character.

And, if nothing else, he is what makes The Hitcher what it is: A film that should be little more than a second-rate throwaway, but manages to take advantage of (some of) its flaws to be an engaging little thriller with a great setting, and a film that contains one of the most relentless villains in movie history.

RECAP: Its premise is entirely stupid, and it only gets more and more unconvincing as it goes on, but The Hitcher still manages to be an effective little thriller, thanks in large part to Rutger Hauer’s epic performance as the titular character. Once he starts disappearing for large stretches, which seems to happen quite a bit during the film’s second half, it slowly starts loosening the intense grip it has on the viewer, as it gives in to genre formulas; even the required final showdown is rather droll. Yet the neverending desert setting, along with an impossibly-omnipresent killer give it an almost surrealistic quality that only heightens the feeling of dread. Almost required viewing for fans of the horror genre.

RATING: 7/10

TRAILER

A Horrible Way to Die (2010)

Director: Adam Wingard
Writer(s): Simon Barrett
Starring: AJ Bowen, Amy Seimetz, and Joe Swanberg

Adam Wingard is a terribly overrated filmmaker. Part of it—maybe a lot of it—no doubt has to do with the friend/partnership between himself and Brad Miska, who founded the horror news website Bloody Disgusting back in 2001. Since then, he has gone on to produce several of Wingard's films, while simultaneously overhyping the hell out of them on his own website (he called his forthcoming film, The Woods, which turned out to be a half-remake half-sequel to The Blair Witch Project “one of the scariest movies ever made” months before it came out; it opened to below-average reviews). Other genre sites also seem to be latching on, with Dread Central also lavishing constant praise on him; even the UK-based Independent referred to him as a “horror saviour” (cutesy English spelling intact) in a write-up for The Woods trailer.

I can't help but think conspiracy theory here: We all know how far contacts can take you in any industry, so just how far of a reach does Miska have? It seems every one of Wingard's releases are subject to a heavy build-up that most other horror filmmakers don't enjoy, but it all comes off as paid-for propaganda rather than legitimate praise. Hey, I could understand it if he showed a particular kind of prodigious filmmaking talent, or even had some kind of knack for a certain area of film (directors are often known for great cinematography, lighting, gore effects, etc.), but all of this praise is willfully ignorant of the simple notion that he has not only never made a great film—I have yet to see him make even a passable one.

Amy Seimetz is Sarah, a recovering alcoholic who attends weekly AA meetings. It is there that she meets Kevin (Joe Swanberg), an awkward but outgoing guy who seems to be smitten with her. She is hesitant to give in at first—she has just been through a rough relationship—but his cringe-inducing dialogue finally wins her over, and in Kevin, she finds someone that she thinks she will be able to trust again.

Around this same time, a serial killer named Garrick Turrell breaks out of prison, after a security guard has him strip down, but doesn't realize that he's concealing a razor blade. You would think checks like that before moving a prisoner would be pretty thorough and routine, but the officer must have just been having an off day. Maybe he just found out his wife was leaving him, or something, and it put his mind in a bad spot...you know, these things happen. Garrick kills the two cops, and escapes back into the real world.

The pieces to the puzzle sloooooowly start to come together. Garrick is the cause of Sarah's broken heart—the two were a couple, until she discovered that he wasn't being completely honest with her, so she put an end to the relationship. By that, I mean she found out he was a sadistic murderer (the idiot was constantly leaving the house in the middle of the night—yeah, that won't arouse suspicion) and had him put away for a long time. Only now he's out, killing people that are close to her as if trying to send a message—but also killing others that just kind of annoy him. Outside in a parking lot. Because, you know, the easiest way to get away with being a wanted fugitive whose face is plastered everywhere is to kill people in public—that's the golden rule.

Sarah never watches TV or reads newspapers, so she doesn't even know that her ex-boyfriend has escaped, until she discovers he killed one of her co-workers. Uh oh, better watch out, because Garrick is not a happy camper that she put him away, even though he seems very calm and composed and never seems like he hates her...wait, why is that? Could we maybe be in for a twist ending that I called a mile away; a twist so ignorant and implausible that it makes a shit film even shittier?

Even for Wingard, A Horrible Way to Die marks a complete regression: this movie is almost painfully bad. The cinematography appears as if they paid a ten-year-old $20 and told him just to “wing it”: I don't have a problem with the shaky style that dominated films for a while, but several shots give the appearance that the camera operator fell asleep during the scene. I'm not exaggerating—it will literally face the ground, or some item that has nothing to do with anything, while the characters continue to talk in the background. This was probably conceived as some intentional, artistic decision to create a more “intimate” bond between the viewer and the characters, but here, all it manages to do is frustrate.

Some are praising it for its “slow burn” attitude, and its focus on characterization over blood and guts, but for this to be effective, that would require there to be some kind of payoff; aside from the embarrassingly miscalculated twist, there isn't one. And, as hard as they try, there just isn't any depths to these characters; sure, we gradually learn about Sarah and Garrick's past, but we don't buy them as anything more than actors playing their parts and reciting pre-scripted lines in a D-grade horror film. There's no dimensionality to the roles. And it's one that will only be an effective film to those with the patience of a saint, or in the case of many reviewers, those that get paid to help spread the word of what a great asset Adam Wingard is to the horror genre.

