Editorials
Time to Revisit… ‘Joshua’
The latest in my series taking a look at under-appreciated genre films puts the spotlight on George Ratliff’s evil-child flick Joshua, a 2007 indie that was unceremoniously dumped into 150 theaters by Fox Searchlight before quietly hitting the DVD market. As opposed to 2009’s similar Orphan, which enjoyed an illustrious wide release and considerable marketing push from Warner Bros., Joshua has been unjustly relegated to “also-ran” status despite the fact that it’s every bit as effective as its bigger-budgeted counterpart.
Take a trip with me now as I compare and contrast the two killer-tyke flicks (both starring Vera Farmiga!) and make a case for Joshua as a more than worthy entry in the enduring “bad seed” sub-genre that deserves a revisit.
Beloved Favorite: Orphan (2009)
Number of votes on IMDB: 32,949
The Plot: The 9-year-old adopted daughter of a suburban couple who recently lost a baby begins exhibiting sociopathic behavior.
Why it’s so celebrated: Ok, perhaps “celebrated” isn’t exactly the right adjective for Orphan (it’s a bit too early to make that pronouncement for a film that’s less than two years old), but it’s certainly well-liked by many horror fans and managed to rack up a decent $42 million at the domestic box-office and another $13 million or so in DVD sales. While it doesn’t hurt that the film was heavily-hyped by Warner Bros., it’s nevertheless a very good “evil child” flick, slickly executed by House of Wax director Jaume Collet-Serra and well-acted by leads Vera Farmiga, Peter Sarsgaard and newcomer Isabelle Fuhrman as the sadistic Esther. It’s also admired by hardcore horror buffs for not holding back on the violence, featuring as it does a couple of pretty nifty kills.
Why it’s time to back-burner it for awhile: I’m actually glad that Orphan got as much attention as it did – it’s a good film that more or less fulfilled the promise that Collet-Serra had earlier shown with his House of Wax remake. But with its big-budget studio marketing push, glossy production values and release in nearly 3,000 theaters, the film already had its moment in the sun. And besides, there’s another “demon-seed” movie starring Vera Farmiga that also deserves a little attention…
Underappreciated Also-Ran: Joshua (2007)
Number of votes on IMDB: 5,614
The Plot: The 9-year-old son of a big-city couple who recently welcomed a new baby begins exhibiting sociopathic behavior.
Why it’s not so celebrated: Unlike Orphan, Joshua is imbued with an art house sensibility that doesn’t make it a natural fit for mainstream audiences. Made independently by director George Ratliff and premiering at the 2007 Sundance Film Festival, the film was picked up for a reported $4 million by Fox Searchlight, which then proceeded to dump it into 150 theaters or so before tossing it off onto DVD. While the film does have its fans and garnered generally positive reviews on release, it disappeared from theaters so quickly one could be forgiven for mistaking it as a direct-to-video title.
Why it deserves a revisiting: Joshua is a genuinely disturbing, understated gem that plays like a cerebral cousin of the more traditional Orphan (which, despite that nifty third-act twist, hits on all the standard tropes in its first 90 minutes). While the latter film essentially functions as a high-gloss rollercoaster ride, Joshua is a low-register mood piece that switches out Orphan‘s conventional histrionics for a deep sense of unease. The acting is first-rate, with newcomer Jacob Kogan giving a solid performance as the oddly-formal child prodigy with designs on his post-partum mother’s fragile state of mind. As his hapless parents, Sam Rockwell and Vera Farmiga create a devastating portrait of a well-to-do couple saddled with the taboo conundrum of feeling no real affection for their android-like son. Ratliff saturates the film with an atmosphere of almost suffocating anxiety, best exemplified in a disturbing piano recital scene that ends with Joshua’s eerily atonal rendition of childhood classic Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star. The supremely eerie final scene will stay with you for days.
Editorials
‘Bloodstone: Subspecies II’ Revisited: A Bigger, Bolder Follow-Up to Full Moon’s Vampire Cult Classic
Horror sequels are a peculiar thing. In most cases, follow-ups to scary movies tend to retread the same formula with different victims and more over-the-top scares. This is because audiences tend to be more interested in the antagonists of these pictures than anything else, with even main characters becoming disposable when the time comes to produce a sequel.
That’s why some of the most memorable horror sequels are the ones that actually manage to hold onto interesting survivors from previous films while also pushing the story forward instead of having the same thing happen again to a different group of people. From Scream 2 to Dream Warriors (and arguably even The Exorcist III: Legion), there are quite a few of these innovative sequels to go around.
However, if there’s one franchise that deserves more attention when discussing bigger and better continuations that make the most of episodic filmmaking, it has to be Ted Nicolaou’s Subspecies.
The Full Moon classic spawned an indie horror icon, but bizarre sequel Bloodstone: Subspecies II is even more beloved than its predecessor.
Building a Bigger Vampire Saga

