Welcome to Notes from the Last Drive-In. Normally these go up on Mondays, but some real-life engagements delayed my chance to view the films and write the review. This week we cover two 1980s films with 1989’s Bride of Re-Animator and 1982’s Next of Kin. Two wildly divergent films paired up, splattery pulp and an artsy slow burn, but welcome nonetheless. It’s another movie night on Shudder with the world’s greatest host. Let’s dive in, shall we?
This week’s tweets were handled by Payne and some of our other writers. Thanks for covering, gang! Give them a follow.
Opening: The character reversal of the City and the Town
With Bride of Re-Animator the luster of the original film shines brighter, but it’s not as though Bride is a dull film. It’s effective, technically sound, and features many things to love. But it is the first of what would be many lesser sequels – still fun, but incapable of quite capturing what worked so well with the 1985 original. Most of the pieces are there, and the film largely succeeds in its ambition to follow up on Herbert West and Dan Cain’s exploits. Yet something is missing. The film fell under the direction of Brian Yuzna and a script cobbled together quickly by Yuzna, Rick Fry, and Woody Keith. As a whole it is serviceable, but there is a distinct lack of the late Stewart Gordon. one wonders how things might have turned out if production wasn’t rushed to get a sequel made for a tax credit.
Despite the quibbles one may have with the fairly obvious Frankenstein-riff of a plot and the lesser writing and direction compared to the first, much of the film largely works and works well. The performances are excellent, with Jeffrey Combs and Bruce Abbott returning as West and Cain, respectively, the comical and ridiculous return of David Gale, and the fantastic performance of Kathleen Kinmont as the titular “bride.” The film is also technically strong, with some interesting tricks behind the camera at Yuzna’s direction and masterful effects by Screaming Mad George. Yet… the compromises are one too many for the film to truly live up to the original. No Gordon, a rushed script, and a planned finale that would never be filmed. It’s frustrating, really.
Most of my enjoyment of the first half of the night came from seeing what Jeffrey Combs is up to, as he was beamed onto the set with the socially-distance mannequin. We really should see if the mannequin has a name, honestly. The interviews do feel a little flat as a whole due to social distancing – they certainly lack a certain spontaneity that we’ve enjoyed in prior seasons, but they’re still quite fun. It helps that Jeffrey Combs is a perfect Drive-In guest: a living legend with some surprises, such as his slipping in and out of his redneck roots. We also received a number of fun anecdotes about the shoot, Combs’ continued friendship with Bruce Abbott, and hints about where the series could have headed. Of course, Combs is still game to do another Re-Animator film. Who else could play Herbert West, really?
Joe Bob Briggs generously gave Bride of Re-Animator the four-star treatment. I think Joe Bob has been a bit generous as of late, perhaps slowly losing his mind from cabin fever. It’s a good movie, but is it a four-star film by Drive-In standards? I am not so sure – the original Re-Animator? Undoubtedly. Bride, not really. As for me, I’d give Bride of Re-Animatorfour out of five Cthulhus.
(4 / 5)
Best Line: “He’s a wife-beater, Dan, use the gun!” – Herbert West being helpful
Ol’ Handsome Herbert has concerns…
Next of Kin (1982)
Real question: Do they still make sugar cubes? Last time I saw one was an absinthe bar in…ummm….New Orleans? #TheLastDriveIn#MutantFam
Next of Kin is an obscure, slow-burn Australian horror film, and yes, despite the wishes of the director, it is horror. As Joe Bob said last week, we know horror when we see it. It is probably the slowest burn on The Last Drive-In, but as someone who enjoys when horror takes its time, I found myself enjoying it a great deal. It is not without problems, however, perhaps grasping too ferociously at prestige, the film ultimately offers short bursts of mood between needlessly labored plot revelations. It’s fine, a good effort for first-time horror director/writer Tony Williams. He wasn’t long for the movie industry, ultimately turning to the advertising industry, but Next of Kin is like a tantalizing peek at what could have been an impressive film career.
