Connect with us

Editorials

‘Neon Maniacs’: An Underrated Gem That Deserved So Many Sequels

Published

on

If a horror movie came out in the 1980s, there’s a good chance it got a sequel or two. I’m not just talking about your Friday the 13ths or your Nightmares on Elm Street; those are obviously staples of the genre for the decade. I’m talking about House getting a Second Story. I’m talking about the Ghoulies going to college. I’m talking about Bud the C.H.U.D.

Sometimes, though, a horror movie that seemed like an obvious choice for a franchise wound up a one-and-done. One such movie is 1986’s Neon Maniacs. Despite a hook that could easily have extended through a series of sequels – mutant monsters, each with a different and specific design gimmick, appear from within the Golden Gate Bridge each night to prey on unsuspecting victims – the future of a Neon Maniacs franchise died after just a single entry. Made for a reported $1.5 million in 1984, the movie sat shelved for two years before playing in a handful of theaters; it appeared on video in 1987, where it found the majority of its audience… but even still today tends to fly under the radar.

I’m not making the case that Neon Maniacs should have had sequels because it’s a great horror movie. Frankly, it isn’t. There’s a ton of stuff to like about it, from the cool-sounding (if utterly meaningless) title to the brutal slaughter of a bunch of teenagers that basically opens the movie to a battle of the bands sequence that goes on for sooooo long to Paula, the young female sidekick who is another in a long tradition of ‘80s horror movie characters obsessed with monsters and horror movies. Neon Maniacs is the kind of horror movie that rarely makes any goddamn sense, but there’s enough cool stuff in the moment to make it stand out from the other movies of the period.

But if Neon Maniacs is such a nonsensical mess so much of the time (seriously, why would these mutants, who it turns out can only be killed by water, choose to live right on the San Francisco Bay?), why would I be surprised that it never got a sequel? The clearest answer is that lesser movies have gotten more, but that’s reductive. The next most obvious reason is that the film ends on a clear setup for a sequel. The monsters aren’t vanquished; in fact, we hardly know what happens to most of them. But the film’s final moments show a cop stumbling upon one of the surviving mutants and getting pulled into the back of an ambulance as he screams. The nightmare isn’t over. This is exactly the kind of cliffhanger that acted as the finale of a whole lot of ‘80s horror movies, many of which went on to spawn half a dozen installments.

But, of course, a cliffhanger ending does not guarantee a franchise, so it’s really the monsters themselves that ought to have created a demand for more Neon Maniacs movies. They’re part Cenobite, part Nightbreed, part Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle, each mutant monster with its own gimmick: there’s the samurai Neon Maniac and the surgeon Neon Maniac (played by Wishmaster’s Andrew Divoff!) and maybe a cop Neon Maniac? There’s one who looks like a Native American… I think? Then there are a couple I can’t possibly identify, like one that’s just a guy covered in blonde body hair and another one that’s like a miniature Cyclops Godzilla. The execution isn’t always perfect and some of the makeups haven’t aged that well, but the idea of all these mutant monsters is really cool and such an easy way to brand a franchise. With another two or three installments, we could all be talking about our favorite Neon Maniac in 2018. Hell, the movie even opens with a guy finding a bunch of what appear to be trading cards of each of the monsters. How they have trading cards of themselves I cannot possibly speculate – maybe one of the mutants has a marketing degree and another owns a printing press – but it speaks directly to the missed opportunity of bringing these characters back in future movies. They are so easily distinguished that at least a few of them could have become iconic with the right exposure.

Point being, this is a universe that could have been played in a lot more. There is backstory to be explored and there are questions to be answered. New characters could have encountered the Neon Maniacs. New monsters could have been introduced. I wouldn’t necessarily need for any of the human characters to return, but bringing back Paula (played by Donna Locke in her sole screen credit) could have been really cool, especially if she used all of her knowledge to graduate from Monster Kid to full-on Neon Maniac Hunter. If nothing else, a couple of sequels might have given another director the chance to take the stuff that’s good in the first film and build on it by improving on all the things that don’t work.

The original was only the second (and final) movie ever directed by Joe Mangine, whose first effort, the marijuana-and-sex romp Smoke and Flesh, was made twenty years prior. Mangine worked primarily as a cinematographer, responsible for lensing classics like Alligator, Alone in the Dark and The Sword and the Sorcerer; not surprisingly, he brings a strong visual sense to Neon Maniacs, but does little for things like story consistency or logic. Why did another director never get a crack at a follow-up?  

All of the groundwork was laid for another movie or two, but it just wasn’t in the cards; Neon Maniacs is always going to be the Franchise That Could Have Been. That’s probably not something that keeps many horror fans up at night, and to be honest my own reaction is more one of surprise than disappointment. More of these movies just seems like a no-brainer, even if I don’t really need them in my life. But in a world where there are NINE Children of the Corn movies, it’s hard to believe there’s only one Neon Maniacs.

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