Beyond Evil

I first noticed the lovely "Linda Day George" in "Pieces" where she made bad-horror-movie history by screaming "BASTARRRRDS!" three times in a row to riotous effect. She's not as overtly hilarious here (in fact, it appears she was probably a decent actor, generally) but she's really the only reason I could recommend this relatively average flick. She rolls her eyes, runs around with an over-sized finger (don't ask!) and, while possessed, does some seductive things. I knew it would be a fun movie during a scene early on where she walked around her apartment, anxious about the rain outside, then finally threw her things down and yelled, "DAMN!" with what seemed like every emotive power she ever learned in acting school! Strassberg would've been proud. And I can't look away! Linda had some great moments later too, but that single moment was the most (unintentionally) funny.

Another nice surprise, during the opening credits I heard this overwrought, sweeping score with lots of strings and lots of starts-and-stops...I thought, "My this sounds like Pino Donaggio!" And it turned out it was! Another satisfying score from the almost-always dependable Pino, who appears to be the busiest composer in history. Most of his usual touches are here--great chase music, an achingly beautiful "love theme" and a finale that leaves you feeling somehow sentimental even if the movie was total crap.

Which this one pretty much was. John Saxon is great--especially kicking ass and going, "Stay!" to a would be attacker. He's cool and this film didn't hurt him a bit, thankfully. Otherwise there's not much here in this "would-be" giallo: **a crossed-eyed ghost woman with green laser eyes **no sex and minimal gore, although what there is was pleasantly repulsive **terrible effects **slow pace **sloppy editing **plots stolen from "Amityville," "Exorcist," "Beyond The Door" and especially "Suspiria," and **no surprises, really. It DOES have some hilariously bad deaths though, if you're in the mood, which I usually am, and if you can stay awake. The death of a guy in a "posessed" car that's barely moving is not to be missed--especially when he spontaneously explodes into fire, but continues to scream! I don't know who Herb Freed was or why he was making cheap horror movies, but this is not the WORST movie ever. Keep the fast-forward button handy and this is an enjoyable piece of mind-sludge.

This is a fabulous low-budget chiller that features a great collection of energetic and enthusiastic actors--there are literally no bad performances anywhere--and showcases steady, focused direction of the kind that movies with ten times the budget are often lacking.

On the downside, the film features some rather laughable visible effects. In most cases, the filmmakers seemed to be aware that their budget limited what they could do--and they got by quite effectively with creative lighting, fog machines, jump-cuts, and other inexpensive movie gimmicks--but then they also decided to do some animation effects. These were passable when all they were used for were to illustrate whenever the ghost was up to something evil, but when they started showing laser beams shooting from the eyes of the possessed Barbara, the animation went from cheap-looking to ridiculous.

Despite the occasional special effects missteps, "Beyond Evil" is mostly a competently executed haunted house/possession flick. It sags a bit in the middle--where the voodoo queen flexes her supernatural muscle and things get a bit repetitive as Larry tries to convince the increasingly strange Barbara to seek medical help--but for the most part it remains an engrossing little movie that's worth a look.

Genre favorites John Saxon and Lynda Day George star as a couple who move to the Philippines where they purchase a grand colonial mansion. Life seems great, but it turns out the house was built by a husband and wife who killed one another. The wife was an occultist, and she still happens to be looking for a living vessel to inhabit.

This kitschy supernatural horror movie takes cues from "The Exorcist" and a spat of other similar films, and predates "Mausoleum," which has a similar tone and premise. The good is that it has some nice cinematography, and there are a few moments throughout that evoke a sense of creepiness; Saxon and George are awoken in the middle of the night to odd voices; he finds her idly meditating over a fire in the fireplace; she sees the ghost of the deceased female occultist trying to possess her. The cinematography is also top-notch, especially for a low-budget feature.

The bad? The screenplay is rote in its procession. Saxon's character goes back and forth from his architect job, while George's character experiences increasingly odd supernatural experiences. A subplot involving a medicine man who lives next-door is woven in, and he is a source of all the knowledge regarding possession and the evil spirit in the couple's mansion. These events play out in a manner that is rather dull and predictable, and there isn't enough connective tissue to bind them together. The performances from Saxon and George do help amplify the proceedings, and both give admirable efforts in a screenplay that gives them limited options.

In the end, "Beyond Evil" is a slightly amusing genre picture (several reviewers have commented on the dated special effects, which are actually not all that terrible in comparison to other films of this ilk), but it does feel largely underwhelming. The horror scenes, when present, are well-executed, but the rote unspooling of the story leaves the film feeling by-the-numbers. There are no real surprises to be had here, but if you are willing to accept that, it is a notch above the standard television horror flick of its era. 5/10.

