Connect with us

Published

on

“The Beast of Yucca Flats” is many things, but none of those make it a good movie. What makes it so damn desolate?

As a horror fan, I have a pretty high tolerance for bad horror movies. Ideally, people should identify good aspects of any creative work. Of course, some projects make that very difficult, if not impossible. A good example is The Beast of Yucca Flats, which is simply a mess. Written and directed by Coleman Francis, this movie pretty much sucks. There it is. Usually I dance around making empty-headed critiques, but why mince words here?

Still, I have to ask: Am I being too tough on this film? The story is simple. A Soviet scientist named Joseph Javorsky (Tor Johnson) gets hit by a nuclear blast. It scrambles his mental circuits, he goes nuts and kills a few people, then chases two boys (Ronald and Alan Francis) around for a while. He is The Beast of Yucca Flats, basically. Also, the opening scene features a woman getting murdered, but it seems to have nothing to do with the rest of the movie.

You may think I missed a bunch of details, but not really. There are some “shoot first, ask questions later” cops (Bing Stafford and Larry Aten) who mistake the boy’s dad (Douglas Mellor) for the murderer, but it’s not too exciting, either. They are of little to no consequence, other than the fact that they slay the beast. That’s right, I feel no guilt for spoiling this turkey. Honestly, I can’t imagine this film being seriously enjoyed by anyone, especially not without the Mystery Science Theater 3000 (MST3K) commentary to humorously guide you along.

The Vaguely Interesting Narration

If I had to call anything about this movie positive, I’d say it’s the narration. It’s just so randomly strung together that, if you’ve recently been struck in the head, you might find it interesting somehow. In fact, based partly on the narration, I think the director’s intention was to make an absurdist masterpiece with sci-fi horror elements. One semi-famous narrative line: “Flag on the moon — how did it get there?” While pre-Beast Javorsky may have held space-race info ine his briefcase, that doesn’t provide adequate context for the narration, either. So what gives?

Advertisement

The Beast’s rampage is promoted as a byproduct of technological progress. Still, I’m not buying that, and I understand aspects of the Unabomber manifesto. I’d say The Beast of Yucca Flats is more a result of bad storytelling, bad production value and an attempt to tie everything together as something grander than it is, or ever could be.

Honestly, the worst thing about movies like this is that I want to like them. I want so much to like every cheesy movie I see, and to make the special claim of an oddball director’s misunderstood genius. I just can’t do that here. So, if you watch and enjoy The Beast of Yucca Flats, I urge you to respond to this article. I want to know what you liked about the film and why — that is, if you’re able to communicate ideas after seeing such mind-numbing fare.

What are your thoughts on The Beast of Yucca Flats? Let us know in the comments!

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
3 Comments

3 Comments

  1. Pingback: 'Indestructible Man' (1956) Has Potential as a Series - Haunted MTL

  2. Brice Sang

    February 29, 2020 at 5:17 am

    Maybe I’m missing something here, but how in the hell did the narrator mention, “the flag on the moon, how did it get there?” Eight years before the United States did that very thing?

  3. Wade Wainio

    February 29, 2020 at 5:19 pm

    That is an interesting question. Maybe the narration was added years later? Other than that, it is definitely weird.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Movies n TV

Suburban Screams, Cursed Neighborhood

Published

on

Episode five of John Carpenter’s Suburban Screams was one of the best kind of horror stories. It is a dark, eerie tale of a mean house that is determined to destroy anyone who dares reside within it.

The story

Our story begins in 1682. A group of colonists are attempting to take over land that is very much not theirs. When the colonists are killed, they vow to curse the land.

Fast forward to modern times, and the land in question is a little suburban neighborhood. Carlette Norwood moves in with her husband, mother, and daughters. The house seems like a dream come true. Until, of course, their beautiful dream home becomes a nightmare. The curse of the colonists wrapped itself around the neck of each family member, turning them into people that they didn’t recognize. People who don’t exactly like each other.

