Connect with us

Editorials

The Invisible Man Laid the Groundwork for Truly Evil Movie Villains

Published

on

Some (invisible) men just want to watch the world burn.

With the 1923 release of The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Universal Studios began its reign as the leading purveyor of horror cinema, soon thereafter introducing a roster of movie monsters that will forever be the most iconic of all time. Some of the characters were wholly original creations while others were based on earlier literature, but there’s no denying that none of them would exist, as we know them today, if not for Universal bringing them to life on the silver screen. The Universal Monsters, it goes without saying, paved the way for all horror movie monsters we’ve seen since.

If there’s any commonality that links the majority of the Universal Monsters it’s that they are, at the end of the day, tragic figures. Quasimodo, the Phantom, Imhotep, Frankenstein’s monster, the Creature, and Larry Talbot can all be considered reluctant monsters, and one could argue that even Dracula, though decidedly more sinister than the others, does what he does because he has to do it in order to survive. Universal’s monsters were often cursed by forces beyond their control, their terrifying outward appearances masking the sadness and sympathetic humanity that lie just underneath the scary exteriors.

But not all of the Universal Monsters were created equal.

After helming Frankenstein and before giving it a sequel with The Bride of Frankenstein, director James Whale introduced The Invisible Man in 1933, based on H.G. Wells’ same-named novel from decades prior. The oddball horror-comedy, most notable for its groundbreaking special effects, centers on Dr. Jack Griffin, a chemist whose dangerous experiments with a drug called monocane have resulted in him literally becoming invisible. Though he at first sets out to find a cure, he soon realizes that his newly-acquired superpower makes life a whole lot more enjoyable.

Being bad? Turns out it feels pretty damn good.

There’s of course something inherently tragic about an experiment going wrong and transforming an ordinary man into a mad monster, but when it comes to Jack Griffin, he’s not exactly a tragic figure. As portrayed by a then-unknown Claude Rains, the titular Invisible Man is a maniacal sociopath who relishes being evil and doing terrible things, laughing wildly as he derails a passenger train, pushes over a baby carriage, and just generally wreaks havoc on a world that he feels jilted by. He’s simultaneously the most human and most monstrous of the Universal Monsters, racking up the highest body count of them all and, unlike the others, thoroughly enjoying the “curse” he’s been saddled with.

An invisible man can rule the world,” Griffin excitedly exclaims. “Nobody will see him come, nobody will see him go. He can hear every secret. He can rob, and rape, and kill!

Thanks to Rains’ brilliantly unhinged performance, the invisible Jack Griffin is without question the most flamboyant monster in Universal’s stable, and watching the film today, it’s hard not to view the character as the prototype for a whole new breed of movie villain that came in the wake of Universal’s “golden age.” Cracking wise, singing, dancing, and deriving such a sick sense of pleasure from killing that you can’t help but be entertained by his particular brand of evil, the Invisible Man was the first monster to fully embrace being a monster, and it’s this character trait that made the 1933 film quite a few years ahead of its time.

Villains in modern cinema are often the most charismatic characters in their respective movies, and in that realm, the Invisible Man predates fan-favorite icons like Freddy Krueger and Captain Spaulding by so many years that their origins can at least be loosely traced back to the path Whale and Rains carved way back in the early ’30s. Even Heath Ledger’s portrayal of the Joker, as many fans have noted, seems to have been informed by the gleeful sense of killing-for-the-fun-of-it that made the Invisible Man such a different and unique villain in the Universal Monsters oeuvre.

At a time when movie monsters were reserved and downright reluctant to be, well, monsters, Jack Griffin’s comically over-the-top approach to villainy must’ve been a breath of fresh air when the film came out, and it feels right at home with today’s crop of wicked evil-doers. Whale broke the mold, and he did it in such a way that makes The Invisible Man a classic horror movie that feels surprisingly modern when watched in the present day, well over 80 years after its initial release.

If there’s one Universal monster movie that demands a revisit, it may be this one.

the invisible man

Writer in the horror community since 2008. Editor in Chief of Bloody Disgusting. Owns Eli Roth's prop corpse from Piranha 3D. Has four awesome cats. Still plays with toys.

Editorials

‘Amityville Karen’ Is a Weak Update on ‘Serial Mom’ [Amityville IP]

Published

on

Amityville Karen horror

Twice a month Joe Lipsett will dissect a new Amityville Horror film to explore how the “franchise” has evolved in increasingly ludicrous directions. This is “The Amityville IP.”

A bizarre recurring issue with the Amityville “franchise” is that the films tend to be needlessly complicated. Back in the day, the first sequels moved away from the original film’s religious-themed haunted house storyline in favor of streamlined, easily digestible concepts such as “haunted lamp” or “haunted mirror.”

As the budgets plummeted and indie filmmakers capitalized on the brand’s notoriety, it seems the wrong lessons were learned. Runtimes have ballooned past the 90-minute mark and the narratives are often saggy and unfocused.

Both issues are clearly on display in Amityville Karen (2022), a film that starts off rough, but promising, and ends with a confused whimper.

The promise is embodied by the tinge of self-awareness in Julie Anne Prescott (The Amityville Harvest)’s screenplay, namely the nods to John Waters’ classic 1994 satire, Serial Mom. In that film, Beverly Sutphin (an iconic Kathleen Turner) is a bored, white suburban woman who punished individuals who didn’t adhere to her rigid definition of social norms. What is “Karen” but a contemporary equivalent?

In director/actor Shawn C. Phillips’ film, Karen (Lauren Francesca) is perpetually outraged. In her introductory scenes, she makes derogatory comments about immigrants, calls a female neighbor a whore, and nearly runs over a family blocking her driveway. She’s a broad, albeit familiar persona; in many ways, she’s less of a character than a caricature (the living embodiment of the name/meme).

