One on One with Bill Oberst, Jr.

Hollywood’s Horror Genre Actor Dishes on Social Media, Faith, and Zombies
(Part 1 of 2)

 

 

 

Right about now, you might wonder who Bill Oberst, Jr. is. Odds are, you already know him, you just don't know it.  He has starred in two Hallmark movies and appeared in the popular 1000 Ways to Die on Spike TV. Perhaps you are one of over 100 million Facebook users who checked out the hugely popular mini-movie app called Take This Lollipop this year.  If so, then this amazing actor has alreaqdy scared the bejesus out of you.  You know he can creep out the hardiest of souls. What you don't know from his movies may surprise you.

 

Recently, I was blessed to catch him on a rare break between projects, and after a recording session he agreed to an interview for Attack of the Killer B's. I promised a brief few questions.

 

I lied.

 

Ever the good sport, Bill went along, and shared some thoughts on spirituality, surviving in Hollywood, and the dangers of balloon animals. Grab some popcorn and get comfortable as I go one on one with Emmy-winning actor Bill Oberst, Jr.

Dax Bradley: I see you’re a pretty “techy” guy, all over the place, with facebook, your web site, youtube…

Bill Oberst, Jr: Yeah that’s pretty much the only way. You gotta be, that’s the only way you get word out, and stay current.

DB: I checked out your web site, and promotional pictures. I have so much to go into, and I wasn’t going to go here, but…good lord your physique is amazing. You’re a workout freak, yeah? I guess your job sort of includes your physicality as a product…

Bill: Yeah, you hit it right when you say ‘product’, because, I was a stage actor by training. I was on stage for 14 years on the East Coast. And on stage, you can be anything. I did comedy; I did historical characters, musical theater. But then, I came out to LA to do film in the middle of my life. I found that here, you have to really strictly brand yourself as to what you are. So, the camera sees my face as being…creepy, so that is sort of the basis for my brand, if you will.  I guess if I was detergent, I’d be Creepy Tide.

Now in addition to that, if you ask yourself, if you view yourself as a product, you say what do I have that could be an asset to me.  In one of the very first horror films that I did, I was wearing a wife-beater shirt. And the guy said, “You have like this really freaky ribcage,” and I thought, “Hmm, I should play that up”. So I constantly do pushups and stuff to stay lean, ripped, and maybe weird-looking.

DB: You crack me up, because I was looking at some of your promotional pics you did on your site, and the set where you have on this gas mask has your comments. In one, you said something like, “I wish I had worked on my biceps before doing this” I had to laugh, because, I wish I had those kinds of bicep ‘problems’!

Bill: Yeah, I guess I have to be kind of picky. I don’t consider myself an attractive guy. I’m never going to be an attractive guy. And part of my screen presence is this sort of creepy-from-head-to-toe kind of thing. For some reason, when you play these sort of odd characters, being lean and ripped, it helps.

DB: Well, you’re in good company. I mean, there are lots of people like Michael Wincott, who is scary-looking and buff, and Jim Caveizel, who interestingly also played Jesus, and now he plays psychotic people.

Bill: Yeah, I also played Jesus at one time.

DB: It seems like a bit of a conundrum, doesn’t it? Why do people who play a religious figure like Jesus, make convincing villains in darker roles?

Bill:  I think it’s because we constantly are portraying the very worst of humanity, and so it begs the question, is this all there is? Are we just animals who are only constrained by societal rules and whatever limitations we put on ourselves? Is that all we are? Or are we actually spiritual beings who can be better than that?

When you constantly play bad people, you think about what makes people behave this way. You become more interested in love than hate, because you constantly portray hate. You sort of live in it.  You live in this dark world of dark characters. It makes you very sensitive to the other side of it, the opposite side of it.  If you play demons a lot, you are very interested in angels.

DB: That’s an interesting metaphor. Now, let’s switch gears a little bit. You mentioned stage acting. The technicality behind stage acting is vastly different from acting on camera, right? Can you talk about that?

Bill: It is two completely different things. Here’s the way I’ll put it, because for some reason, sexual metaphors tend to be easier to understand for me, because I’m a guy (laughs). The stage is like a blind date. You meet a group of people; that’s your date. You’ve never seen them before. You don’t know what they like; they don’t know what you like. Over the course of the performance you find out what buttons they like pushed. They find out how to relate to you. You start to get into a groove, and then just before you’ve consummated, just before you’ve gotten close to them, the curtain comes down. Boom.

