Editorials
You Need to See ‘A Cure For Wellness’ in Theaters Right Now!
Something very strange happened last Friday: 20th Century Fox, a major Hollywood studio, released an R-rated, slow-burn horror film in the tradition of late 1960s and early 1970s horror films like Rosemary’s Baby and The Shining. That film also happens to have a 146-minute runtime, a $40 million production budget and a high-profile director at the helm. That film is Gore Verbinski’s A Cure for Wellness. Needless to say, the fact that this film was even made, much less given a wide release, is surprising. This isn’t the type of film that audiences usually go out in droves to see. Unfortunately, no one did rush out to see the film, making it the first big horror flop of 2017.
Expectations were not incredibly high for A Cure for Wellness going into the weekend, with estimates predicting that the film would make anywhere from $6-$8 million over the three-day weekend. Those estimates proved to be rather generous, as A Cure for Wellness grossed a meager $4.3 million domestically in the number 10 slot its opening weekend. That is just over 10% its production budget. Needless to say, it doesn’t look like A Cure for Wellness will turn any sort of profit, especially once marketing costs are factored in.
Knowing all of this, it is with the utmost humility that I implore you to go to your local movie theater this weekend and see A Cure for Wellness. These words of mine may confuse some of you. After all, I did give it a middling 2.5/5 score last week. What gives? I’ll tell you what gives. We need more films like A Cure for Wellness getting made (just of a better quality). I know, I thought the film was “just an okay film with some wonderful visuals,” but fans of the genre owe their support to even mediocre films. Because A Cure for Wellness will be seen as such a huge flop, it is highly unlikely that more films like it will get made any time soon. There just isn’t any profitability there.
All too often I see commenters lament the lack of a certain type of horror film in the release schedule, and when a film that fits the bill actually does get released, no one goes to see it. Of course, A Cure for Wellness is just not the type of film that modern audiences want to see anymore, but there is an audience for films like it. They just don’t like to go to the theaters anymore or waste money on a film that they may not like. I completely understand that. When you see a film that has a 40% Rotten Tomatoes score (which, let’s be honest, isn’t even that bad) and a 47 Metacritic score, you’re wary about spending money on it (though if that is the case then how do you explain the Transformers movies making so much money?). Sometimes we need to take a risk and spend money on a movie anyway.
“But Trace, don’t you get to see movies for free?” you ask. “That sort of makes you a hypocrite.” Sometimes I do. Sometimes I don’t. Every now and then I’ll catch a press screening here in Austin, TX, but that isn’t always the case (for example, I paid $22 to see Resident Evil: The Final Chapter in IMAX 3D). I confess that I did see A Cure for Wellness for free, so make of that what you will, but that is also part of the reason I am writing this article. Us horror fans need to be united and support as much mainstream horror as we can, even if it’s a shitty movie (except for The Bye Bye Man….fuck that movie).
So why didn’t you go see A Cure for Wellness last weekend? Did reviews deter you? Or word of mouth? Or did it just not look appealing to you? No matter the case, I implore you to go show your support for horror and see A Cure for Wellness this weekend. It’s facing some stiff competition from Get Out (our review), which as of this writing is looking to be the best-reviewed horror film of the year, and it’s only February! But make a sacrifice and spend the money on A Cure for Wellness. I didn’t think it was great, but maybe you will. At the very least you’ll have some positive karma coming your way for supporting the genre.
Editorials
Revisiting ‘Subspecies’: The Gothic Horror Gem That Created an Unforgettable Vampire
Auteur Filmmaking is a term that gets thrown around a lot these days in reference to big name directors like Quentin Tarantino and even Wes Anderson, but the truth is that film is a collective medium, and no one person can be responsible for every single aspect of a particular production. However, the smaller a film’s budget, the bigger the individual impact of every creative decision behind it – and the easier it becomes to identify a genuine auteur.
This isn’t necessarily a judgement of value, as blockbuster filmmaking comes with its own challenges and a good movie remains a miracle regardless of how big the crew is, but I’ve always been more interested in soulful b-movies produced by handfuls of passionate artists than blockbusters backed by creative armies.
That’s why I love exploring low-budget franchises that never left the hands of their original creators, as you really get to know the artists involved with these flicks and can accompany their evolution over a period of time. With that in mind, I’d like to invite readers to join me in this multi-part series as we look into a vampire saga helmed by one of the most fascinating auteurs of the 1990s. Naturally, I’m referring to Ted Nicolaou’s criminally underrated Subspecies!
The Birth of an Unlikely Horror Franchise

