Connect with us

Editorials

‘Amusement’ – Finding Small Pleasures in This Panned 2000s Horror Movie

Published

on

Amusement

Delays are bound to happen when making movies, but something was clearly wrong when Amusement was postponed not once but twice in 2008. It wasn’t long before John Simpson’s American directorial debut was removed from the theatrical schedule altogether and then later dropped on DVD that following year. Although going from the big-screen to direct-to-video is an undeserved fate in some cases, this movie’s new destination was understandable. The unfavorable feedback from an early test screening — the word “disastrous” was tossed around — forced Warner Bros to salvage the potential flop now on its hands. Nevertheless, the negative consensus hasn’t stopped Amusement from amassing a small fan base over the years; its followers focus on this panned movie’s few merits rather than its many shortcomings.

At first, Amusement looks to be an anthology; this horror movie’s first three acts are well defined and almost function as standalone short features. Screenwriter Jake Wade Wall (When a Stranger Calls, The Hitcher) even called his script an anthology in its infancy. However, as viewers learn with each passing account of terror, everything is actually connected. Katheryn Winnick, Laura Breckenridge and Jessica Lucas’ characters turn out to be more than random victims of a madman known only as The Laugh.

Similar to the format of the 1974 proto-slasher The Centerfold Girls, Amusement chronicles the homicidal tendencies of its villain, who, like the killer of Terror Train, dons a number of clever disguises throughout the movie. The opening credits signal a connection between these various murders and abductions; mixed in with the introduction’s assemblage of yearbook photos and superlatives are fragments of a young patient’s medical records. Emphasized portions of text within this brief sequence —such as, “appears to blame classmates” and “most likely to succeed” — establish a history as well as indicate what all lies ahead.

amusement

Image: Laura Breckenridge and Tad Hilgenbrink’s characters drive toward danger.

Like a standard anthology movie might do, Amusement uses titles to set its acts apart; each of the three sub-stories are named after one of the main characters. Laura Breckenridge’s Shelby is the first to encounter The Laugh (Keir O’Donnell) as she and her boyfriend (Tad Hilgenbrink) make the long drive home after an uncomfortable weekend together. All three segments double as basic cautionary tales, but “Shelby” is the most admonitory. Anyone who did not grow up around truckers or on C.W. McCall’s music also gets a quick lesson on convoys. This opener is in the vein of better “road horror” movies, however, unlike the two subsequent stories, it has the luxury of surprise. From here on out it is easier to pick out the incognito killer and figure out his intent

The showpiece of Amusement is “Tabitha.” This segment resonates the most with viewers because it puts a fresh spin on a familiar idea. Inspired by an update of a classic urban legend, Katheryn Winnick’s character visits her aunt and uncle’s new home. Her two young nephews were originally left with a babysitter, who has since disappeared without a word or trace. Even her boyfriend has no idea where she is now. This effective segment shakes things up while also manifesting the “the calls are coming from inside the house” trope in brilliant fashion. Winnick, whose character’s logic is questionable as she sleeps in a bedroom teeming with clown dolls both small and life-sized, paves the way for a fun yet foreseeable reveal. The audience being in on the twist before Tabitha herself finds out does not diminish the story’s overall enjoyability. Answering the call as intended only makes the outcome more satisfying.

Jessica Lucas is assigned the most straightforward of the three vignettes; the foolish namesake of “Lisa” enters a creepy old hotel in search of her missing roommate and later her own boyfriend (Reid Scott). What this part lacks in unpredictability — not to mention tension — it makes up for in creepy real estate. The mouse surely delivers herself straight to the cat, but her grand tour of the Pere Pension includes a grisly waypoint or two. 

Amusement

Image: Jessica Lucas as Lisa.

Amusement is at its best when counting off The Laugh’s victims in a tidy and briskly told manner. Even though “Tabitha” soars higher than the rest, all three initial segments make for a diverting package. Once Wall’s script attempts to stitch everything together toward the end, the movie falls apart from a logical perspective. It is too easy — and maybe also misguided — to become hung up on the details of the overarching plot. The logistics of The Laugh’s plan of attack are dubious enough without the audience then thinking long and hard about all the other stuff. It is far easier to accept the movie’s contrivances than it is to make sense of the story.

Coming to the defense of Amusement is not easy, but that task is nothing compared to the hurdles this movie endured just to be released. New Line Cinema picked up Wall’s script all the way back in 2005 with Bernard Rose attached to direct. When Rose exited the project, Irish filmmaker John Simpson stepped in shortly before shooting began in Budapest in ‘06. Eventually the closure of original producer and theatrical distributor Picturehouse, the joint venture of New Line Cinema and HBO Films, led to an unknown future for Amusement. And as it is now known, the movie suffered from recuts, which explains why the final product is so perceivably disjointed. 