 

If you do that right, that’s what gives you the nice applause and the curtain call, because they want more. But they’re kind of glad they didn’t get it, because they might be disappointed. So it’s a really nice blind date that ends at the door.

The camera, on the other hand, is your lover. The camera is a hungry lover who knows exactly what she wants from you, and she will have it. If you don’t give it to her, she’ll look at somebody else. That’s the difference. I got the camera metaphor from Michael Caine. He wrote a book called Acting in Film and it’s genius. And he’s absolutely right, because camera acting is not really acting. It’s just being completely vulnerable and open. Whatever you’re acting like on film, you can’t really act it, you have to be it because the camera’s looking at your eyes. It’s like when we’re with our wives or whoever it is, you can tell by looking in their eyes whether they’re telling the truth. Same thing. The camera knows.

DB: So it’s two different skill sets. Hey, maybe that’s what happened to Shatner. He started out in theater also, where every move and annunciation is so dramatic and over-the-top. Then when he got to TV and movies, he didn’t tone it down, he’s still kind of…well, he’s Shatner.

Bill: Yeah, and he had the perfect role for it, with Captain Kirk. It is a perfect theatrical role. I’m a Star Trek geek, so I love Wrath of Kahn. Kahn seems like the perfect character. (Bill channels Richardo Montelbaun) “From Hell’s heart, I stab at thee, Kirk…”

 

For me, the only reason that I got started in film is because the first role that I got in film, which I didn’t even intend to get, it was Sherman’s March, a docudrama about General Sherman. And Sherman was a really big, theatrical character, which I’ve even done on stage. So I was able to fake it. But I knew absolutely nothing about being on film, so I was waay over-the-top, but Sherman was over-the-top. He’s the guy that said “War is cruelty; and the crueler it is, the sooner it will be over!”

So the role came off well, won awards and so forth. That’s when I thought, “Hmm. I should try film now if I’m ever going to try it.”  What I quickly learned was that if you’re not playing a really big character like that, you’ve got a lot to learn.  So I’ve been learning four and a half years now, doing film.

 

DB: You’ve probably spent a lot of time in the audition room, I take it.

Bill: There are probably tougher businesses in the world.  Maybe politics is tougher. I don’t know a tougher, more insecure business than acting.

DB: An actor told me once that you have to have a really thick skin, because if you go to a hundred auditions, maybe you’ll get one callback.

Bill: It’s like working as a marketer. You send a hundred flyers out in the mail. Maybe you’ll get a 2% response rate, so you know 98% are being thrown away. So you have to have that mindset. As long as you expect 2% to respond, then you’ll be OK.  Of union (Screen Actors Guild) actors, only 2% get to work consistently. There’s a 98% unemployment rate. And of the 2% who work, only 1% can actually make a living. So in the last four years, I’ve been lucky enough to be one of that 1% who is able to make a living acting on camera. So when I’m down, I count my blessings.

DB: So what’s next, can you talk about it?

Bill: My attitude is keep throwing stuff at the wall, and something will stick. I got a lot of projects coming up. Any actor out here who really hustles can find work. I’ve got four features coming up. I’ve just done three in a row.  I’m working on a fourth one now.  The best thing to do is go to my IMDb  (Internet Movie Database) page  and check it out: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2454994/

DB: I did that. Wow, you’re a busy guy. I think I counted 18 projects in 2012 for you. I was wondering…do you ever sleep?

Bill: (Laughs) Not much, no. Opportunity out here comes in weird ways. You met somebody on a set. They know somebody, who knows somebody…and you get a phone call. So the only way to work is to work. If you don’t take the jobs that you might not particularly want, you might not ever get to the jobs that you do want. If you have a reputation as a guy who works a lot, people might be more likely to hire you because you like to work.

Sometimes, it takes a year or two for the film you did to come out. There’s one I did called Children of Sorrow last year. I’m real excited about it. I play this cult leader in the desert. It’s really a hard-edge film. It’s sort of disturbing (see the trailer at  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW_FRa5HhNE )   We’re starting to look for distribution, going to festivals. When that starts you realize that was… (Counts to himself)...one, two….seven, eight….nine films ago. So that’s a good thing about working a lot, you’re not sitting around waiting for this one film to come out.

DB: So, you don’t see your movies until they come out, the same time everyone else does? Do you sit in on the dailies?