I am a sincere horror movie fan. As such, I am extremely forgiving—indeed, my friends would argue I have no standards at all. To shake up this dynamic even more, there is a class of film that forgiving fans feel compelled to huddle around and protect because these "works of art" are so obviously vulnerable to attack—mostly because they suck in every way imaginable. Remember Robert Culp crazily running around naked in "A Name for Evil?" (Whoever says anything nice about "A Name for Evil?") Remember a coiffed Richard Moll attempting to navigate the discontinuity in "The Nightmare Never Ends?" (What dozen or so people ever bothered watching "The Nightmare Never Ends" in its entirety?) How about Trish Van Devere flitting about the badly lit sets in her housecoat in "The Hearse?" Technically, these films are inconceivably bad, plain and simple. They never really gel; they don't scare; the characters are flat or unconvincing; the lighting is poor; the sound is cacophonous; the plot convoluted. These movies always seem to be a collection of medium-range shots pasted haphazardly together—not an interesting angle or lighting effect to be found. These films don't even fall into the clichéd "so bad they're good" class of films.

In my mind, films like "A Name for Evil" are "TV quality" films (if we are talking TV quality of about 30 years ago, of course). In fact, the most effective way to turn me off from wanting to watch any film is by telling me it is of average TV quality. To me, that means artless, white-washed, vanilla, predictable, flat. I'm immediately disinterested.

Having said that, films like "The Hearse" and "Nightmare Never Ends" and even "A Name for Evil" almost supernaturally, are imbued with something greater than the sum of their parts. In the minds and hearts of truly forgiving horror movie fans, these films hold a place that they do not deserve; there's something about the "idea" of the movie—not borne out by the reality of the film itself—that exerts an inexplicable power. I guess what I'm saying is that these movies are never as good as the ideas behind them; but for some reason I, as viewer, seem to remember and connect with the idea, rather than the movie. Call me insane, but it is almost as if the movie doesn't matter. For example, when I spy the DVD cover of "Horror Planet" on my shelf, I think of the "idea" of the film fondly—even though I never really want to watch the film a second time because it is so poorly executed. I imbue it with a power it doesn't really have. And I'm fascinated by that interaction. Maybe I'm just nuts.

Now, having said all that, I'm not sure "Beyond Evil" quite makes it into that mysterious class of films. The ideas in this film (not the film itself) try damn hard to work their way into my subconscious…but ultimately the flick fails in that regard. The acting is adequate, even adequately inspired at times. The music by Donaggio is adequate. The plot is okay. But when it comes right down to it, I think there are three specific things that ultimately do this movie in—things that are so completely distracting, I can't even love the idea of this film, let alone the film itself:

1. Could You Repeat That Please: The film takes place in a large mansion, mostly. Here we get the "one Radio Shack mic placed in the middle of the cacophonous room" effect—often with more than one person speaking at the same time. Remember the award-winning audio in films like "The Ghosts of Hanley House?" Terribly distracting. As someone else also said, this movie is evidence why filming in front of an airport is not such a good idea—did you catch that dialog? I didn't. Planes are loud and noisy. Someone tell the director.

2. The Editor Fell Asleep at the Cutting Wheel: Something bizarre happens in the last 15 minutes of this movie (referring to the UK PAL R2 DVD). Suddenly parts of the film disappear—there are plot elements you KNOW occurred, you'd bet your paycheck on it, but they've been sliced to the point where the narrative starts to literally come apart at the seams. Once again, I am a forgiving fan here and can even appreciate discontinuity on some artful level. But this isn't epileptic enough to be interesting or keep me off balance. No, it's just that somebody let the scissors slip a few times, and the film falls apart—literally—in the last few frames. Why oh why?

3. Attack of the Special Effects: The effects in this movie, as other reviewers have adequately illustrated, are atrocious. Remember, I am a forgiving fan—probably much more forgiving than you are. But when you see something so low--that you start to think you might actually have standards of some kind—you know you've hit rock bottom. The effects are really at rock bottom. They are so bad, they chew into the narrative. While watching, I was having a conversation with myself (as the movie progressed) about how the ghost of the former owner of the mansion could have been presented so much better, and so much more simply. Glowing green laser beam eyeballs. Awful, awful, awful. The silly superimposition of the ghost character that suddenly blinks into life on a dark space in the picture's frame. Awful, awful, awful. I think of all the scary movies I've seen where ghosts were presented simply and interestingly and frighteningly without a special effect to be found. Why would adequate-director-Herb-Freed make such a bad, bad decision?

So there you have it. An unforgivable "TV Quality" movie where ultimately the ideas don't even float to the top. Too bad, too bad.

This is really quite an awful movie, but there are a number of moments when it is so awful you can't help but laugh. See the badly animated green laser eyes! See the car which explodes before hitting the ground! Hear the man explain to his wife that the accident at work occurred when a crane "came out of nowhere!" I definitely recommend this film if you like bad movies.