Notes from the Last Drive-In: S4E8 – ‘The Stepfather’ and ‘The Freakmaker’
Welcome to Notes from the Last Drive-In, Haunted MTL’s review and recap series, tackling a “bad Daddy” night with Joe Bob Briggs and Darcy the Mail Girl. This week we cover The Last Drive-In S4E8 featuring The Stepfather (1987) and The Freakmaker (1974). So how does Daddy’s night fare compare to Mommy’s night last week?
What delights and horrors were to be found on Shudder this past Friday, June 16th?
The Stepfather (1987)
The Stepfather is a 1987 psychological horror film that best matches the “Bad Daddy” vibe of the evening. Directed by Joseph Rubin, the film was written by Carolyn Lefcourt, Brian Farfield, and Donald E. Westlake, with Westlake taking screenplay duties. Patrick Moraz handles the film’s music, while John W. Lindley and George Bowers tackle cinematography and editing duties, respectively. The movie stars Terry O’Quinn, Jill Schoelen, Shelley Hack, and Stephen Shellen.
The Stepfather follows a serial killer, Henry Morrison (Terry O’Quinn), who takes on a new identity and family periodically, murdering them when he feels they have failed to live up to his ideals of a family. He ends up meeting with a widow, Susan Maine (Shelley Hack), and taking in her daughter, Stephanie (Jill Schoelen). Meanwhile, interested parties, including Henry’s brother-in-law from a previous victim, Jim (Stephen Shellen), threaten to unravel Henry’s whole scheme.
So, how does this “Bad Daddy” movie fare? As a whole, the movie is competent but doesn’t exactly stand out. The film has become a cult classic, but that is mainly on the back of Terry O’Quinn, the only actor in the film given a compelling character. O’Quinn is fantastic as Henry, tapping into menace, rage, and Conservative-Christian geniality within an instant, sometimes within the same scene. Though he is not officially the lead of the movie, O’Quinn is pretty much the lead by having a real presence. Though many talented people are involved at all production levels here, it seems like the only person who came out of The Stepfather with something to be genuinely proud of is the future John Locke from Lost.
Jill Schoelen is a picture-perfect scream queen, equally beautiful and strong, but she has little to do in the film, nor do we even find a reason to root for her. Her early anxiety surrounding the new father figure makes sense, only to be seemingly abandoned partially into the third act, where it comes out again. I don’t get a real depth from her performance. Nor do I get that from Shelley Hack, either. It’s unusual how two strong actresses offer little in this movie. Jim Ogilvie’s manic performance is interesting but feels out of sync with O’Quinn’s “Bad Daddy” and ends up puzzling by the film’s end.
The writing isn’t great. The film itself doesn’t sell the sense of menace all that well, and any tension we may feel is because of the acting choices instead of story beats and scenes meant to create depth. Only two moments struck me as surprising. One was a murder with a wooden beam sold mainly by an explosively violent performance. The other was the hilarious frankness by which one plotline, woven through the entire film, is resolved in seconds. The latter was an unintended result, but I think it is indicative of some of the storytelling problems within the story. A lengthy sequence illustrates the process of preparing for murder and skipping out for a new town, but it just takes up so much of the runtime that could have helped develop other characters.
Technically speaking, this film isn’t overly impressive. I think the cinematography is suitable but only does something special in the third act featuring a long-held shot where a character gets uncomfortably close to breaking the fourth wall. The editing is serviceable as well. I have no real complaints, but I did not feel particularly wowed by any directorial choices. The music was a downside to the film; however, often grating and inconsistent with the film’s tone, the juxtaposition rarely worked. There were some rare instances when it did, but not nearly enough.
Joe-Bobservations on The Stepfather
One of the more entertaining host segments of the night was Joe Bob dipping back into the injustices of childhood, discussing the cynical world of the newspaper delivery boy. Inspired by the idyllic streets shown in the film, Joe Bob spoke at length about the scam that was the paperboy job, and we even learn that he was a paperboy as a child. It is a hilarious sequence, and you get the sense that he is still pretty heated about it today.
The big topic, beyond the background of the film and cast, which is all very interesting, was the discussion of the true-crime story that inspired the film. The murders of John List are infamous for being some of the most significant and brutal family crimes in criminal history. In many ways, the brief summation of the tragic events by Joe Bob was even more compelling than the movie that pulled from the actual murders. It shows that Joe Bob and his interest in true crime is something that Shudder would be wise to tap into for a documentary series.
Joe Bob made much hay about the exploitation background of Joe Rubin, but the real story was, unsurprisingly, about how good Terry O’Quinn is in the film. His audition was supposedly fantastic and chilling, and I would have loved to have seen that.
Final Thoughts on The Stepfather
The Stepfather is one of the more below-average drive-in movies we’ve had on the show, but that isn’t entirely bad. However, most of my enjoyment came from the wrappings of The Last Drive-In as opposed to the movie for the night’s first half. With only one character with any real agency or interest, mediocre production values, and some comically puzzling writing choices, I don’t think I could recommend much with The Stepfather beyond “see it once.” It was not just a “Bad Daddy” movie; it was also just bad.