What worked

While I wouldn’t say that the acting in this episode is flawless, it was several steps above what we’ve seen so far. Every actor seemed to understand their role and reacted in realistic ways. I was especially impressed by the young woman playing Angelique. She had the good sense to not overplay the role, giving each scene exactly the right amount of energy.

Advertisement

Of course, there was one actress who way overplayed every scene. But rather than being terrible, it was terrific. And that was Chloe Zeitounian, who played the neighbor Stacy. Stacy the neighbor was creepy as shit. After an unnamed neighbor dies by suicide, Stacy shows up at Carlette’s house with a bottle of champagne, sipping coffee with a big old smile. Well, okay it probably wasn’t coffee.

Stacy was a fantastic character, and I hope there was a crazy neighbor just like her. I bet her house was haunted as hell, but she just decided that her ghost was like a stray dog that everyone else thinks is dangerous. She probably put a bejeweled collar on the colonist ghost and renamed him Kori spelled with an I on purpose.

Finally, I want to talk about the theme of ancestral curse and ancestral protections that this episode discussed.

Charles County was cursed by the colonists who took the land that rightfully belonged to the indigenous tribes. They took what their ancestors had given them, and left a curse in their wake.

At the end of the episode, Carlette talks about being protected by her ancestors. Ancestors that survived horrible things most of us can’t imagine. I am sure that their strength blessed Carlette, and helped her to save Angelique.

Advertisement

What didn’t work

While this episode was certainly better than most of the season, it wasn’t perfect. The thing that most stood out to me as being frankly unneeded was the inclusion of maggots attacking Brian.

Paul A Maynard in Suburban Screams.

In multiple scenes, during which Carlette is narrating, Brian has maggots coming out of open wounds. Never once does Carlette mention a maggot issue.

It feels like there is a clear reason why the creators did this. This story doesn’t have a lot of blood, gore, or jump scares. And a core goal of horror content is to cause a reaction.

Stephen King has a great quote about this goal. “I recognize terror as the finest emotion and so I will try to terrorize the reader. But if I find that I cannot terrify, I will try to horrify, and if I find that I cannot horrify, I’ll go for the gross-out. I’m not proud.”

The inclusion of maggots in this story admits that someone involved didn’t think the story was terrorizing or horrifying enough. But it was. The story was freaky all on its own without the inclusion of our wriggling friends.

Is it true?

This might be an unpopular opinion, but aside from the completely unnecessary maggots infesting Brian, I think this episode is the most honest and accurate one so far.

Advertisement

The thing about hauntings is that they’re seldom what we see in the movies. Haunted houses don’t have glass vases flying off shelves and wallpaper peeling to reveal 666 painted in blood over arcane symbols. Haunted houses dig into the minds of those who live there, causing bad luck and bad vibes. And that’s exactly what happened here. There are no massive explosions. No spirits throwing people downstairs or demonic dogs chasing children from the attic. This house dug into the hearts and minds of a loving family, ripping them apart.

So yes, I do think this episode is likely true.

The further we get into Suburban Screams, the more I enjoy it. This episode was eerie, upsetting, and riveting. I hope that Carlette and her daughters are healing from this horrific journey. And I’m thankful to them for sharing their story. 4.5 out of 5 stars (4.5 / 5)

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movies n TV

Happy Father’s Day Herman Munster!

Published

on

Herman Munster would be so proud, collage by Jennifer Weigel
Herman Munster would be so proud, collage by Jennifer Weigel

Today for Father’s Day I want to celebrate one the best dads in horror ever: Herman Munster! Herman Munster of television celebrity is a perfect example of a good father in a genre awash in epically horrible parents. He is fun to be around, cares deeply about family, and has a huge heart. He is essentially the naive and loving Frankenstein’s monster despite his horrific appearance, and is aptly employed at a funeral home.

Herman is lovable, hardworking, and always ready with the physical humor dad jokes, even if he is too naive to catch on to his role in the punchlines all the time. He is devoted to his wife Lily Dracula and son Eddie and will do whatever he can to protect them. His generosity extends beyond just his own, with the family taking in his niece Marilyn (who is painfully normal by comparison to the Munsters), and father-in-law Grandpa.

