The Mangler

A laundry folding machine is possessed by a demon from Hell.

The reviews for "The Mangler" are predominantly bad. Richard Harrington wrote, "The Mangler is ludicrous from start to finish: its plot lines dangle, its effects fail to dazzle and the acting and directing are uniformly bad... even the least demanding of genre fans will be hard-pressed to tremble in its presence." This is partially true. The plot is not as strong as it could be, but it does have a few nice touches, most notably the gore.

Mike Long rated it 0.5/5 stars and wrote, "There have been many bad, throw-away projects based on material from Stephen King, but The Mangler has to be one of the worst. The movie's laughable premise is only brought down by the inept filmmaking on display here." Yep. The acting is pretty bad (especially the way lines are delivered), and there is just no getting around the fact this is a story about a possessed laundry machine... it might be good as a short story (I don't know), but to make it believable on screen? And I think they made at least one if not two sequels...

A 3.0? Really? Have horror fans suddenly come down with a case of collective amnesia in the facts in the case of Tobe Hooper? The same director whose signature traits include a smattering of extreme gore garnished with dark humor? The man who made one of the most influential, landmark films of the 1970s ("The Texas Chainsaw Massacre")? I mean, granted, Hooper's career has been frustratingly inconsistent overall, but "The Mangler"--easily one of his most maligned works--is an unsung gem that suggests his tongue was planted firmly in cheek, but nobody really noticed. While the concept alone has "disaster" written all over it (a feature-film rendering of a Stephen King short story), what Hooper does with (and to) "The Mangler" is, really, what should have been done with "Graveyard Shift": he tears into the story with the veracity of a mental patient chewing the head off a rag-doll, elevating the absurdist elements to their breaking point, filling the film with (un)intentional humor to counteract the bloodletting, and fleshing out the characters and concept into a satisfying marriage of B-movie bliss. The plot? It's all about an anachronistic laundry facility where an ugly beast of a steam press starts folding the employees into bloody pulp; a pill-popping, chain-smoking local cop (Ted Levine) and his wiccan brother-in-law (Daniel Matmor) suspect foul play on the part of the disabled owner (Robert Englund, once again under a heavy latex mask), but the real reason is much more sinister (Hooper does succeed in making a compelling argument for the ridiculous explanation). While I haven't read King's short story, I will say that the script (by Hooper, Stephen Brooks, and Peter Welbeck) efficiently captures the quirky, small-town mannerisms of his characters, juxtaposed against evil spawned out of the banal territory of Everyday Life. While Hooper is unable to sustain the tricky balance between terror and dark humor that has made "Texas Chainsaw" so endearing, he ultimately transforms "The Mangler" into a sturdy, clean-burning B movie, buoyed by fantastic performances by Englund and especially Levine (who seems to be operating under the influence of a perpetual hangover).

The original short story by Stephen King is bizarre and terrifying. The idea of a possessed laundry-folding machine becoming sentient and homicidal sounds ludicrous, but it works in book form. Obviously, this is due to the titular horror being conjured in the mind of the individual reader.

As a movie it suffers on several fronts:

#1- The source material is only a few pages long, so, the movie had to be padded out to the extreme. This bloat adds nothing to the story, except for nonsensical side issues.

#2- The special effects necessary to make such a mechanical monster even remotely believable would cost many millions of dollars. This movie's microscopic budget made it look more like a poorly-realized cartoon.

#3- Director Tobe Hooper seems to have tried his best, but had very little to work with here. If there's ever been a tale that should remain only in our imaginations, it's THE MANGLER!

On the positive side: Robert Englund and Ted Levine are hilarious. This actually makes the movie bearable, bringing some much-needed mirth into this catastrophe. Their performances are so histrionic that the movie becomes a comedy...

I picked this one up in a hurry six years ago and now it sits in my living room. I expected a snore-fest but was surprised by how the filmmakers made such a silly premise both entertaining and somewhat original. Odd cast as well: Freddy vs. Buffalo Bill? -and who is this Matmor character? This movie was an hour and a half of unapologetic misery with above average writing, performances and special effects at a time where Stephen Kings work was being pushed onto TV in the form of Diluted MOW garbage. Not for everyone, but in the eyes of a horror fan it is fair to say that it could be Tobe Hooper's best work in years.

I'm one of those who believe that Stephen King owes a very large debt of gratitude to H.P. Lovecraft (1890-1937.) In all fairness to King, though, he has graciously acknowledged Lovecraft's many important contributions to literary horror.

It's possible that director Tobe Hooper also recognized Lovecraft's significance when adapting The Mangler for the big screen. The short-story version does not offer a substantive historical link between the present-day and the genesis of the demon machine in the 1920s; the decade when Lovecraft began his short but illustrious writing career. Hooper took great pains, however, to develop an atmosphere that evokes the New England of Lovecraft's youth; a period when mill towns offered the only refuge for immigrants and native poor unable to make a living off the land. It was a time before the New Deal social reforms of President Franklin Roosevelt offered some relief from the exploitative and dangerous conditions inflicted on America's working class. For me, the philosophical sub-text of The Mangler is the evils of unbridled, industrial capitalism. The fact that rural communities have often depended for their very existence on a dehumanizing local industry is not lost on the socially progressive King.

Some have characterized The Mangler as an outstanding B-movie. I prefer to regard it as an all around entertaining flick. Although such films tend to be formulaic, Hooper and co-screenwriter Stephen David Brooks deserve credit for fleshing-out King's short story in a laudable fashion. The film's characters are well developed, and Robert Englund's portrayal of Bill Gartley, the grotesquely maimed, delightfully evil owner of the laundry machine from hell, should have earned him an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor (a nod that should also have gone to Fred Gwynne for his fine work in Pet Sematary.) Ted Levine, and the versatile Jeremy Crutchley -- who portrayed two different characters in The Mangler -- also turned in noteworthy performances. Last but not least, the film's surprise ending, totally different from the climax of the original short story, is satisfying and appropriate.

Despite the overwhelming popularity of his novels, I believe that King's lesser works best demonstrate his creative gifts. The short story format demands an economy of words and a disciplined approach that can result in high emotional impact for readers. Short stories also provide additional latitude for movie makers to offer their unique interpretation of the work. The film adaptation of The Mangler is a fine example of the creative synergy between literary and cinematic artists, and a must-see for horror fans.