Bill: The only time you get to see any bits are when you do the ADR, the dialog looping. Sometimes you have to re-record spots where the sound wasn’t right, but that’s all you’ll get is that little tiny piece where it didn’t sound right, that you have to fix.  Usually, you see it with an audience for the first time, at a preview or something. You sit in the back, and hopefully not cringe.

DB: Did you acquire your skills in professional training? The things you convey without uttering a word is pretty amazing. I showed my wife Take This Lollipop (the Facebook interactive short film), and it was tense! The emotions you conveyed, the anger, hurt, and everything…wow.

Bill: I appreciate you saying ‘hurt’, because I try to bring that to all of these bad people that I play. Because I don’t think that evil comes from a purpose of just saying, “Ha haaa! I want to do bad things!” I think a lot of times it does come from hurt that has never been healed. That’s what I was thinking of when I did this character, was that this guy is obviously bent on harm. But, he kind of feels like people don’t…like him. Maybe they deserve what they’re going to get because they don’t like him. It’s not true, it’s sort of twisted logic. But I appreciate you saying that.

DB: I read somewhere that the best villains have a sympathetic backstory. Maybe there’s some truth to that.

Bill: For me, someone who does bad things, but feels conflicted about it; that’s the gold standard. That’s what I really, really like to play. That’s more interesting. Maybe a person who whispers instead of shouts. Someone who says, “I’m really sorry I have to do this.” To me, that’s much more frightening.

That’s much more human. We actually hurt each other all the time. We may not kill each other. Humans are so dichotomous. We say, “We are good, and those people over there are bad,” but the truth is, dozens of times as day, we wound other people with our thoughts. It’s there in all of us.

DB: So you have to draw on pretty dark themes. Is it hard to ‘come out’ of it? Do you consider yourself a method actor?

Bill: Nah, I’m not trained as a method actor. I just make it up. I just try to feel things. I pray a lot before I do these roles. And I don’t mean that I say, “Oooooh Lord, I beseech thee! Wilt thou help me?” I just acknowledge to Him that I am weak, that I am a sinful man by nature. And that there is nothing good in me, outside of Him. And let me, if only on a subconscious level, show people what humanity is like, without God. And yeah, it is a really dark place, and you don’t really want to talk to people before or afterwards.

I’ve had people on sets see that I’m really focused and they say, “Well, he must be a method actor”, but I’m not, I just feel a real responsibility.  Maybe somebody who was thinking of doing something really horrible may watch this movie. They will see the futility of relying just on our own goodness as humans.  I don’t think that humans have inherent goodness. I don’t think that we’re naturally good. We’re naturally pretty cruel to each other.  Even though normally I don’t get to talk about this, and that’s why I appreciate this interview. I sure don’t get to talk about it onscreen, so I try to really put it into the eyes of the character.

DB: Is it difficult to be a witness in your industry? It seems a little taboo almost, in a liberal area. Do people think, “Oh boy, a Jesus Freak”?

Bill: You know, I used to have this ministry where I toured and played Jesus. I recreated His teachings. I did this for 12 years. I met hundreds and hundreds of people.  Frequently, I would go to an area where people would literally flock to church for it. These people would never have come, but they came for this, because it was the teachings of Jesus. Not a preacher.

I had an old man once; he waited around for everything to be over, for me to take off my costume. I came out and he was the only one left. I said, “How do you do, pleasure to meet you,” and he said, “I’m gonna tell you something: I don’t give a good damn about religion. But Jesus is alright.” That’s the way people out here are in the industry. I never meet anybody who dislikes the teachings of Jesus, or disagrees with what he said. What they have a problem with is the hypocrisy of Christianity. I completely understand.

By nature, people who work in this industry are sensitive, and they are emotional. They tend to be open-minded because they deal with a variety of subjects on film. And they are very sensitive to being judged. Of course, Christians are very sensitive to being judged too, so you’ve got these two groups who can’t talk to each other. So in my own way, I try to be a bridge, and hopefully somebody will notice. Maybe they’ll see the cross I wear, and maybe they’ll say they don’t believe in Jesus, but that there is some pretty interesting stuff in the Bible. So absolutely, yeah, I’ll get into a conversation, and it always strikes me, because you know Jesus, he always meets people right where they are at.

DB: It is interesting, isn’t it? People associate Jesus with words like ‘peace’, ‘love’, ‘prophet’; when asked about Christians, you know, followers of Jesus, the word association changes to ‘hypocrite’, or ‘judgmental’.