Portrayed by Fred Gwynne, Herman Munster is kind of the epitome of the good father in horror. Sure, he’s a brute, and can be a little dim sometimes, but he’s really just a big teddy bear at heart, and always ready for a good laugh. And apparently Herman Munster was even nominated by his son Eddie for Father of the Year in Season 2, Episode 25, so it all comes around full circle. If the show highlight doesn’t load, you can find it here.

And to celebrate more great Hollywood celebrities, here’s a poem for Ed Wood and an homage to Theda Bara

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movies n TV

Suburban Screams, The Bunny Man

Published

on

Someone is stalking the children of Fairfax, Virginia. He comes bearing an axe. He comes from the forest. He comes in the night.

He comes dressed as a bunny.

The story

In the 1970s, the sleepy town of Fairfax Virginia was menaced by a man dressed as a rabbit. He stalked kids and teens with an axe while they were playing in the woods, or ‘parking’. Children were cautioned to not play outside after dark. Parents were terrified. The whole community was rocked by the horrific killer who, well, didn’t kill anybody. And who might have been a whole bunch of people inspired by a truly sad tale?

Still from Suburban Screams The Bunny Man.

The story begins a hundred years earlier. A man whose name is lost to time is accused of stealing a cow. For this crime, he’s sentenced to death because things were a lot tougher back then. The man escaped but swore vengeance on the town. A few days later several children were found hanging from a bridge underpass, butchered and hung as though they were slaughtered rabbits.

What worked

The biggest thing to love about this episode, the one thing that sets it apart from the rest of the season, was the presence of Historian Cindy Burke. Finally, we have an actual professional talking about one of these stories. Yes, there are still first-hand accounts. But that is how these sorts of stories work best. We have the emotional retelling of evocative survivors. But we also have a professional who is emotionally separated from the situation backing up these stories with historical knowledge.

Advertisement

This wouldn’t have mattered as much in any other setting. But Suburban Screams has been clear from the start that it wants to be seen as a documentary. This is supposed to be real. And if you’re going to claim that your ghost story is real, bring receipts. As many as you can.

If we’d seen more historians, detectives, and police reports through this series, it probably wouldn’t have the bad rating it does on IMDB.

What didn’t work

Well, it might still have had a bad rating. Because the acting in this episode was, for lack of a stronger word, terrible.

I don’t know if it was the directing, the casting, or just a weak talent budget. But not a single person except for the man playing the Bunny Man could act in any of these dramatic reenactment scenes.

The worst offender was probably the child playing Ed’s childhood friend. This character was way overacted. It’s as though the child had seen a parody of how little boys behave, and was told to act like that. As this was a little boy, he was likely a bit embarrassed.

Advertisement

And I know, I’m trash-talking a child actor. I’m trash-talking all of the children actors in this episode. But children can act. There are lots of examples of kids doing great acting jobs. Stranger Things is an obvious example. Violent Night is another. The kid can act. These kids couldn’t act.

Is it true?

Unlike most of the other episodes in this series, The Bunny Man is a story I’ve heard before. It is a legitimate urban legend that blossomed from a few firsthand accounts of madmen doing scary things dressed as rabbits in Fairfax County, West Virginia. These events probably inspired others to do stupid things like dress up like a rabbit and run around with an ax. Much like the people who decided to dress up like clowns and scare the hell out of people across the country in 2016.

So, yes, the Bunny Man is very much real. He’s real in the hearts and minds of pranksters and West Virginia frat boys. And he is based on some very real, very upsetting, actual events.

I honestly wish the whole season of Suburban Screams had been exactly like this. Filled with facts, first-hand accounts, and proof of scary events. This was everything I wanted in a supernatural/true crime story. So if you’re giving the rest of the season a pass, I would suggest watching this episode.

Advertisement
4 out of 5 stars (4 / 5)

Continue Reading

Trending