Joe Bob Briggs gave The Stepfather 3 out of 4 stars. I give The Stepfather 2 and 1/2 out of 5 Cthulhus.
(2.5 / 5)
Best Line: “Wait a minute, who am I here?” – Henry/Jerry, seconds before disaster
The Freakmaker (1974)
The Freakmaker, sometimes known as The Mutations, is a seldom mentioned 1974 science horror film with an unusual pedigree and excellent, notable cast that ends up doing little to salvage this B-picture. It is a curious artifact of 1974 that, while novel, doesn’t prove compelling. Yet, Joe Bob Briggs does have his fascination for this weird little movie, but I doubt the Mutant Fam will take after it as well as they did with The Legend of Boggy Creek.
The film was directed by legendary cinematographer Jack Cardiff, who strangely hands the cinematography duties to Paul Beeson. The film was written by Edward Mann and Robert D. Weinbach, the latter who served as a producer. John Trumper steps in as editor, while the basic is handled by Basil Kirchin and an uncredited Jack Nathan. The film stars Donald Pleasance, Tom Baker, Brad Harris, Julie Ege, Michael Dunn, and Jill Haworth. The film also features a cadre of professional circus Freaks who lend their talents and authenticity to the sideshow setting for part of the film, including Willy “Popeye” Ingram, Esther “Alligator Girl” Blackmon, Hugh “Pretzel Boy” Baily, and Felix “Frog Boy” Duarte.
The Freakmaker features a group of students (Julie Ege, Jill Haworth, Scott Antony) and a visiting scholar, Brian (Brad Harris), who find themselves in the experiments of Dr. Nolter (Donald Pleasance) and his deformed assistant Lynch (Tom Baker). The two create genetic mutants combining human and plant characteristics, pawning off the failed results to a local Freakshow. Tensions arise between the experimenter, Nolter, the experimentees, and the Freaks, led by Burns (Michael Dunn), who rallies against the abuses of Lynch.
The “Bad Daddy” theme is a bit looser with this film but still pretty apt. The movie itself, however, is a mess. The film struggles between predictable plotting, homages that border ripoffs to stronger films, and a mixed bag of performances. Furthermore, the direction is stilted, which is odd from the director of Sons and Lovers (1960).
The story isn’t that good. Some ideas are interesting, but the way the concepts are delivered or developed is incredibly lacking. The film opens very slowly with what feels like a student film about the fungus life cycle as a metaphor as an understimulated Donald Pleasance recites memorized pseudoscientific lines. This is one of those rare instances where even I, a mighty reviewer who has managed to stay up for every movie shown on The Last Drive-In, felt my eyelids grow heavy. This is the most egregious example of the film’s ponderous, plodding, and talky nature.
With that being said, some of the ideas expressed in the dialogue are fascinating, but Donald Pleasance, usually an actor I am excited to see, doesn’t make it work. The cloning, genetic engineering, and the like theories are well ahead of their time here, even if they are couched in verbose nonsense. The film is at its best when it directly takes from Todd Browning’s Freaks (1932), but even then, it is a pale imitation. I’d rather be watching Freaks.
The other performances are fine, perhaps with Tom Baker having the most stirring of the bunch as a Freak who finds himself rejected in both worlds. He has a deeply sad scene with a sex worker that reveals his most significant insecurity, but it is a tantalizing tease and a more exciting story that does not get explored. Everyone else is just there to fill undercooked characters, and there is little agency for any of them to act upon. The ostensible protagonist accomplishes little, and the Freaks, fascinating that they are, only have a few moments before their sudden awkward action at the end of the film.
Even from a technical standpoint, the movie does not wow. I wasn’t overly taken with the direction from Jack Cardiff, nor were the editing and cinematography particularly interesting. The creature effects were decent enough, but ironically they looked to be on par with something in an episode of Dr. Who.
Joe-Bobservations on The Freakmaker
What became readily apparent as the film started is that Joe Bob has a soft spot for The Freakmaker. I can see why, too. Even if the movie isn’t the best I have seen on the show, it is a solid drive-in movie because it hits all the marks for Blood, Breasts, and Beasts. A lot of the apparent love for the film from our favorite horror host seems to originate with his interest in the subject matter of the Freakshow. During his host segments, he spent a lot of time talking about the people he interviewed and his love of the classic Freakshow. He also brought up an important point: if we are supposed to be body positive, is it fair to remove their opportunities for work?
Between Joe Bob’s discussions of the history of the Freakshow and the people who made them possible and his exciting stories about the cast and crew, there was also a hilarious moment of self-awareness as he just could not stop talking. It was charming to see Joe Bob break during one host segment, rattling off factoid after factoid, much to the chagrin of director Austin Jennings. I didn’t laugh quite as hard as the overly long Drive-In total for The Freakmaker, but it was a hilarious moment. Maybe the best part of the “Bad Daddy” evening.