Bill: You know, I wish the word Jesuit weren’t already taken, because I prefer that to Christian. I’m a follower of Jesus, and I’m into Jesus. As for the word Christian, I don’t know. I’m not even sure what that means. I’m into Jesus, and I love Him. He is my light. He is my Jehova Jireh, the way, the truth, and the light to me. But to call myself a Christian puts me in a group of people that I frequently disagree with. If they follow Jesus, then that’s awesome. But if they say that if I’m part of their group, that I must also follow all of their opinions, no, I don’t.

The thing about Jesus is, it’s about surrender. He surrendered to the will of His father. That’s what it’s about; it’s saying, “I surrender to you. Whatever you have planned for my life, I want that, more than what I want planned.” You know, there are no actions or activities that we can do to earn Grace. You have to surrender in order to get it. You know what I mean?

DB: Yeah, absolutely.

Bill: That’s missed a lot of times. People think it’s about doing service for God, or ‘What can I offer’…you can’t offer anything! Like I can say, “Oh God, I give my talents to you,” but really, where do I think the talents came from? It’s already His! I can’t give Him anything that’s not already His.

DB: I hadn’t thought of it that way.

Bill: So, when I first started doing these dark roles, I was kind of conflicted about it.  I thought about how I don’t want to lead people down dark paths. But, the doors kept opening.  And it’s like; ok…I’m going to play these people on screen.  And then off-screen, I’m going to talk about you (Jesus).  And so that’s what I do. And you know, I’m glad I play sort of the antagonist. You know, all the parables of Jesus have antagonists.

DB: Yes, that’s true. The Bible is replete with lots of scary stuff.

Bill: Yeah, I was just reading yesterday in the first chapter of Mark. I have a devotional I read every morning, Oswalt Chambers. It gives me a good excuse to read whatever chapter it is. Anyway, in the first chapter of Mark, Jesus is teaching in the synagogue.  This guy stands up, and he’s possessed. He says, “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? We know who you are, the holy son of God!”

Well, Jesus comes over to him, and lays his hands on him, and the demon leaves the guy and cries out with a loud, piercing shriek - that’s scary stuff! That’s real scary stuff, the demoniac, rushing out of the tombs, naked and in chains, saying, “Our name is Legion-for we are many”.  Yeah, the Bible is absolutely replete with that stuff.

DB: You mentioned before that you’d like to do a spiritual movie. Is it your goal to do something along these lines, like a possession movie?

Bill: Yeah, I’m struck by the fact that when Jesus was baptized by John, He rose up out of the water and what happened? The Spirit of God comes down, and says, “This is my son, in whom I am well pleased.” Now, in the very next verse…the Holy Spirit immediately sends Him out into the wilderness with the wild beasts.  Satan then tempted Him, and the angels ministered to Him. And I’m like…Whoa! He’s saying like…”Here you are, you’re my blessed son. Now I’m sending you out into the freakin’ desert, with wild animals, and the prince of darkness!”

DB: Kind of goes right for the jugular, huh?

Bill: Yeah. I do not think there’s much in our culture that talks about how we have to wrestle with the darkness and demons ourselves.  And I definitely want to do a project about that.  There’s one I’m working on called Lord Bateman. It’s a demon sort of script, and the idea is it’s about a man who has really dark desires, and rather than fight them, he acts them out. He can’t deal with this, and so he comes to believe that he actually is a demon that has been put on the earth as punishment to live as a human.  He can’t deal with the fact that as a human being, he has these urges, and he has to fight the demons.

So I did a photo shoot in character as the demon that he imagines himself to be.  He’s all red and dripping with bile, horns, the way you traditionally imagine a devil in your dreams (some pics are at  http://www.morehorror.com/Horror-Movie-Lord-Bateman-in-Development-at-Dismal-Productions). We’re working out the script for that one right now. But yeah, the whole fact that we’re tempted by the devil and we’re tempted by demons, the fact that there’s spiritual warfare that’s going on all the time…that’s rarely hit on. I want to tell people that it’s natural; that we all have demons, we all fight them.  You can only do it day by day.

DB: Well, it sounds very interesting, like it has more layers than a typical possession horror movie. It sounds like you hope to sort of ‘humanize’ the theme, and make it not so black-and-white.

