The Wizard of Gore

An underground reporter (Kip Purdue) stumbles upon a magician (Crispin Glover) who kills his assistants on stage. What first looks like an illusion starts to get more suspicious as they turn up dead the day after. How is a local strip club tied in to this? And what happens as layer after later is peeled away from the surface?

The biggest flaw of this film, from director Jeremy Kasten, is the fact it's a "remake" of a Hershel Gordon Lewis film. I kept comparing the two in my head, which was very unfair to Kasten's work because the films have very little in common. Aside from a magician whop performs bloody tricks, the entire plot is reworked, as are the characters. The best I can recommend is that if you are going to see this one, do not see the original first. Without that influence on your opinion, you may like this one.

What is not to like? The cast is great, not least of which includes horror veterans Jeffrey Combs and Brad Dourif, as well as the Suicide Girls. Crispin Glover has a long history in horror, as well, and Kip Purdue (who I am not very familiar with) has a personality that uniquely fits this tale. He is the one character who could not be changed without altering the entire film.

While I prefer the original film, it is not really fair to compare them. Montag the Magician is not even the same guy, and there is the whole other stripper and mind-control drug aspect here that was never even hinted at in the 1970 version. So I cannot say, "Skip this one and go see the original." As much as I want you to see the original, I think this film has its merits. It certainly upped the sex and nudity, which may appeal to viewers.

What a totally crazy (yet highly admirable) ambition to remake a Herschell Gordon Lewis film and actually add story depth, detailed character drawings, mystery and an atmosphere of morbidity! But it works. At least, … partially it works. Horror fanatics familiar with Lewis' oeuvre know that his films are entertaining and sensationally gross, but they always severely lacked in the plotting department. Of all Lewis' splatter films, "The Wizard of Gore", released in 1970, was definitely the one with the greatest potential and it's actually most unfortunate that the basic concept ideas weren't properly elaborated. Director Jeremy Kasten and writer Zach Chassler obviously must have felt the same way, as their remake cuts down on the gore (but luckily not to much) and attempts to give meaning and background to the whole idea of a maniacal magician. "The Wizard of Gore" is actually quite a unique oddity in the area of horror cinema nowadays! People always complain about the overload of needless remakes and modern directors' lack of own creativity (and they're right, too) but here's finally one remake that doesn't aspire to just bluntly copy the original, but to complete and perhaps even "improve" it. The result may not be entirely successful, but it's definitely a courageous approach and an overall enjoyable and recommended experience.

This new version largely maintains the same plot as Lewis' original film. Montag the Magnificent is a thoroughly uncanny magician/illusionist who, along with his hermit assistant, tours around with a quite unique and nightmarish act. He butchers seemingly random girls from the audience live on stage, yet when the audience panics and tries to flee, the light go on and the victims are standing there back in one piece again. A young reporter quickly discovers that the girls turn up dead the next day after all and their corpses are damaged exactly like they appeared to be on stage. Severely against the will of his girlfriend, he becomes obsessed with Montag's show and becomes entangled into a web of surreal nightmares, primitive drugs, physical agony and mental deterioration. "The Wizard of Gore" is still a pretty incoherent mess in which a lot of twists make absolutely no sense and a lot of vital questions remain unanswered, but at least you get the impression that Kasten and Chassler put thought and effort into providing an explanation for the events, and that is already an accomplishment to itself. Especially given the entirely illogical mishmash of half-decent ideas Herschell Gordon Lewis left behind. Moreover, this 2007 version benefices from a supremely macabre atmosphere and all the decors and set pieces look very grim. The gore and splatter effects clearly can't hold a candle to those of the original (at least, when it comes of outrageousness), but still there's some excellent carnage on display. Gore, nudity, atmosphere and immensely creepy carnival music … These are all great elements that allow you to overlook the occasionally senseless subject matter. Another thing which makes "The Wizard of Gore" a must-see for horror fanatics is the presence of no less than three phenomenal genre veterans, namely Crispin Glover, Brad Dourif and Jeffrey Combs.

The Wizard of Gore (2007), a remake of H. G. Lewis's 1970 splatter classic, is an extremely messy film, although not necessarily in the way one might expect. Whilst this version still offers viewers a fairly impressive level of on-screen carnage, the real butchery occurs in the narrative: in an attempt to add some kind of meaning to Lewis's rather slight original plot, the makers of this film have turned the story into a surreal, and very confusing hodgepodge of half-baked ideas. In fact, just like one of the film's victims, it's all over the place.