The film follows a woman, Linda, who inherits an old folk home who sees a series of deaths of the elderly residents that evokes something from her past. It is a film of family secrets and the threat of madness that muddies the waters of what is real and what isn’t, yet the film doesn’t really commit to the supernatural vs. reality angle much at all. It is a haunted house story where the haunting is all in the mind and the threat is a strange, not necessarily satisfying reveal. The performances are solid, with Jackie Kerlin selling her tormented character with much skill – only to leave the film industry altogether. A strange turn on what could have been a promising career, but one mustn’t begrudge her choices.
Ultimately, much like how Jackie Kerlin left the film industry and Tony Williams transitioned to the ad industry, the film itself feels like a strong start with a sudden stop. So much potential lays within the bones of the story, but it gets traded for plodding pace, a non-sensical revelation, and an out-of-place explosive finale. So much potential and style just sort of squandered. Joe Bob discusses this film in the context of a rediscovered gem, a limited release that was given a new lease on life after a name drop from Quentin Tarantino. Yet, I can’t help but think the value of Next of Kin is in some admittedly stylish directorial choices and the sheer curiosity of it all. It isn’t quite Ozspoitation, nor is it totally inscrutable for the art-house crowd. It’s an odd film from Australia, albeit one that causes me to ponder the question of “what if?”
Joe Bob’s assessment of the film puts it in the four-star territory. I find myself disagreeing, heavily. What works in the film works, in spite of the issues with the plot and what feels like a desperate bid for cultural excellence. I can’t see myself giving this film more than three out of five Cthulhus.
(3 / 5)
Best Line: “Sex it up, baby!” – Joe Bob Briggs on making films, the AMERICAN way.
Enjoy scenes of painstaking research at diaries, medical logs, and financial records for long stretches of time
It’s not quite on her sleeve, but she wears the heart just as well
Episode Score
Ultimately, not the finest night at the Drive-In, but still very fun. Who doesn’t love movie night? That being said, Herbert West carries the night, thanks to a game Jeffery Combs, who is as delightful now as he seems to have always been.
(3.5 / 5)
See you all next week for more Drive-In fun. I’ll be live-Tweeting the show from Haunted MTL’s Twitter account again (thanks for filling in this week, Payne), so be sure to give us a follow there.
Anna (2013), also known as Mindscape, is a psychological thriller directed by Jorge Dorado. This R-rated directorial debut stars Mark Strong, Taissa Farmiga, Brian Cox, Saskia Reeves, Richard Dillane, and Indira Varma. As of this review, interested viewers can watch this film on VUDU, Hoopla, Plex Channel, Pluto TV, Roku Channel, Tubi TV, Amazon Prime, and more. Anna originally released in 2013, but it released in the US in 2014.
Struggling to return to his work as a memory detective, John (Mark Strong) pursues a new assignment. Anna (Taissa Farmiga) views John as her last chance to prove her innocence before she’s condemned to an asylum. As John searches through her memories, a tale of abuse and manipulation unravels.
Mindscape Cover of Anna (2013)
What I Like about Anna (2013)
Anna earned three nominations but no award recognition. From the Sitges–Catalonian International Film Festival, it earned a nomination for Best Motion Picture. The Goya Awards recognized Jorge Dorado with the 2014 nomination for Best New Director. Finally, Anna received a nomination from the Gaudí Awards for Best Art Direction.
Taissa Farmiga’s performance balances the line between suspicious and innocent, which is necessary for this unraveling mystery. It’s a delicate role, but Taissa Farmiga brings to life the material given.
No products found.
Anna‘s plot rotates around a new fringe science that’s slowly gaining traction. It’s less a dissection of this science and more a norm that Anna expects viewers to believe. It’s an interesting concept, though not unique. Still, it’s a nice additional dynamic to the mystery.
While not a horrifying film, it does deliver a mystery that keeps viewers engaged with enough hooks to add an extra layer before something gets stale. That mystery does linger in the mind in some respects but doesn’t haunt the viewer.
Disclaimer Kimberley Web Design
Tired Tropes and Triggers
Despite Anna not depicting these moments, sexual assault remains a recurring element of the film. Little remains conclusive, with some suggestions that these are false allegations. Furthering this point, the film depicts Anna as a manipulator and flirt when some incidents suggest she’s a survivor of assault.