Knowing Amusement’s troubled history, it is a miracle that the movie saw the light of day, much less turned out to be watchable. The end result is, more or less, just a series of extended set pieces, however, they are good-looking ones that neither overstay their welcome nor fail to leave an impression (be it good or otherwise). Without argument, Amusement is a formulaic movie where the not-so-sound story is stretched so thin that it practically tears apart near the end. After everything, though, there are still small pleasures to be found here. Nothing that can entirely undo its long-lasting glut of rotten reviews, but this cinematic equivalent of a scary carnival funhouse achieves what it set out to do. Audiences can get in and out with little fuss and at least a few cheap thrills to remember the movie by. Amusing indeed.


Horror contemplates in great detail how young people handle inordinate situations and all of life’s unexpected challenges. While the genre forces characters of every age to face their fears, it is especially interested in how youths might fare in life-or-death scenarios.

The column Young Blood is dedicated to horror stories for and about teenagers, as well as other young folks on the brink of terror.

amusement

Image: Katheryn Winnick’s character Tabitha spots The Laugh’s eye through a hole in the wall.

Paul Lê is a Texas-based, Tomato approved critic at Bloody Disgusting, Dread Central, and Tales from the Paulside.

Editorials

What’s Wrong with My Baby!? Larry Cohen’s ‘It’s Alive’ at 50

Published

on

Netflix It's Alive

Soon after the New Hollywood generation took over the entertainment industry, they started having children. And more than any filmmakers that came before—they were terrified. Rosemary’s Baby (1968), The Exorcist (1973), The Omen (1976), Eraserhead (1977), The Brood (1979), The Shining (1980), Possession (1981), and many others all deal, at least in part, with the fears of becoming or being a parent. What if my child turns out to be a monster? is corrupted by some evil force? or turns out to be the fucking Antichrist? What if I screw them up somehow, or can’t help them, or even go insane and try to kill them? Horror has always been at its best when exploring relatable fears through extreme circumstances. A prime example of this is Larry Cohen’s 1974 monster-baby movie It’s Alive, which explores the not only the rollercoaster of emotions that any parent experiences when confronted with the difficulties of raising a child, but long-standing questions of who or what is at fault when something goes horribly wrong.

Cohen begins making his underlying points early in the film as Frank Davis (John P. Ryan) discusses the state of the world with a group of expectant fathers in a hospital waiting room. They discuss the “overabundance of lead” in foods and the environment, smog, and pesticides that only serve to produce roaches that are “bigger, stronger, and harder to kill.” Frank comments that this is “quite a world to bring a kid into.” This has long been a discussion point among people when trying to decide whether to have kids or not. I’ve had many conversations with friends who have said they feel it’s irresponsible to bring children into such a violent, broken, and dangerous world, and I certainly don’t begrudge them this. My wife and I did decide to have children but that doesn’t mean that it’s been easy.

Immediately following this scene comes It’s Alive’s most famous sequence in which Frank’s wife Lenore (Sharon Farrell) is the only person left alive in her delivery room, the doctors clawed and bitten to death by her mutant baby, which has escaped. “What does my baby look like!? What’s wrong with my baby!?” she screams as nurses wheel her frantically into a recovery room. The evening that had begun with such joy and excitement at the birth of their second child turned into a nightmare. This is tough for me to write, but on some level, I can relate to this whiplash of emotion. When my second child was born, they came about five weeks early. I’ll use the pronouns “they/them” for privacy reasons when referring to my kids. Our oldest was still very young and went to stay with my parents and we sped off to the hospital where my wife was taken into an operating room for an emergency c-section. I was able to carry our newborn into the NICU (natal intensive care unit) where I was assured that this was routine for all premature births. The nurses assured me there was nothing to worry about and the baby looked big and healthy. I headed to where my wife was taken to recover to grab a few winks assuming that everything was fine. Well, when I awoke, I headed back over to the NICU to find that my child was not where I left them. The nurse found me and told me that the baby’s lungs were underdeveloped, and they had to put them in a special room connected to oxygen tubes and wires to monitor their vitals.

It’s difficult to express the fear that overwhelmed me in those moments. Everything turned out okay, but it took a while and I’m convinced to this day that their anxiety struggles spring from these first weeks of life. As our children grew, we learned that two of the three were on the spectrum and that anxiety, depression, ADHD, and OCD were also playing a part in their lives. Parents, at least speaking for myself, can’t help but blame themselves for the struggles their children face. The “if only” questions creep in and easily overcome the voices that assure us that it really has nothing to do with us. In the film, Lenore says, “maybe it’s all the pills I’ve been taking that brought this on.” Frank muses aloud about how he used to think that Frankenstein was the monster, but when he got older realized he was the one that made the monster. The aptly named Frank is wondering if his baby’s mutation is his fault, if he created the monster that is terrorizing Los Angeles. I have made plenty of “if only” statements about myself over the years. “If only I hadn’t had to work so much, if only I had been around more when they were little.” Mothers may ask themselves, “did I have a drink, too much coffee, or a cigarette before I knew I was pregnant? Was I too stressed out during the pregnancy?” In other words, most parents can’t help but wonder if it’s all their fault.

