I tre volti della paura (1963)

Directed by: Mario Bava

Writers: Marcello Fondatto, Alberto Bevilacqua, Mario Bava

 

I tre volti della paura (also known as Black Sabbath) is a horror anthology consisting of three stories directed by Mario Bava and based on literary works of Chekhov, Maupassant and Tolstoy. At least that's what the intro claims, but the IMDb and Wikipedia tell us that these are Ivan (and not Anton) Chekhov and Alexey (and not Leo) Tolstoy and they don't mention Guy de Maupassant at all, so I decided to omit this information altogether and just mention the screenwriters. The stories are as follows:

 

First, Il telefono, in which a woman is terrorized by a series of disturbing telephone calls apparently made by her ex boyfriend who freshly got out of jail (it was her testimony that put him there) and wants revenge, but not before he telephone terrorizes her a bit. He makes various kinds of threats and the woman is out of her mind, so terrified in fact that she promptly calls the polic..., no, sorry, she actually calls another woman, her former friend or lover or something. She begs her to come and make her company, even though they had a falling out long time ago. Some not entirely unpredictable plot twists ensue, resulting in some people dying. While the story is rather well directed, the acting is a bit dated and the score mostly comprises unnecessarily cheerful jazz music which effectively ruins the potential of suspense at every possible step. Watchable, but hardly memorable, it certainly has nothing on classics like When a Stranger Calls and Black Christmas.

 

The second story is called I wurdulak and is the longest and probably the most boring of the three. It is reminiscent of the Hammer horror films and takes place in 19th century Russia, where a young hero encounters an unusual family in some spooky village. They advise him to get the hell away from there because there's an imminent danger of a wurdulak attack. Of course, if he did, that would be the end of the movie, so he falls in love with one of the girls and decides to stay. At the stroke of midnight, the head of the family, played by Boris Karloff, returns after a five days absence - he had previously gone out to kill some Turkish wurdulak. What is that thing, anyway? Essentially, it's an undead creature that combines some features of vampires and zombies. The most prominent characteristic of wurdulaks is that they drink blood of the persons they loved during lifetime. Boris Karloff acts rather strange upon his return, bringing up the suspicion that he might have been wurdulaked himself, but that doesn't prevent the family from letting him stay in the house. As the night progresses, the family members demonstrate progressively more serious lack of common sense, giving the chance to the wurdulak team to thrive at their expense. This story is nicely shot and features some fine locations and it could have been almost good had the wurdulaks been made more scary (or scary at all). Unfortunately, they are a bit boring. The hero shows a serious charisma deficiency and the love story is quite silly, just as the rest of the screenplay, which features some genuine what-the-hell moments. For example, when Karloff had left the house, he had said he would be back in five days. If he's late, he's turned into wurdulak and is not to be let into the house. But he arrives exactly five days later, so his sons are at a loss as what to do. I mean, come on!

 

The third story, La goccia d'acqua, is the one that sets everything right. It's about a young nurse who has to prepare a deceased medium for the funeral, so she goes to her big and spooky house. In the process, she steals an expensive-looking ring from her finger because she won't need it where she's going, right? Wrong! You have probably seen more than enough horror movies to know what happens when you steal from the dead. Strange things promptly start to happen and the poor woman (the living one) is slowly driven to madness. This is a shining example of a haunted house story done right, where spookiness oozes from every corner, the highlight being the dead old woman herself. She is scary and disturbing when you first see her just lying motionlessly on the bed. Imagine what happens later! Don't be deceived by the fact that the movie was made in 1963 - this damn thing is scary.

 

The intro and the outro of the movie feature Boris Karloff, who acts unnecessarily silly, which is in contrast with the dead serious tone of all three stories. Overall, it's a hit and miss, but the third story is a must-see.

Dark Circles (2013)

Directed by: Paul Soter

Writer: Paul Soter

I'd like to begin this review by saying "I'm not easily scared, but...", however, that would be a blatant lie. I'm very easily scared. Give me one Japanese long-haired ghost, and I'm already throwing a blanket over my head. So, the fact that I find this one of the scariest movies in recent years doesn't say much. However, scary or not, I think it's a very well made movie that's worth checking out, particularly (damn, what a difficult word for a non-English speaker!) for the performances of the two leads.

 

The movie starts with some cheerful music to which a young woman is enjoying the company of her newborn baby. This idyllic scene is quickly interrupted by a loud knock on the door. When the woman opens it, she finds a really scary bitch that's apparently injured (but we know better, right?) because there's this huge red spot on her belly. The young woman (the other woman is also young, but we will differentiate between the two by calling her a scary bitch) takes her in and proceeds to call help, but makes a mistake of leaving her baby unattended. Next thing you know, the scary bitch shows her true intentions and it isn't pretty.

 

Virtually plotless, the movie's sole intention seems to be to scare the viewer by having the scary bitch pop out of nowhere in almost every scene and do whatever the scary bitches usually do. In that regard, Dark Circles isn't unlike Shutter (of course, I'm referring to the Thai original and not that stupid American remake), but it's less scary and much more ambiguous. Who is that woman? Is she a ghost? A figment of their imagination? Does she come with the house? Is she perhaps real? I don't think this ambiguity was Soter's conscious intention. It just came as a natural consequence of the decision to put the scary bitch in just about every bloody possible scene, without a slightest regard of its context. One of the main characters is dreaming - what is (s)he dreaming about? Why, the scary bitch, of course! The husband is looking at some pictures and who's that on every single picture? You guessed it, the scary bitch! The wife looks through the window and lo and behold, it's the scary bitch standing by the tree in the garden! The wife looks in the mirror and take a wild guess who passes in the background! The scary bitch!

 

So, if scary bitches scare you, you'll probably find this scary, if not, you'll either stop watching after 15 minutes, or you'll try to ignore the nuisances and concentrate of what (I guess) is supposed to be the main theme of the movie, the relationship between the lead characters (a young couple with a baby), their personal problems, the way they deal with the parenthood, etc. This drama part is generally well written and is greatly enhanced by very good performances by Jonathon Schaech (damn, what a difficult last name for a non-English speaker!) and Pell James. They make their characters believable and even likable, in spite of their almost constant arguing.

 

I said "generally" in the last paragraph because everything isn't perfect. The young parents display a surprising lack of communication which can't just be explained by their, you know, lack of communication. The problem is the necessity to keep the story going to full length, and if they had a real conversation, the movie would be over in 15 minutes.

 

"You know what, darling? I keep seeing this scary bitch everywhere."

"You too? ZOMG, and I thought I was going crazy!"

"You're telling me! Now let's get the *censored* out of this house!"

This doesn't happen until nearly the end of the movie.

 

I haven't really talked about the plot, but you have probably gathered that there's this young couple with a baby, whose relationship is plagued by the scary bitch. There's also a lack of sleep, but that's also caused by the scary bitch. The scary bitch was probably supposed to be a means of support for the general character drama, but as I said before, Soter couldn't resist, so she got so much screen presence that she practically became the lead character herself, pushing the drama to the background. There are many scary scenes, which are mostly based on the well established patterns ("But honey, if I you are in another room, then who the bloody hell is this woman who lies in our bed???????"). There are also many completely unnecessary jump scares. However, that's all just the writing problem. The direction is spot-on, both in drama and horror parts. Soter has obviously seen his share of classics and he did a good job on emulating them and with his obvious talent I'm sure he'll soon find his original expression, which will make his subsequent movies kick ass.

 

By the way, this is Paul Soter from... Broken Lizard!?!?!?!