Incubus

There are many worse horror movies out there! Thank God most of them don't get saddled with John Cassavettes in the cast. This film suffers from his underwhelming acting. From his expression alone you are never sure if he is appalled by the bizarre violence that continues throughout the film or is just amused by it. The story itself is not a bad one but a better director could not have hurt.

I have to admit I was drawn back to this film after years of searching because the Library/Museum in the story, with it's Gothic look that might have come straight out of Lovecraft has always stuck in my mind. And there is enough true mystery involved to make you keep wondering who the culprit really is up to the final; moment. I wouldn't eat a lot of greasy popcorn while watching this one.

In a small Wisconsin town a series of aggressive rapes and bloody murders plague the community with the police authorities baffled to who or what is responsible. The local, drained-out Dr. Cordell is called upon to examine the bodies when they start to pile up. He is basically a newcomer to the town, along with his teenage daughter. His daughter's boyfriend is having terrible nightmares that he believes are connected to the brutal deaths and this leads Cordell to the conclusion that they are facing a supernatural threat.

There are some deft touches evident, but what foils this luridly, glum Canadian B-grade shocker is that it's criminally, under-developed. Even though it's compelling, it could have been so much more, but in the end it's a basic routine format of a slasher flick with supernatural overtones that just sits there and turns into an incomplete muddle of who-ha. Just like a dream does, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense and the story fits that description. And for most time what a slow moving and quite uneventful exercise it was. The mysterious story, which is taken by Ray Russell's novel just, seems rather dead and irrational with little in the way of character and sub-plot developments. Also some strange occurrences pop up in the contexts that are never truly expanded on. But maybe that was the editing? These sudden offbeat interruptions involving nightmare sequences lack any sort of structure and the script lacks drive. There is some disquieting, hysterical and rather callous moments worked into the film, but they aren't terribly graphic and there's a small dosage of flesh included. The demonic spirit; The Incubus is mostly kept off screen when it attacks its victims, until it finally shows in a couple of frames in the final few minutes of the film. The design of the monster looked top-notch. When it does come to it's conclusion, it leaves you with a blank expression on your face and you going "Come again?" Quite like what Cassavetes looks like throughout most of the film. The performances teeter on plain drab or dramatically over-the-top. Kerrie Kane takes the cake on that latter point and John Cassavetes in the lead role seems really out-of-it and in a state of bemusement. He plays Dr. Cordell is such a weary state that he just feels distant and rather distracted to what's actually happening. The direction by John Hough is definitely the film's strong point with Hough creating a cold and dark heavy air that sucks the life out of the picture. A highly atmospheric and robust score surrounds proceedings adding to the nauseating awe and the racy soundtrack harps on. On the surface the film's slick photography has a wide range of inventive shots and arty angles. Visually it looked well with many solid techniques integrated into this production, despite some cheap fumbles.

"Incubus" has an interestingly foreboding set-up with a decent looking production, but sloppy handling within the material and out-of-sorts performances bring this one down to mediocre.

John Hough's horror films are a mixed bunch, but this one is far more interesting than its horrendous critical reception would suggest. It is ostensibly a detective story of a small town policeman (John Cassavetes) investigating a series of unusually vicious rape homicides. Hough uses the structure to raise some provocative questions about penetration as violation. Sex and violence as one, forged and bonded in repression, resentment, sadism and envy.

The film is riddled with hints of the incestuous desire the protagonist has for his daughter. Hough thus plays with audience identification, seeking to implicate the viewer in a repulsive sexuality which, in a graphic morgue-table scene of a naked female cadaver, extends to incorporate necrophilia. The otherwise conventional plot is spiced up by a contemplation of p.o.v. as moderating aberrant sexuality. No wonder that critics and audiences found the film overly offensive and distasteful. Undeterred, Hough would treat similar themes in his equally maligned "American Gothic".

Graphic, contemplative and unrelenting in its bleakly oppressive visual style, this is a disturbing film experience: one of the more confrontational of taboo-breakers dealing with the always problematic theme of sexual homicide.

Intriguingly enough, the film has some elements in common with Wes Craven's "Deadly Blessing" released around the same time, and dealing with sex crime, isolated communities, deceptive innocence, female independence and role expectations, and the other-worldly demon, the Incubus.

I saw this movie about three years ago on a defective rental tape, and I must say that I was shocked. I was shocked at how a film dealing with supernatural rape and mutilation can be so...conventional! Yes, you read it right. When the screen isn't gushing blood at regular intervals, the movie is actually a run-of-the-mill slasher-mystery, with stilted dialogue and unimaginative presentation (though the movie-theater sequence shows some flair). And talk about your surprise endings!

The acting is bland; even John Cassavetes (who I guess had some bills to pay that month) seems preoccupied. In fact, despite the aforementioned brutality, the production seems altogether too restrained. It's as if, despite the lurid subject matter, the filmmakers didn't want to make an exploitation picture--even though they can't make the material work on any other level. As a result, the more sensationalistic elements are balanced out by indifferent "human drama" involving a bunch of not-very-interesting characters. The occasional stabs at depth ("I don't WANT tenderness!") range from just plain ineffective to full-out laughable. But the final product (which cost more than you might think) isn't laughable, but merely mediocre. It did have potential, but instead it just sort of...is.

I picked up this one solely on the basis of its having John Cassavetes in it. Yes, it is low-budget, but despite that -- or maybe because of it -- the film is surprisingly effective. It's creepy. There's some gore but the slicing & dicing is almost all off-camera. With the exception of one scene about mid-movie, we don't see any of it. That works to make the movie more eerie -- we aren't distracted by the gross-out effect.

Cassavetes shows his talent -- he can make the worst dialogue sound believable. Unfortunately, the side effect of this is to make his coworkers sound even worse than they might have. Because a lot of the dialogue in this movie does stink out loud. On the other hand, there were a number of interesting scenes where you expected someone to break out in positively bad, cliched dialogue and instead -- nothing was said.

Others have commented on the creepiness of the doctor's quasi-incestuous relation with his daughter. It's all true. In fact, it was so blatant I was shocked that it would even get onto the screen. That kind of behavior is something that almost never gets shown.

Summary: good if you want to see a creepy movie with a great actor and lots of strange things going on. Not great art but worth a look.