Editorials
35 Years Later, Robert Englund’s ‘976-Evil’ Dials Back to a Bygone Era
Robert Englund steps into the director’s chair with ‘976-Evil,’ a dark dive into Satanism and demonology where a bullied outcast uses an occult hotline to bite back.
“Out of the darkness and into light, comes your horrorscope on this dark and stormy night.”
Robert Englund is a name who needs no introduction in the horror community. He’s played Freddy Krueger in eight A Nightmare on Elm Street movies and has brought life to one of the horror genre’s greatest icons. Englund’s incomparable work as Krueger would be enough to forever make him a celebrity, but he’s had a rich horror career that’s included multiple roles in Tobe Hooper films and, more recently, his standout performance as Victor Creel in the streaming phenomenon, Stranger Things. Englund will always be Freddy Krueger, but it’s curious to consider how his career would have been different if he instead transitioned into a horror director legend. 976-Evil was Englund’s attempt at such a shift and the campy cult classic turns 35 this week.
976-Evil is a gleefully retro tale of revenge that follows two cousins, Hoax (Stephen Geoffreys, who was also Evil Ed in Fright Night) and Spike (Patrick O’Bryan), who are stuck with their religious zealot caretaker who rules over them with an iron fist while they wait out their inheritance. Hoax thinks that he finds a shortcut to popularity and peace of mind when he discovers a malevolent premium pay hotline that begins as an amusing distraction, but turns out to be a literal connection to hell. It’s basically, “What if Freddy Krueger ran a premium paranormal hotline?” (not to be confused with the actual Freddy Krueger pay-per-call hotline that was in operation, mind you). It’s a simple enough premise that works and facilitates a fury of chaotic, creative kills.
976-Evil comfortably fits into the subgenre of horror films where low-status victims of bullying get revenge through supernatural circumstances and the murky moral territory that ensues. It’s very much cut from the same cloth as Evilspeak, Carrie, Slaughter High, Jennifer’s Body and more recent horror films like Friend Request and The Final. 976-Evil bears the closest resemblance to 1981’s Evilspeak and the two make a great ’80s double feature together. 976-Evil assembles commendable talent, but it’s far from this subgenre’s apex.
Robert Englund is a classically trained actor and his talents are best-suited in front of the camera, rather than behind. He still proves that he’s got some skills and creative juice here with his feature directorial debut. It’s curious that Englund never went on to direct one of the final Elm Street movies, for that matter. 976-Evil could have been an interesting prelude to such an experiment, which wouldn’t have necessarily been awful. Renny Harlin, Stephen Hopkins, and Rachel Talalay all bring some unique ideas to the table, but Englund demonstrates here that he wouldn’t have been a disaster behind the camera.
976-Evil is rich in dynamic lighting, striking color composition, and inventive cinematography that speaks to Englund’s eye for visuals, but also cinematographer Paul Elliott’s skills. Elliott was previously the director of photography on Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood, and his skills are just as pronounced here. He’s often 976-Evil’s MVP. 976-Evil’s cinematography and lighting are genuinely great in many scenes, like when Hoax interrupts the poker game. It helps elevate a lot of moments that would otherwise be forgettable.
The following attack in the bathroom is also easily the movie’s most dynamic scene. It succeeds in creating real tension and there’s an artistry to the camera work that demonstrates a real voice that’s interested in more than just cheap kills. It’s even a kill that methodically cuts away from the violence and doesn’t actually show anything for budgetary reasons, yet it still stands out as the movie’s most effective scene.
Visuals aside, 976-Evil is co-written by Brian Helgeland, a truly legendary screenwriter who’s responsible for films like A Knight’s Tale, Mystic River, and L.A. Confidential, the latter of which won him an Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay. 976-Evil is Helgeland’s first professional screenplay and what introduced him to Englund, who would go on to recommend him as the writer for A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master, his second professional writing credit. This is all a testament to Helgeland’s skills at the craft of heightened horror-fantasy storytelling. 976-Evil is definitely shaggy and trope-filled, but it still leaves its mark as a debut screenplay. It’s unfortunate that Helgeland didn’t stick with the Elm Street series and script the fifth and sixth entries. These sequels could have had a more unifying vision if they functioned as a pseudo trilogy of sorts that closed out the franchise.
It’s also worth pointing out that Helgeland’s co-writer on 976-Evil, Rhet Topham, was also a writer on Freddy’s Nightmares, including the series premiere that revolves around Freddy Krueger’s child murder trial and prominently features Englund. Topham also wrote “Cabin Fever,” one of the few episodes where Englund served as director. It’s interesting that Englund turned to and trusted two writers who had put their stamp on the Nightmare on Elm Street series to pen his directorial feature film debut.
976-Evil thrives when it comes to the blissful ’80s nostalgia that it conjures through the clothing, slang, and general behavior of its characters. All this makes the movie a deeply soothing rewatch 35 years later, even if it’s imperfect shlock. Set design is filled with graphic, sprawling, multi-colored graffiti that’s beautifully evocative of the “troubled youth” of the ‘80s and ‘90s. Perfunctory shots of a car are presented as evil and creepy. They totally channel Christine and reiterate the movie’s inescapable campy energy.
