barugon

I was permanently scarred by this terrible film.

The main action of the movie is nothing special. It seems there's a tribe of snake-worshipping people in a remote mountain region of Northern China, where women rather than men are the leaders and decision makers. I suppose among some men, this is enough to make "Succubare" a horror movie... Anyway, occasionally Chinese men would wander into the village, take a fancy to the local girls, seduce them and then abandon them. Unfortunately for the men, the women had put them under a spell, derived from snake venom, which would make them die horribly in 100 days -- their bellies swollen like a pregnant woman's with live worms and snakes -- if they did not return.

Forget the cover of the US video. This has nothing to do with vampires, though there is one inept blood-drinking scene. The title itself is only marginally appropriate: "Succubare" is the Latin verb meaning "to lie beneath", and it's the root of the word Succubus, a female demon who would seduce men in their sleep. Actually, it's the MEN who are the seducers here.

But it's not the main action of this ludicrous film that's so objectionable. It's the little side-incidents. I'll overlook the slaughter and butchery of an ox that's performed on-screen. The participants seem very experienced, as though this is an unpleasant duty they actually do in real life; and I'm sure they really ate the animal afterwards... though I resent having the act thrust in my face as "entertainment".

What I WISH I could overlook (or HAD overlooked) are the numerous, totally extraneous shots of an unidentified man, who from time to time interrupts the story by eating living animals. He starts the movie by tearing apart a live snake with his teeth. In the course of the movie, he devours a bug, a lizard, a toad (I had to leave the room after this), and a whole mouse (I stopped watching at this point, and lost my appetite for days). Let me stress that this was totally unexpected, and had nothing to do with the movie... unless it's a cynical reference to love as it's portrayed in the film: a blind, selfish, predatory survival mechanism that tears apart the helpless... but then again, I'm probably just rationalizing to get the vileness out of my head...

I thought this was a really enjoyable movie, though aimed very much at kids. It reminded me of the old-style Gamera flicks, but with an important difference: the kid-heros behaved much more like real children than the insufferable brats of 60's monster movies.

However, my adult-brain has some reservations about it. Most of all, I found the inevitable "what I learned from the Monster" message appalling: the kids suggest it's best not to know too much, and much better to stay uninformed and let God straighten everything out. That's probably not the interpretation the film-makers wanted, but I thought that was what came across, loud and clear.

Another problem -- less serious and actually kind of endearing -- is the poverty of the special effects. Oh, don't get me wrong: some of the effects are first rate, especially those involving Mothra's transformations; and the matte shots are way ahead of the first "Mothra" (1996), where I found myself thinking of bad 70's sci-fi. But I've never seen more visible wire-work outside of a Full Moon picture. Otherwise impressive shots of Dagahrla streaking through the skies are ruined by the obvious cables running from its back. Then there's the Gogo, that bizarre Furby-like creature that creates miracles by peeing on things... even when you can't see the wire attached to his head, you just KNOW it's there.

Much more fun and far less ponderous than some of the later Godzilla flicks, this movie will appeal to anyone who has a lingering affection for the old Gamera movies, shortcomings and all. Just try not to think about it too much...

SUSPIRIA was greater than the sum of its parts. Not so INFERNO. Individual moments burn their way into the imagination -- in particular the underwater ballroom. But for everything that works, there are two scenes that fall flat: the eclipse sequence, for example, ends in unintentional comedy; and when Mater Tenebrarum revealed herself in her true form at the end, I had to keep rewinding the tape because I couldn't believe the effect was as badly done as it had seemed. Unlike SUSPIRIA, INFERNO doesn't go anywhere: Mark is an ineffectual voyeur, not a participant in the story, and his release in the end doesn't carry any emotional weight.

In spite of my joy at seeing a musicologist put through all the pains of Hell, I was disappointed by INFERNO. Argento should really have read his de Quincey a little more carefully. De Quincey's Three Mothers aren't evil witches, but personifications of sorrow, grief and loss -- strong, true, overwhelmingly important emotions which are conspicuously lacking in INFERNO. Oh, come on, Dario -- Mater Lachrymarum shows up as a fashion model type, complete with backlighting, wind-blown hair and a cat. Mark is surrounded by killings, including that of his own sister, and he seems completely untouched by it. Then Mater Tenebrarum turns into a cartoon of Death and goes, "Booga booga!" This is trivial stuff, no matter how beautifully filmed.