While the film itself takes place almost immediately after the events of the first movie, Bloodstone only entered production a couple of years after the release of the original as both Charles Band and Nicolaou weighed the pros and cons of returning to Romania to continue the series. In an effort to maximize efficiency, the team decided to invest in a trilogy where parts II and III, now fully written by Nicolaou, would be filmed simultaneously over the course of a single grueling shoot.
Much like the first Subspecies, Bloodstone’s low budget meant that the filmmakers once again had to cut corners and re-use as many of their resources as possible. Thankfully, the process was much easier this time around as Nicolaou, with the help of Romanian cinematographer Vlad Paunescu and his wife Oana, became more acquainted with local customs and made new friends. Shooting abroad still came with its own unique set of challenges due to a lack of translators and the occasional safety concerns, but the crew managed to make things work by filming things guerrilla-style and setting up shop in abandoned caves and real medieval ruins.
The director’s newfound contacts, coupled with the relative success of the first movie, meant that he was basically given free rein over an assortment of shooting locations usually considered off-limits for indie horror. That’s why Bloodstone features insanely ambitious lighting and effects work even during scenes shot in the middle of a bustling Bucharest. The filmmakers went so far as to project Radu’s Nosferatu-like shadows over local monuments as if he were a Romanian boogeyman, an idea that was actually encouraged by local cinephiles.
In fact, many of the more elaborate scenes here had originally been planned for the first movie before being discarded due to the lack of available resources. It was only with the support of Romanian fans and filmmakers that Bloodstone was able to give Radu a chance to be even more menacing the second time around.
Michelle’s Transformation Takes Center Stage

However, when it came to the American part of the crew, not everyone was able or willing to return for another round of Romanian adventuring. That’s why Radu’s human-loving half-brother Stefan (Michael Watson) is unceremoniously killed off at the beginning of the film while the role of Michelle had to be recast. Denice Duff took over for Laura Mae Tate, with the character now being joined by her sister, Rebecca, played by Melanie Shatner (yes, that Shatner).
In the finished film, we follow Michelle as she awakens to her new life as a vampire and discovers that Radu has murdered her lover. Struggling with grief and her newfound bloodlust, Michelle contacts her sister overseas, with Rebecca soon travelling to Romania on an ill-advised rescue mission. Meanwhile, Radu (Anders Hove) reaches out to his undead Mummy (Pamela Gordon, underneath heavy layers of impressive makeup effects) and promises to deliver her the coveted Bloodstone artifact while also making Michelle his eternal consort.
Revisiting the movie, I was impressed with how introspective this story is when compared to the original. The sequel assumes that you’re already familiar with the previously established characters, so the story wastes no time in exploring the immediate aftermath of the previous film’s events. From Michelle’s reluctant transformation into a creature of the night to Radu’s obvious mommy issues, Nicolaou is way more interested in pushing these characters into new and uncharted territory rather than recycling existing plot points.
Practical Effects and Gothic Atmosphere Still Impress

Yet, much like the first film, it’s Romania itself that makes the movie worth watching. The ruins of Castle Vladislav are even more majestic now, and visiting the moody streets of Bucharest with its surprisingly punk-rock nightlife made for a nice change of pace when compared to the original film’s quiet village setting. Once again, the abundance of interesting locations makes the movie feel much more expensive than it really is, with the filmmakers surrounding our characters with a living, breathing environment that would be impossible to recreate in a studio.
The increased freedom also allowed Nicolaou to flex his filmmaking muscles and tackle more ambitious blocking/composition in the sequel. The low budget and tropey script mean that the visuals don’t always work, but it’s consistently clear that this neo-expressionist style could only come from a passionate team attempting to pay homage to the shadowy horror classics of yesteryear. If the retro atmosphere isn’t enough for you, there’s enough practical gore here to satisfy even the most demanding of horror hounds!
Radu himself is also far more interesting now that Hove is more comfortable working alongside an international crew, with the actor having gone on record explaining that, while he spent more time drinking vodka than working while shooting the first movie, the sequel was a much more creatively satisfying experience for everyone involved. The character’s relationship with his abusive Mummy is also a highlight of the expanded mythology, especially since the practical effects that bring her to life are just as freaky now as they were back in ’93.
My only real gripe with the horror elements of the picture comes from the glaring absence of the diminutive stop-motion minions from the first film, though I guess the surprisingly entertaining addition of Professor Popescu (Michael Denish) and his archeological antics mostly make up for that.
Bloodstone: Subspecies II is obviously the middle chapter of a trilogy, with the ending feeling a lot less definitive than its predecessor as several plot threads are left to dangle in the wind, but I appreciate how the flick explores new ground while remaining faithful to nearly all the ideas that made the original such a good time. While I don’t think it’s as big of an improvement over the first movie as some fans make it out to be, Bloodstone is definitely worth revisiting if you’re a fan of old-fashioned vampire yarns.
Tune in next time for the thrilling conclusion to this initial trilogy, Bloodlust: Subspecies III!

You must be logged in to post a comment.