How anyone could look at this and think anyone involved is the future of horror filmmaking, I have absolutely no idea, but if it ends up being true, then what I do know is that we are watching the slow, agonizing death of the entire genre.

RATING: 1.5/10

TRAILER

Who Can Kill a Child? (1976)

Director: Narciso Ibanez Serrador
Writer(s): Serrador, from a novel by Juan Jose Plans
Starring: Lewis Fiander, Prunella Ransome, and Antonio Iranzo

Who could kill a child? If taken out of context, a more appropriate question might be, “Who would want to kill a child?” But director Narciso Ibanez Serrador (who also wrote the script, based on a novel by Juan Jose Plans) has a perfectly good reason for asking that question: The children in question aren't normal kids, but vicious murderers, who are inexplicably driven to kill any adult that crosses their path after hearing mysterious voices late one night.

Murderous kids have long been a staple of the horror film, appearing in films like The Omen, or Village of the Damned, or Children of the Corn, or The Brood, or Ils (Them), or...I think you get the point: Evil children are nothing new. But where many films simply toss them in and rely on the “Oh look, a scary kid!” from the audience, Who Can Kill a Child? really explores the idea from multiple facets, resulting in a criminally-underrated horror film that should be at the top of everyone's “must-see” list.

Tom and Evelyn are a newly-married English couple who head to a busy Spanish island during a festival. Evelyn is content to stay there, but Tom has a better idea of how to spend their time: traveling by boat to a more tranquil island called Almanzora, that he had visited twelve years prior. She reluctantly agrees, despite being so pregnant that she could literally pop at any moment. Tom rents a boat, and before anyone knows it, they are being pulled into a dock by several friendly children. Aaaah, life seems to be going swell for the husband and wife. How could things be any better?

Well, there could be other people around, for one. The entire town is desolate, save for the odd child seen strolling about, stopping only to smile and giggle at the English guests, but offering nothing else in the way of help. Where have all the adults gone? The hotel, the bar, the general store...all of these places are completely devoid of people, although there are remnants left behind that hint there were others around, and not too long ago, either. It is only after Tom and Evelyn witness a young child beating an old man to death that Tom and Evelyn get a glimpse of what the children are capable of. Soon, they realize they're going to have to go against decades of common decency, and off a few if they are to make it off the island alive...

Heading into a viewing of this, I really expected a low-budget film that got what small following it has simply from the brilliance of its idea. I'm pretty sure I'm correct about the low-budget part, but contrary to my thoughts, you don't gather that from watching it: it's unusually well-made. The acting is pretty good, it's more than competently shot, and the soundtrack—which is beyond simple—works brilliantly in heightening the tension in otherwise droll scenes. All of this is especially impressive considering that it's a Spanish production from the 1970s. No offense to Spaniards, but their contributions to the horror genre weren't realized until fairly recently, thanks to a spate of well-received films like the [REC] series and The Orphanage bringing attention to Spanish efforts. It's also surprising considering director Serrenado worked primarily as a television director—this was one of only two theatrical films he ever directed (the first, and his debut, was 1970s The House That Screamed).

The film that I can perhaps best compare it to, in terms of “suspense structure” is The Descent: There, the claustrophobic setting of an underground cave lead to several tense moments before the creatures even made an appearance. Here, it's the exact opposite, with the wide openness of the terrain, paired with the clues of the complete sudden abandonment of the town, that leads to chills before we even catch a glimpse of a child; or at least, before we know what they are capable of. Serrador proves himself to be adept at wringing tension from the mundane: a ringing telephone here, a sudden closing of blinds there...scenes that wouldn't even register as a blip in most films, always threaten to become moments of terror.

That's not to discount the effectiveness of many later scenes when Tom and Evelyn start to understand exactly what they are up against. In fact, the film works so well because it defies the modern workings of the evil child subgenre, which seems to think that evil children are only scary when they are trying as hard as possible to be scary. The killer kids here work the opposite way, to much greater effect: They are normal children on the outside, smiling and polite, and they use those innocent characteristics to lure adults to their deaths (their presence is often hinted at in the soundtrack, with the sound of giggles, and it truly sends chills down the spine).

Wisely, the film never explains why the children are acting the way they are; rather unwisely, our only clues come from an unnecessarily protracted opening credits sequence, featuring actual footage of dead children spanning across several different wars. The point, which is also specifically made later by another character within the film, is that children suffer the most during times of turmoil; by this thought process, I guess we are supposed to surmise that they are rebelling for all of the hardships that the decisions of adults have put them through. I love the idea of keeping the specific reasons secret—too many films feel the need to go into too much detail, which often ruins the mystery aspect of it all—but the intro was just too much. To some extent, I have to admit that it's effective, because my wife and I sat in stunned silence, unable to even look at our plates of food for the entire duration of it, but it ultimately serves no purpose beyond apparently being a half-assed attempt to justify the actions of the children.