Derogatory language might upset some, but these remain brief moments. The use indicates a particular character’s immaturity, but I’ll raise the point regardless. Furthering this line of analysis is a moment where a bullied character is implied to be gay, but it’s likely just an insult.
While not inherently a trigger, this new field of science earns the claim of being somewhere between forensic science and lie detector tests, a massive gap that anything can fit in. It makes everything subjective when the film wants to claim absolute evidence. I can’t help but wonder what exploring that unreliability might look like, but that’s not this film.
Mark Strong as John
What I Dislike about Anna (2013)
The biggest deal breaker for some is this concept of a teen mastermind. I won’t go into details about the mystery, but I am often fatigued with this idea of a teen femme fatale. While Anna gives enough mystery, it’s an overused trope.
Mark Strong’s performance delivers on the material, but John seems so easily manipulated for someone who does this as a profession. While out of practice, I don’t understand why he believes or doesn’t believe information. If Anna depicts John as overly critical or gullible, the film will have a more consistent character.
I assume there remains an understandable reason for the name change, but Anna appears as a common title for a film, spinning a series of some recognition. Mindscape also earns some recognition and competition, but it’s a more memorable title than a single noun name.
Final Thoughts
Anna provides an interesting concept and mystery, but many shortcomings hinder the execution. Viewers eager for a psychological mystery with a drop of sci-fi, Anna delivers an engaging story. However, the market does provide competition, making it a tough film to recommend. (3 / 5)
“The Demon of Parenthood” is the eighth episode of season 3 of Evil, created by Michelle King and Robert King. The central cast includes Katja Herbers, Mike Colter, Aasif Mandvi, Michael Emerson, Christine Lahti, and Andrea Martin. As of this review, it’s available through Netflix and Paramount+ and its add-ons.
The assessors investigate cursed toys in a terrible attack against commerce, but Ben (Aasif Mandvi) has a finger on the potential issue. David (Mike Colter) receives another task from the Entity. Kristen (Katja Herbers) learns more about her missing egg. Leland (Michael Emerson) invites Dr Boggs (Kurt Fuller) to the darker side of spirituality. Sheryl (Christine Lahti) takes her granddaughter to work.
Evil Season 3 Cover
What I Like about “The Demon of Parenthood”
I enjoy the espionage aspect of the Entity, pushing David to questionable grounds as he navigates what’s right against what’s demanded of him. While this plotline doesn’t reach its full potential, this episode highlights one of the more interesting opportunities of this idea. The Entity consistently interferes with the procedural case, possibly covering up abuse to support its objectives. This episode highlights this dynamic to perfection.
Kristen gets pulled in multiple directions, forced to question her trust in David, and faces a unique horror after learning about her missing egg. While I won’t dive deeper into this issue for this review, it’s safe to say this episode belongs to Kristen, and Katja Herbers delivers. Her unsettling night terrors suggest an intuitive understanding of some of the manipulations around her, highlighting these moments to the viewer by proxy. Beyond these meta moments, the execution of these night terrors remains pleasantly unsettling.
Last update on 2025-01-31 / Affiliate links / Images from Amazon Product Advertising API
Among a constant trail of failures, Leland lingers in the background as he puts pieces together for his master plan. We don’t see the full scope of his vision yet, but the suspense it builds for future episodes earns its place. I’m interested to see how these plots will evolve, even if Leland’s luck seems to turn sour. Perhaps it’s because of this dynamic that the tension works so effectively.
With a shocking moment tied into this episode, “The Demon of Parenthood” creates one of the more haunting episodes. However, the greatest accomplishment in the episode is what it establishes for the future of the series. While not all these points follow through by the end of Evil, it’s still an episode that ripples across the show’s progression.
Disclaimer Kimberley Web Design
Tired Tropes and Triggers
Without diving into too many details, spousal abuse and murder occur in the episode. This abuse might indicate a demonic influence, but such points remain speculation.
A severed body part and some gore stand out in this episode. It hardly earns enough attention from fans of gory horror, but the squeamish should tread carefully toward the end.
