A Name for Evil

Robert Culp and Samantha Eggar high-tail it from the city into woodsy environs to oversee the renovation of their inherited historic house...a creepy, desolate lakeside place where shadowy phantoms cloaked in darkness whisper orders for the couple to depart.

That overview may sound simple enough, but don't be fooled...A NAME FOR EVIL presents more random points of aimless departure than one could possibly imagine. What results is a discursive, audience distancing clusterf--k, replete with earthy, post-psychedelic erotic inclivities. As stated by other reviewers, it's occasionally suggestive of modest professional contributions, chiefly in response to the cinematography and soundtrack, but despite these niceties, A NAME FOR EVIL remains a lead balloon of carelessly overburdened derangement which goes absolutely nowhere, and takes far too many side-roads getting there.

A metagrobolized rummage of wandering notions, stuffed into a hand-carried wet paper bag. 3.5/10

Perhaps it takes a certain kind of film viewer to appreciate the charms of A Name for Evil. As has been bemoaned by other reviewers, A Name for Evil has a disjointed story, a hippie orgy, and a full frontal sex scene with past his prime Robert Culp. Yet, for some viewers these eccentricities can be strengths. I have seen A Name for Evil twice now. I was not bored either time. The film kept me watching because, on the first viewing, I did not know what to expect next, and on the second viewing, I admired the film's mixtures of styles as a Gothic horror film is given early swinging seventies treatment, from Penthouse Films no less.

According to IMDb, A Name for Evil had a troubled production. It appears to this viewer that certain scenes were not shot, either because of time or because the filmmakers thought certain points were clearer than they were. However, the lack of a linear narrative does lend the film a certain disquieting mood, as the viewer is left almost as confused as Robert Culp's character.

There is a certain type of viewer who occasionally tires of professionally told plots and seeks out films not afraid to go off the rails, a viewer who loves when artiness is wedded to exploitation. All my years of watching Euro-horror, where plots did not matter as long as a scene was moody, surprising, or odd, has turned me into such a viewer. A Name for Evil surprises the viewer. From the opening credits over surreal paintings of twisted figures to the abrupt finale, A Name for Evil keeps the viewer off balance. I also think parts of it are well filmed. For instance, unlike one other reviewer, I find the underwater sex scene moody and hypnotic, having some of the off-kilter quality of Let's Scare Jessica to Death (another film I champion). Obviously, I cannot recommend A Name for Evil to most people, yet I will probably watch the film for a third time.

Like so many movies I've seen recently, A NAME FOR EVIL starts off promisingly but it quickly, and I mean QUICKLY, degenerates into a stunning mess. Once Robert Culp rides that horse and accidentally joins a a bunch of partying hippies who all shed their clothes and have an orgy all over the forest, the film self-destructs, literally. BOOM!!! The whole thing becomes stultifyingly, inexplicably bad. What were they thinking? The ending is the weirdest looking one I've ever seen (the whole moment of Samantha Eggar falling towards the ground). And the scene when Culp makes love under water has to be the worst conceived scene ever put on film. It's 100% fake looking. The film is very short (thank god), which only points out how the folks behind the camera had no idea what they were doing and wanted to end the whole thing fast.

But the odd thing about this seldom seen movie is that the cinematography is stunning. I love this kind of photography. As bad as everything else is in this disaster, I have to give credit to the DP. Had the cinematography been average or just bad, then I think I would qualify A NAME FOR EVIL as one of the worst films ever made.

The video box makes "A Name For Evil" look like an ordinary thriller but it's got a very distinct flavor to it. Robert Culp plays a man who gets fed up with the rat race and heads off with his wife (Samantha Eggar) to the forest to try to get himself back together. He soon begins having odd hallucinations. This is where the film comes into it's own. During the scenes in which Culp rides off on a white horse (the spirit of his grand-father) the film seems to become a bizarre nightmare. It gets hard to tell what is real and what is fantasy. It's almost like being on an acid trip. The film is disjointed and confusing at times which makes it annoying but the end result is a most unusual film that lingers in one's mind long after watching it.

Much has been made of this movie's 'plot', or lack of one. The white horse is just not scary! The hippy scenes are dated and unintentionally humorous (I guess hippies love noodles). It could easily qualify for a Mystery Science Theater 3000 feature. But I really enjoyed the first thirty minutes or so of this movie. I liked the intro, and the photography is great. The dilapitated house in what appears to be the middle of nowhere is one of the more interesting settings I've ever seen in a ghost film. I like the fact that the caretakers wanted it to rot away. If they stayed away from the counter-culture movement and focused soley on telling a ghost story it would have been a better film.