These early scenes also establish a fairly straightforward plot. Karen is a code enforcement officer with plans to shut down a local winery she has deemed disgusting. They’re preparing for a big wine tasting event, which Karen plans to ruin, but when she steals a bottle of cursed Amityville wine, it activates her murderous rage and goes on a killing spree.

Simple enough, right?

Unfortunately, Amityville Karen spins out of control almost immediately. At nearly every opportunity, Prescott’s screenplay eschews narrative cohesion and simplicity in favour of overly complicated developments and extraneous characters.

Take, for example, the wine tasting event. The film spends an entire day at the winery: first during the day as a band plays, then at a beer tasting (???) that night. Neither of these events are the much touted wine-tasting, however; that is actually a private party happening later at server Troy (James Duval)’s house.

Weirdly though, following Troy’s death, the party’s location is inexplicably moved to Karen’s house for the climax of the film, but the whole event plays like an afterthought and features a litany of characters we have never met before.

This is a recurring issue throughout Amityville Karen, which frequently introduces random characters for a scene or two. Karen is typically absent from these scenes, which makes them feel superfluous and unimportant. When the actress is on screen, the film has an anchor and a narrative drive. The scenes without her, on the other hand, feel bloated and directionless (blame editor Will Collazo Jr., who allows these moments to play out interminably).

Compounding the issue is that the majority of the actors are non-professionals and these scenes play like poorly performed improv. The result is long, dull stretches that features bad actors talking over each other, repeating the same dialogue, and generally doing nothing to advance the narrative or develop the characters.

While Karen is one-note and histrionic throughout the film, at least there’s a game willingness to Francesca’s performance. It feels appropriately campy, though as the film progresses, it becomes less and less clear if Amityville Karen is actually in on the joke.

Like Amityville Cop before it, there are legit moments of self-awareness (the Serial Mom references), but it’s never certain how much of this is intentional. Take, for example, Karen’s glaringly obvious wig: it unconvincingly fails to conceal Francesca’s dark hair in the back, but is that on purpose or is it a technical error?

Ultimately there’s very little to recommend about Amityville Karen. Despite the game performance by its lead and the gentle homages to Serial Mom’s prank call and white shoes after Labor Day jokes, the never-ending improv scenes by non-professional actors, the bloated screenplay, and the jittery direction by Phillips doom the production.

Clocking in at an insufferable 100 minutes, Amityville Karen ranks among the worst of the “franchise,” coming in just above Phillips’ other entry, Amityville Hex.

Amityville Karen

The Amityville IP Awards go to…

  • Favorite Subplot: In the afternoon event, there’s a self-proclaimed “hot boy summer” band consisting of burly, bare-chested men who play instruments that don’t make sound (for real, there’s no audio of their music). There’s also a scheming manager who is skimming money off the top, but that’s not as funny.
  • Least Favorite Subplot: For reasons that don’t make any sense, the winery is also hosting a beer tasting which means there are multiple scenes of bartender Alex (Phillips) hoping to bring in women, mistakenly conflating a pint of beer with a “flight,” and goading never before seen characters to chug. One of them describes the beer as such: “It looks like a vampire menstruating in a cup” (it’s a gold-colored IPA for the record, so…no).
  • Amityville Connection: The rationale for Karen’s killing spree is attributed to Amityville wine, whose crop was planted on cursed land. This is explained by vino groupie Annie (Jennifer Nangle) to band groupie Bianca (Lilith Stabs). It’s a lot of nonsense, but it is kind of fun when Annie claims to “taste the damnation in every sip.”
  • Neverending Story: The film ends with an exhaustive FIVE MINUTE montage of Phillips’ friends posing as reporters in front of terrible green screen discussing the “killer Karen” story. My kingdom for Amityville’s regular reporter Peter Sommers (John R. Walker) to return!
  • Best Line 1: Winery owner Dallas (Derek K. Long), describing Karen: “She’s like a walking constipation with a hemorrhoid”
  • Best Line 2: Karen, when a half-naked, bleeding woman emerges from her closet: “Is this a dream? This dream is offensive! Stop being naked!”
  • Best Line 3: Troy, upset that Karen may cancel the wine tasting at his house: “I sanded that deck for days. You don’t just sand a deck for days and then let someone shit on it!”
  • Worst Death: Karen kills a Pool Boy (Dustin Clingan) after pushing his head under water for literally 1 second, then screeches “This is for putting leaves on my plants!”
  • Least Clear Death(s): The bodies of a phone salesman and a barista are seen in Karen’s closet and bathroom, though how she killed them are completely unclear
  • Best Death: Troy is stabbed in the back of the neck with a bottle opener, which Karen proceeds to crank
  • Wannabe Lynch: After drinking the wine, Karen is confronted in her home by Barnaby (Carl Solomon) who makes her sign a crude, hand drawn blood contract and informs her that her belly is “pregnant from the juices of his grapes.” Phillips films Barnaby like a cross between the unhoused man in Mulholland Drive and the Mystery Man in Lost Highway. It’s interesting, even if the character makes absolutely no sense.
  • Single Image Summary: At one point, a random man emerges from the shower in a towel and excitedly poops himself. This sequence perfectly encapsulates the experience of watching Amityville Karen.
  • Pray for Joe: Many of these folks will be back in Amityville Shark House and Amityville Webcam, so we’re not out of the woods yet…

Next time: let’s hope Christmas comes early with 2022’s Amityville Christmas Vacation. It was the winner of Fangoria’s Best Amityville award, after all!

Amityville Karen movie

Continue Reading