A proud graduate of the University of Texas’ Film program, Nicolaou got his start in the industry as a sound technician working on Tobe Hooper’s original Texas Chain Saw Massacre. From there, the filmmaker would go on to work for notorious indie producer Charles Band, the founder of both Empire Pictures and Full Moon Productions. According to Nicolaou, Band would usually contact him with an offer to direct a feature after more prominent filmmakers, such as the late, great Stuart Gordon, had already refused, meaning that his projects tended to have lower budgets and more inexperienced crew members.
The plans for Subspecies began almost immediately after the fall of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu, with screenwriter David Pabian turning in an initial draft of the film after a Romanian producer contacted Band and explained that Romanian tax incentives could cover the cost of film production there so long as Full Moon took care of the post-production process. Since Stuart Gordon was unwilling to travel to Romania, Ted Nicolaou ended up taking over the picture.
However, while the financial incentives meant that this Romanian-American co-production could look and feel much more expensive than it really was, with Nicolaou scouting for locations in advance and selecting real castle ruins to be featured in the movie, the director was soon faced with an incredibly difficult shooting process. In interviews, Nicolaou would later describe the experience as something of a nightmare, with language barriers and the generalized distrust of capitalist outsiders sabotaging many of the team’s plans for the film.
In fact, the script, which had already been altered by Band, ultimately had portions of it rewritten by both Jack Canson and Nicolaou himself in an attempt to adapt the story to their unique limitations.
Radu Is One of Horror’s Greatest Underrated Villains

In the finished film, which was released directly to video in 1991, we follow a pair of American anthropology students, Michelle (Laura Mae Tate) and Lillian (Michelle McBride), as they reunite with their Romanian colleague Mara (Irina Movila) in her native land. The group intends to study the folklore surrounding the secluded town of Prejmer, but their research is cut short by the return of Radu Vladislas (Anders Hove) – the evil son of a vampire king (Angus Scrimm) who had previously established a truce with the region’s human residents. It’s now up to Radu’s human-loving half-brother Stefan (Michael Watson) to protect the girls from a fate worse than death as the power-hungry vampire seeks to control a magical artifact known as the Bloodstone.
Right off the bat, you may have noticed that the film’s premise sounds decidedly old-fashioned when compared to other vampire movies from around the same time. While the 1990s saw the rise of cool-looking bloodsuckers with badass elements borrowed from Westerns, as well as the sexy aristocrats of Anne Rice’s stories, Subspecies has a lot more in common with Nosferatu and the Hammer Horror series than any of its contemporaries.
This is both a blessing and a curse, as the film falls victim to overly familiar genre tropes while also standing out as a rare example of a ’90s vampire flick that isn’t afraid to flex its muscles as a Creature Feature. In fact, I’d argue that the presence of age-old clichés is a small price to pay when confronted with one of the most compelling vampire antagonists in all of cinema.
Named after Vlad the Impaler’s real-life brother, Anders Hove’s Radu is such a fascinating character and the main reason why Subspecies is still worth watching 35 years later. From his animalistic mannerisms to the joy he feels in simply existing as a chaotic creature of the night, and that’s not even mentioning the iconic makeup that almost certainly inspired the undead from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Radu is a hypnotic presence harkening back to a time when audiences didn’t mind purely evil villains that couldn’t be redeemed through tragic backstories or sex appeal.
Gothic Atmosphere on an Indie Budget

Of course, the film’s Romanian setting and authentic art direction do a lot of the heavy lifting whenever Radu isn’t around. From the masked festivals of the village to the visually interesting selection of local extras, Subspecies’ multicultural elements help it to stand out when compared to similar flicks from the ’90s.
That being said, Nicolaou’s unique eye for special effects and exciting action sequences – as well as Vlad Paunescu’s excellent cinematography – make the movie a delight for fans of expressionist cinema and old-timey gothic horror. While the crew is obviously dealing with limited resources, many of the flick’s blemishes (such as the odd stop-motion demons that serve Radu) end up feeling more like charming idiosyncrasies than actual flaws.
I’d argue that the only real issue here is pacing, as there are long stretches of film where the protagonists are simply bumbling around without realizing what’s really going on around them. Thankfully, the gorgeous visuals and surprisingly effective soundtrack usually make up for this. Besides, how can you dislike a movie where shotgun shells are loaded with rosary beads and our lead vampires duke it out in a dramatic swordfight that would feel out of place during the golden age of Hollywood?
Your overall enjoyment of Subspecies will mostly depend on whether or not you find low-budget corner-cutting and janky practical effects charming rather than distracting, but I know I’ll keep coming back to this Full Moon feature again and again in the future.
That being said, while this first movie is worth revisiting by its own merits as the birth of an indie horror icon, I’d like to invite you to join us as we look into the cult sequel Bloodstone: Subspecies II soon.
You must be logged in to post a comment.