At one point in the film, Frank goes to the elementary school where his baby has been sighted and is escorted through the halls by police. He overhears someone comment about “screwed up genes,” which brings about age-old questions of nature vs. nurture. Despite the voices around him from doctors and detectives that say, “we know this isn’t your fault,” Frank can’t help but think it is, and that the people who try to tell him it isn’t really think it’s his fault too. There is no doubt that there is a hereditary element to the kinds of mental illness struggles that my children and I deal with. But, and it’s a bit but, good parenting goes a long way in helping children deal with these struggles. Kids need to know they’re not alone, a good parent can provide that, perhaps especially parents that can relate to the same kinds of struggles. The question of nature vs. nurture will likely never be entirely answered but I think there’s more than a good chance that “both/and” is the case. Around the midpoint of the film, Frank agrees to disown the child and sign it over for medical experimentation if caught or killed. Lenore and the older son Chris (Daniel Holzman) seek to nurture and teach the baby, feeling that it is not a monster, but a member of the family.

It’s Alive takes these ideas to an even greater degree in the fact that the Davis Baby really is a monster, a mutant with claws and fangs that murders and eats people. The late ’60s and early ’70s also saw the rise in mass murderers and serial killers which heightened the nature vs. nurture debate. Obviously, these people were not literal monsters but human beings that came from human parents, but something had gone horribly wrong. Often the upbringing of these killers clearly led in part to their antisocial behavior, but this isn’t always the case. It’s Alive asks “what if a ‘monster’ comes from a good home?” In this case is it society, environmental factors, or is it the lead, smog, and pesticides? It is almost impossible to know, but the ending of the film underscores an uncomfortable truth—even monsters have parents.

As the film enters its third act, Frank joins the hunt for his child through the Los Angeles sewers and into the L.A. River. He is armed with a rifle and ready to kill on sight, having divorced himself from any relationship to the child. Then Frank finds his baby crying in the sewers and his fatherly instincts take over. With tears in his eyes, he speaks words of comfort and wraps his son in his coat. He holds him close, pats and rocks him, and whispers that everything is going to be okay. People often wonder how the parents of those who perform heinous acts can sit in court, shed tears, and defend them. I think it’s a complex issue. I’m sure that these parents know that their child has done something evil, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are still their baby. Your child is a piece of yourself formed into a whole new human being. Disowning them would be like cutting off a limb, no matter what they may have done. It doesn’t erase an evil act, far from it, but I can understand the pain of a parent in that situation. I think It’s Alive does an exceptional job placing its audience in that situation.

Despite the serious issues and ideas being examined in the film, It’s Alive is far from a dour affair. At heart, it is still a monster movie and filled with a sense of fun and a great deal of pitch-black humor. In one of its more memorable moments, a milkman is sucked into the rear compartment of his truck as red blood mingles with the white milk from smashed bottles leaking out the back of the truck and streaming down the street. Just after Frank agrees to join the hunt for his baby, the film cuts to the back of an ice cream truck with the words “STOP CHILDREN” emblazoned on it. It’s a movie filled with great kills, a mutant baby—created by make-up effects master Rick Baker early in his career, and plenty of action—and all in a PG rated movie! I’m telling you, the ’70s were wild. It just also happens to have some thoughtful ideas behind it as well.

Which was Larry Cohen’s specialty. Cohen made all kinds of movies, but his most enduring have been his horror films and all of them tackle the social issues and fears of the time they were made. God Told Me To (1976), Q: The Winged Serpent (1982), and The Stuff (1985) are all great examples of his socially aware, low-budget, exploitation filmmaking with a brain and It’s Alive certainly fits right in with that group. Cohen would go on to write and direct two sequels, It Lives Again (aka It’s Alive 2) in 1978 and It’s Alive III: Island of the Alive in 1987 and is credited as a co-writer on the 2008 remake. All these films explore the ideas of parental responsibility in light of the various concerns of the times they were made including abortion rights and AIDS.

Fifty years after It’s Alive was initially released, it has only become more relevant in the ensuing years. Fears surrounding parenthood have been with us since the beginning of time but as the years pass the reasons for these fears only seem to become more and more profound. In today’s world the conversation of the fathers in the waiting room could be expanded to hormones and genetic modifications in food, terrorism, climate change, school and other mass shootings, and other threats that were unknown or at least less of a concern fifty years ago. Perhaps the fearmongering conspiracy theories about chemtrails and vaccines would be mentioned as well, though in a more satirical fashion, as fears some expectant parents encounter while endlessly doomscrolling Facebook or Twitter. Speaking for myself, despite the struggles, the fears, and the sadness that sometimes comes with having children, it’s been worth it. The joys ultimately outweigh all of that, but I understand the terror too. Becoming a parent is no easy choice, nor should it be. But as I look back, I can say that I’m glad we made the choice we did.

I wonder if Frank and Lenore can say the same thing.

Continue Reading