Horrible Realizations at Night
What I Dislike about “The Demon of Parenthood”
Many dropped ideas seem genuinely interesting, building to some potential development that receives little payoff. Missing these opportunities will never feel satisfying. While some changes are understandable, it creates holes in the narrative. For example, Dr. Boggs’ dark seduction slows in pace, becoming implied or withheld from the audience soon after “The Demon of Parenthood.” These experiences often adapt the concept of evil that the show seeks to bring to life.
Sheryl’s compliance with Leland’s plan still seems underdeveloped as a concept, especially with how far she takes it in this episode. While later episodes add a different perspective, I can’t help but feel these are retcons or concepts not thoroughly thought out.
Final Thoughts
“The Demon of Parenthood” progresses the plot and delivers some genuinely haunting moments. While a retrospective assessment does note many missed opportunities, the episode stands up beyond these missed opportunities. (4.5 / 5)
Eternal (2004) is a horror thriller written and directed by Wilhelm Liebenberg and Federico Sanchez. This R-rated film stars Caroline Néron, Victoria Sanchez, Conrad Pla, and Ilona Elkin. As of this review, it is available for Amazon Prime members with renting options from Spectrum on Demand.
When Raymond Pope’s (Conrad Pla) wife disappears, he’s swept into the mystery of Elizabeth Kane (Caroline Néron). As his investigation becomes increasingly bizarre, bodies pile up and point to Raymond Pope. Will he clear his name, or will this bloody rampage drown him?
Eternal Poster
What I Like about Eternal
While all of the performances add to the film, Eternal thrives on the charisma and mystique of Caroline Néron’s Elizabeth. She enchants her targets, lowering their defenses until that final moment.
Conrad Pla’s Raymond Pope also requires a delicate approach to succeed. The sleazy and hypocritical detective seems genuinely concerned for his wife (at least initially) and sells that concern. While far from an easy character to root for, the audience understands him and the danger he faces.
There’s a heavy erotic thriller angle that Eternal delivers on. I’ll linger on this point in later sections, but it certainly knows how to build tension within a single scene or between characters. These moments don’t feel forced, and while they often target a male audience, interesting dynamics rise above general exploitative content, if only slightly.
This seems to be a passion project between the creators, Wilhelm Liebenberg and Federico Sanchez. This passion lingers in the moments to deliver something unique, if not without its flaws. The film doesn’t hold back, a point that fluctuates between negative and positive depending on the situation. Regardless, it holds a charm in that commitment that’s hard to replicate without passion behind the scenes.
Disclaimer Kimberley Web Design
Tired Tropes and Triggers
The film labels itself as “Inspired by True Events,” which only relates to the general discussion of Elizabeth Báthory. It’s also worth mentioning that, much like Vlad Dracula, her story remains heavily dominated by modern interpretations. I won’t pretend to hold exclusive knowledge of these historical figures, but cultural interpretation reduces realism. The claim means little to nothing.
The predatory queer trope applies to Eternal, with little complexity to challenge the point as the violence often targets women. It’s important to note that Elizabeth acts as a femme fatale in general, but the targets remain clear. However, this film did earn a moment of recognition from the Glitter Awards (a clip was used in 2006), which might suggest the standout performance of Caroline Néron’s Elizabeth earns back some goodwill.
Elizabeth (Caroline Néron) and Irina (Victoria Sanchez) Drink Wine and Plot Crime
What I Dislike about Eternal
The erotic thriller holds a stigma that Eternal doesn’t challenge. Elizabeth remains a clear femme fatale with a slightly supernatural twist. While the performance executes this character perfectly, viewers likely know if this remains an interest or a tired cliche for themselves.
While most of Raymond’s acts make sense for the character, I hold issue with the end. Without going into too many details, he is asked to do one thing to protect himself and does the opposite for no reason. Perhaps this indicates supernatural influence, but such a claim lingers in headcanon.
The film ends ambiguously, which hardly seems fitting given the evidence and weakens the overall film. A definitive ending, or something moderately more definitive, would strengthen Eternal.
Final Thoughts
Eternal’s major obstacle in executing its erotic thriller is that of tired tropes in the modern era. If one looks past these dated points, there’s a haunting thriller that can meet moments of excellence. The plot falls short in many areas towards the end of the film. Ultimately, if a vampire-esque thriller interests you, Eternal certainly adds its perception to the niche but in a familiar form. (3.5 / 5)