Even the whole 1-900 hotline premise is so inherently steeped in the ’80s and ’90s and gives the film a certain retro charm. It’s something that modern viewers may be completely lost on and it’s a movie that simply couldn’t be made today. It’s been replaced by Internet and app-driven techno-demon fare like Unfriended, Friend Request, or even teen Blumhouse fare like Wish Upon and Truth or Dare, the latter of which are by no means good, but cultivate the same aura. 976-Evil definitely feels like a retro progenitor to these modern supernatural revenge stories where disenfranchised underdogs find ways to fight back. For instance, the date between Hoax and Suzie (Lezlie Deane) where they’re telling jokes, eating pizza, and listening to the jukebox is genuinely sweet and quickly establishes a real relationship between them that treats them like real people. It’s just a shame that people are most likely watching this for scares, not swoons
Unfortunately, 976-Evil takes far too long to get to its central premise and kills. It’s more than half-way through the movie that Hoax turns to the titular horrorscope hotline and starts enacting vengeance in those who have wronged him. The film should start with a tease of this service, and an early death, to set the scene and showcase what lies ahead so there’s a greater sense of tension over the bullying and if Hoax will let his emotions get the better of him and turn to this fatal service. It’s a quick change that would go a long way and help audiences look past the slower pacing and lack of scares that fill up most of the film (Curiously, this is the approach that 976-Evil II: The Astral Factor takes, seemingly having learned from the original’s flaws).
The same is true for the FBI agent component where he begins to investigate these crimes, which happens nearly an hour into the movie. It’s definitely a perfunctory element of the genre, but it’s something that could definitely be dropped to little consequence, or enter the picture much earlier so there’s a greater threat that looms over the characters beyond generic bullies. What does work here is everyone’s suspicion of Spike over these crimes, rather than cluing into his meeker cousin Hoax’s complicity. 976-Evil could have even kept things a little more ambiguous so that the audience is torn over who’s to blame and Hoax’s reveal hits harder and comes as a surprise.
On that note, the film would benefit from a greater understanding of what’s actually going on with the 976-Evil service and what the risks are behind its employment. Do the individuals lose their souls? Become slaves to Satan? Or some other macabre monkey’s paw-esque cruel twist of fate? Any of these angles would be effective. A prologue that seeds these elements through a random horrorscope user who succumbs to this darkness would once again clear these things up and strengthen the film’s storytelling. It’s not a great sign when Wishmaster does a better job at defining its rules, stakes, and underlying evil.
There’s a great concept at the core of this film, but for the majority of 976-Evil it seems like it’s ashamed to embrace it and go all out, which is exactly what this movie needs. Subtlety is not a friend to 976-Evil. Hoax basically becomes a Freddy Krueger clone by the end of the movie with his disfigured face, claw-like hand, and constant quippy one-liners. It doesn’t exactly feel inspired to see Englund cultivate such a generic Freddy copycat.
That being said, 976-Evil has some memorable death scenes, even if its tarantula kill is wildly undercooked and takes out the most interesting character too early. There’s an electrocution that is well-executed. Another victim gets eaten by cats, which is much better and more in line with the tone and timbre that the movie should be striving towards. Englund got the cats to be so compliant here by stuffing the corpse dummy with tuna salad, which is actually a clever and creative idea. Regardless of the above, there just aren’t enough deaths to go around in 976-Evil. The final act, which literally descends to hell, proves to be an effective way to conclude the messy movie.
976-Evil has its share of shortcomings. However, there’s an extended cut of the film, which was released to home video, that features an extra thirteen minutes of footage that was not in the theatrical release. These are mostly changes that provide greater character development and motivation, rather than gore and kills. It’s easy to see why these scenes were removed for pacing purposes. They’re not essential, nor do they really change the movie. It’s unlikely that someone who doesn’t like the theatrical cut of 976-Evil will suddenly be swayed by seeing this longer version. It’s not even necessarily a “better” movie, but it does have more fleshed out characters.
976-Evil wasn’t a smash hit and didn’t get anywhere near A Nightmare on Elm Street’s success. That being said, it still left enough of an impression on audiences to receive a direct-to-video sequel, albeit not with Robert Englund. 976-Evil II: The Astral Factor instead has Jim Wynorski in the director’s chair. Wynorski is a man who got into cinema “for the money and the chicks” and once famously claimed that “breasts are the cheapest special effect in the business.” Wynorski had a hand in over 100 movies, most of which are direct-to-video, with Chopping Mall, Sorceress, The Turn of the Swamp Thing, and Ghoulies IV being among his most notable efforts. He also worked on many Roger Corman efforts, children’s movies like Munchie and Munchie Strikes Back, as well as plenty of horror-centric adult movie parodies like Cleavagefield, The Bare Wench Project, and Para-Knockers Activity. In 976-Evil II, Spike returns, this time to battle a serial killer college professor who uses astral projection and the 976 horrorscope hotline to kill his students. Somehow, it’s not any worse than its predecessor.
976-Evil is a dated horror film that’s largely slipped through the cracks and failed to leave much of a footprint on the genre, yet this all makes it an even more fascinating ’80s relic. It’s better that Englund takes a big swing here, even if he doesn’t hit a grand slam. It’s a worthy experiment, albeit one that doesn’t fully tune out the dissonance of its dial tone. 976-Evil didn’t build an illustrious directorial career for Englund (and the less said about 2008’s Killer Pad, the better) and he would ultimately head back to the Elm Street series. There are far worse fates than forever being known as Freddy Krueger. 35 years later, 976-Evil remains a fascinating collect call that’s worth accepting the charges from.
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.
‘Infested’ Review – One of the Best Spiders Attack Horror Movies in Years
Dev Patel’s ‘Monkey Man’ Is Now Available to Watch at Home!
Five Underseen Vampire Horror Movies to Stream This Week
‘Stream’ – Horror Movie from the Team Behind ‘Terrifier’ Sets August Theatrical Release
Limited Edition ‘Creature from the Black Lagoon’ Monster High Doll Releasing This Week!
You must be logged in to post a comment.