Final Thoughts on The Freakmaker
I wish I could have enjoyed The Freakmaker more. It’s a strange little “Bad Daddy” movie, and had there been a bit more passion for the project across the board, I feel something fun could have really been found. Between a weak story, some overly-on-the-nose homages to Todd Browning’s Freaks, and curiously lifeless performances, there isn’t much to The Freakmaker that I enjoyed. I see the sketches of what I feel might work as a better film, but that’s not the point of this review.
Joe Bob Briggs gave The Freakmaker 3 out of 4 Stars. I can only give The Freakmaker 2 out of 5 Cthulhus.
(2 / 5)
Best Line: “You’re a pretty one though, aren’t you. Look, spend a little extra, and I’ll be extra nice to you. Or shall I give it to you straight? Short and sweet. Two pounds.” – An intensely affordable sexworker to Lynch
Haunted MTL Drive-In Totals
As usual, we have the official Drive-In Totals direct from Shudder. Tweet #2 is particularly intense!
As for our Drive-In Totals for the show, we have:
- 2 “Bad Daddy” Movies
- 52 Weeks of Movies
- 65 Years of Father’s Day Legislation
- 12 Year Production
- Overly Involved Psychologist
- Assault and Daddery
- Holiday Ranting
- Evidence Dumping
- Childhood Trauma Regressing
- Gratuitous Bathing
- Plate Kicking
- Gratuitous Lifetime Movie of the Week Musical Score
- Gratuitous Fu Description Fu
- Leaf Fu
- 2×4 Fu
- Killer Quip Fu
- Clipboard Fu
- Freak Fu
- Reverse Time-lapse Fu
- Corpse Rolls
- Darcy Cosplay: Genderbend Stepdad
Episode Score for the Last Drive-In: S4E8 – The Stepfather and The Freakmaker
It was a night for the “Bad Daddy” at The Last Drive-In. But how was S4E8, featuring The Stepfather and The Freakmaster, as a whole? Not great, if I am being honest. It was still an enjoyable night, but the films took a sledghammer to the overall evening. The theme felt appropriate, and the film choices made sense, for the most part, but the quality of the films was a real sticking point for me. I guess I am glad I’ve seen them at least once in my life. I don’t think I’ll be seeking them out again.
With that said, however, the show itself put together by the cast and crew of The Last Drive-In was a quality one. The “Bad Daddy” theme introduced some interesting discussion topics, even if those topics were more interesting than the films themselves.
I would give this episode of The Last Drive-In 3 1/2 out of 5 Cthulhus.
(3.5 / 5)
And with that, we are done for the week. What did you think of the movies? Did you have a favorite? Will you ever watch them again? Let us know in the comments. We’d love to hear your thoughts. “Do you have any “Bad Daddy” film recommendations?
Please join us on Twitter next Friday as we live-tweet with the rest of the Mutant Fam during The Last Drive-In with Joe Bob Briggs.
Want more of The Stepfather? (Sponsored)
Add The Stepfather to your collection by picking up a Blu-ray using our Amazon sponsored link.
Movies n TV
Anna (2013) To Some, Mindscape to Others, a Thriller Film
Anna (2013), also known as Mindscape, is a psychological thriller of a struggling memory detective named John.
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.
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.
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.
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)
Movies n TV
Tips on Raising Evil from “The Demon of Parenthood”
The assessors investigate cursed toys in an attack against commerce, but Ben has a finger on the issue in “The Demon of Parenthood.”
“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.
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.
![Evil: Season Three [DVD]](https://hauntedmtl.com/wp-content/plugins/aawp/public/image.php?url=YUhSMGNITTZMeTl0TG0xbFpHbGhMV0Z0WVhwdmJpNWpiMjB2YVcxaFoyVnpMMGt2TlRGYWJYaGtVVFpFYlV3dVgxTk1NVFl3WHk1cWNHYz18MTc0MDQyMTM5NA=)
- Katja Herbers, Mike Colter, Aasif Mandvi (Actors)
- Robert King (Director)
- Audience Rating: NR (Not Rated)
![Evil: Season Three [Blu-Ray]](https://hauntedmtl.com/wp-content/plugins/aawp/public/image.php?url=YUhSMGNITTZMeTl0TG0xbFpHbGhMV0Z0WVhwdmJpNWpiMjB2YVcxaFoyVnpMMGt2TlRFdGJuQndVRmhtU1V3dVgxTk1NVFl3WHk1cWNHYz18MTc0MDQyMTM5NA=)
- Katja Herbers, Mike Colter, Aasif Mandvi (Actors)
- Robert King (Director)
- Audience Rating: NR (Not Rated)
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.
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.
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)
Movies n TV
You’ll Have a Bloody Good Time with this Eternal (2004) Health Tip
When Raymond Pope’s wife disappears, he follows the trail. But each lead points him to the Eternal beauty of Elizabeth Kane.
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?
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.
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.
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)