Crispin Glover plays macabre magician Montag the Magnificent, whose unusual carnival show involves inviting a member of the audience on to the stage and then killing them in an extremely gory manner. This naturally freaks out the audience, but, just as they turn to leave in disgust and fear, Montag reveals the 'victim' to be very much alive.

Spectator Edmund Bigelow (Kip Pardue), a journalist for a small underground newspaper, is intrigued by the bloody illusion that he witnesses, and returns to see the show night after night in an attempt to discover the secret behind the trick. However, when the girls that appear to die on stage actually begin to turn up dead in reality, Edmund is plunged into a nightmarish world of dismemberment, psychotropic drugs, and deceit from which he cannot escape.

Although director Jeremy Kasten's unusual approach at first seems to be paying off, delivering some truly weird sequences and a genuinely disturbing atmosphere, as the film progresses, he eventually loses control over proceedings and the film becomes something of an unfathomable disaster. Glover does what Glover does best—act bloody strange—which is perfect for his part, and he is ably supported by a great cast which includes cult actor Joshua Miller, and horror favourites Jeffrey Combs and Brad Dourif. However, with such a difficult to follow plot, not even their presence can save The Wizard of Gore from failure (hell, even loads of nasty deaths with graphic splatter and full frontal female nudity don't stop this one from being a disappointment).

The idea of remaking the classic 1970 Herschell Gordon Lewis movie "The Wizard of Gore" did have potential. But in its actual execution, this remake fails in just about every way you can think of. True, Crispin Glover does add a little life into his scenes, and the movie does boast some okay gore sequences. Other than those things, I can't think of anything positive to say about the movie. It's terribly shot, looking like it was photographed with a camcorder and with extremely bad lighting. (And just about every shot of the movie has the camera at an odd tilt.) The lead character is annoying and unsympathetic. And the story moves at a crawl, and often doesn't make that much sense. The movie is so bad at times that one could almost swear that the filmmakers were trying to do as bad a job as possible. Like when it comes to most remakes, stick with the original.

I haven't seen the original HG Lewis film this is based on, but his reputation as a PT Barnum of basement-bargain schlock could not prepare me for this. It is actually a clever self-referential movie about horror, and I reckon we haven't had one that cuts as incisively in what it means to want to see beyond the pale since Peeping Tom.

It's a simple idea, very smart; a magician who every night stages a different horror movie, but always the one we paid to see. He purports to offer us a glimpse of our insides, quite literally so, but of course we can wave it away as a trick of smoke and mirrors. The gruesome event is framed, thus obscured, reversed, in a smoke mirror.

His victims, always females, he seems to select from a nearby stripping joint. The girls are again stripped naked for a paying audience. So the fantasy about the naked flesh is transferred from one place inside another, except now as meant to dispel the safety of illusions.

All of this is being investigated by a guy who dresses up like a reporter or private dick from the 40's, he's into it for the scoop. He assembles together the plot that we see, doing the detective work for us like in a Philip Marlow film.

It should have been really good by all accounts, the material is at least right. What appears the incomprehensible rumblings of a feverish mind - our reporter is under the grip of a powerful hallucinogen - makes sense if we understand what side of the mirror we're looking from.

So of course the magician is the trick, the stage of illusions supplied by the mind. It vindicates the destructive impulses that we come to know he harbors in reality, allowing the unspeakable to be articulated as a show. However madly. It's all an essay on the machinations that take place inside from our position as horror viewers.

What lets it down for me is first the haphazard technique, a lot of dutch angles for no reason - but which of course the filmmaker would justify as reflecting a skewed state of mind -, I can look past this, and second the desire to pursue clues right to the end in an effort to piece together for us 'what really happened'. Sooner or later this type of fictions must probe into the nature of abstractions, the film has its work already laid out with the stageshow, it's a perfect allusion to what we are watching from our end, the trick with smoke and mirrors, yet goes on to dangle a piece of string in our faces.

So, in 20 words or less: imagine Naked Lunch re-assembled as a lengthy Masters of Horror episode - the murky colors, the hard lights and DV look - by a filmmaker with aspirations to articulate in feverish weirdness a little of what he has seen from Lynch or Greenaway.

It may not look that way, but it's actually one of the more interesting straight-out horror films of the last 10 years.