But once you stomach (or fast-forward through) that, Who Can Kill a Child? quickly becomes a near-masterclass of building tension, and while it can't maintain it evenly throughout, there are enough twists and turns that it will hold your attention from beginning to end. Speaking of the ending, it's rather obvious how it's going to play out, but the final shots still sent chills shooting down my spine. A must for fans of the genre.

RATING: 8.5/10

TRAILER

Jacob's Ladder (1990)

Director: Adrian Lyne
Writer(s): Bruce Joel Rubin
Starring: Tim Robbins, Elizabeth Pena, Danny Aiello, and Matt Craven

Jacob’s Ladder came to my attention after seeing it in the midst of several “scariest movie of all time” lists. What interested me the most about it was that these recommendations came from message boards and internet forums, meaning it was actual “people” championing it, and not movie critics, who tend to rally around the same tired movies. When I came upon it a handful of times in about as many lists, that's when I knew I had to get my hands on it.

And you know what? The “scariest movie” talk is way off base, and is actually doing the movie a major disservice by focusing on the horror aspects, thus limiting the potential appeal for those uninterested in the genre. Because I’m going to be honest here: I didn’t find Jacob’s Ladder scary in the least. Sure, there are some brilliantly eerie sequences, as well as one effective jump scare that gave me a good startle, but there is so much more to it than just its excellently mysterious, foreboding atmosphere. And despite the fact it let me down in one way, it overpowered me in so many more that I have to admit that Jacob’s Ladder is damn near a masterpiece, and that is a word that I don’t take lightly.

It’s effective because, like the best of films, it manages to effortlessly elicit a wide range of emotions from the viewer; this is no doubt mainly due, in large part, to Adrian Lyne’s confident direction. It’s no wonder that test audiences found his original cut to be “overwhelming”, leading Lyne to excise approximately 20 minutes of footage, especially considering what’s left is still an emotionally-draining experience.

Tim Robbins plays Brian Singer, a Vietnam War veteran who struggles with PTSD. His manifests itself in the form of hallucinations, some of which are so lucid that he is unable to tell them from reality; thus, neither are we. From what we can gather, he had three sons with an ex-wife, and one of them was Macaulay Culkin (who is curiously uncredited; even keeping in mind that he would not become a star until later that year with the release of Home Alone, his part is quite an important one), who died after being struck by a car.

Following the divorce from his wife, he takes up residence with Jezzie (Elizabeth Pena), a woman with the patience of a saint; she calms him down and somehow manages to keep her cool the many times he loses his. She is lover and mother all rolled up into one, and it would not be even a slight exaggeration to suggest that he would be dead without her.

But his demonic visions become more frightening, and begin to occur with more frequency. Is this just normal PTSD, or was he the victim of a military experiment gone awry? To answer this question, he gets in touch with several members of his platoon, many of whom suffer in the same manner that he does. They agree to sue the military, for answers if nothing else, and even hire a sleazy attorney (is there another kind?) to take their case. Just as soon as it starts coming together, it falls apart—the attorney (none other than Jason Alexander) informs him that there’s no case, because he contacted the military, and no one by the name of Brian Singer ever served.

Then we weave from one twist to another, until it’s all tied up by an uncharacteristically poignant ending, that also simultaneously manages to tie up all loose ends. When it was over, my wife and I just stared at the screen for a few seconds, blankly watching the end credits start to roll, as we attempted to sort through our feelings, attempting to make sense of what we had just seen. Sure, we understood it in a purely mental way—nothing is really ambiguous, with a final shot that tells you, in no uncertain terms, what just happened—but the film wildly careens from living nightmare, to family drama, to gripping thriller, and back again so often, that you really don’t have much time to process anything until it’s over.

Now I didn’t want my introduction to scare horror fans away—if you are a fan of that particular genre (as I am), there’s enough nightmarish imagery to more than likely keep you entertained. But with the mysteriousness of its atmosphere, and the strength of its story, it will also appeal to most mystery and drama fans, as well. So let’s just summarize it up and say if you are a fan of movies in general, you just can’t go wrong by giving Jacob’s Ladder a shot. You may not like it as much as I did, but if you can let the story suck you in, I can guarantee you won’t be bored. And that’s more than I can say about a lot of the junk I see.

RECAP: Effectively blending traits from horror, drama, and mystery films, Jacob’s Ladder is a thoroughly engrossing film whose biggest strength lies in its storytelling; the fact it also has a lot to say about war, and the treatment of soldiers during wartime, adds another powerful layer to a film already teeming with emotional resonance. Tim Robbins’ performance is solid, while Adrian Lyne’s direction is assured. The foreboding atmosphere, as well as the perfectly-timed pace, ensures that the story never lags. Also of note are the amazing visual effects, done in camera and without post-production work, which have since become a staple in horror films. If you haven’t seen it, and can stomach the occasional bit of violence, you should really check it out.

RATING: 8.5/10

TRAILER