Bill: There are people interested in it, and they don’t share the faith necessarily that you and I do. All cultures and all religions have demons.  There’s a universal fascination with that. An old preacher told me one time…you know those older signs that you see on churches, the ones with the letters you change around? He said that if he put up that he’s preaching on the word of God, he’ll have 50 people show up. If he puts up that he’s preaching on hell-fire, he’ll have 500.

I believe in a literal devil and I believe in literal demons. I know that I have wrestled myself, with them.  People could say, “Oh, he’s crazy.  He’s played all these insane characters,” but I’m telling you…a man knows if he’s wrestled with Satan.  I know that if Satan is tempting you, he’ll come through the doors he thinks he can get through.  If you manage to close those, he’ll come around the other side, and see if there’s a window cracked. He wants to pound and pound on you, ESPECIALLY…if you are professing your faith in Christ. I believe that if you are publicly professing your faith in Christ, the devil does not want to just dissuade you.  I believe he wants you dead.

DB: That’s true. If you are in God’s army so to speak, and doing right, you’ll definitely have a target on you. If you are not facing Satan sometimes, you must not be a threat. Something’s wrong.

Bill: Jesus himself said, “If people speak ill of you because of me, rejoice and be happy. The time when you should worry is the time when people say good things about you,” so, yeah…now, I’ve officially crossed over into Religious Fanatic Territory. Thank you, Dax (laughing).

Author's note: Stay tuned for the 2nd part of our exclusive 2-part interview with Bill Oberst, Jr in the coming days as he delves deeper into faith, his horror film inspirations, and more!

For more information, check out Bill’s resume at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2454994/

Also, check out these cool links:

www.billoberstjr.com

www.billoberstjr.blogspot.com

www.twitter.com/billoberstjr



Horror Hotel (1963) aka City of the Dead

"The basis for reality is in fairy tales; the basis for fairy tails is in reality."~Professor Alan Driscoll (Christopher Lee)

I was thinking the other day about what defines a “B-Movie”. There are varying descriptions, normally invoking images of movies made on the cheap. Additionally, films that are so-bad-they’re-good have been grouped into this category.

Some people believe that only older movies qualify for B-Movie status. Myself, I do not subscribe to this assessment. I believe that modern movies can also be considered B-Movie material, and that’s not a bad thing (See my review of Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies). Personally, if a film is made inexpensively and quickly, employing science fiction, horror, or fantasy elements it falls into B-Movie category, as long as it’s an earnest attempt and not purposely badly-made, if that makes sense.

However, the traditional B-Movie description comes from the humble beginnings of drive-in movie history. In the 40’s and 50’s, film production companies typically released two movies at once to follow the two-film format of the drive-in experience. The first movie, which came in Reel ‘A’, would be the big one, with the highest-paid stars, lavish budgets, and biggest sets. Often, the second film that followed, in Reel ‘B’, would be one made quickly and cheaply, using contract players who were paid by studios weekly to help churn out the second movie to fill out the two-movie block. Hence, these movies were called the ‘B’ movies. Get it? The stars in the first movie were “A-list” actors. The second movie…well, that’s where we get ”B-Movie actors”. I mention this for two reasons; one, it’s historically interesting; and two; it’s a decent segue-way into today’s review.

Made in 1960, Horror Hotel, as it was known in the U.S. or City of the Dead as it was known in Britain, hit theaters double-billed with the West German film The Head. I do not consider Horror Hotel to be a B-movie on the basis of being cheap or bad. It is actually a really good, slick-looking production. I have another qualifying characteristic; the inclusion of Christopher Lee. Sorry, Star Wars Episode 2 and 3, but that makes you an expensive B-movie. Horror Hotel is an enjoyable, scary, atmospheric movie that draws you in quickly with its well-conceived characterization, spooky set design, and witty dialog.

The opening brings us into the community of Whitewood, Massachusetts in the 16th Century.
We witness a mob closing in, which is generally accepted as not a good sign for somebody. They accuse the town weird chick, Elizabeth Selwyn, of being a witch and set about burning her at the stake. At this point, we don’t know if there is any evidence or reason, or if they are being paranoid or what. She asks for help from Jethrow, who promptly throws her under the bus. He denies having consorted with her, presumably to save his own skin. However, we see him utter a prayer to save her while the mob sets about burning her at the stake. His prayer is unusual though, as he is not beseeching God for help; he is actually calling on Lucifer! A dark shadow forms over the crowd, and the conclusion is left ambiguous to the audience.

We cut to the present and meet our main character, Nan Barlow. Nan is played by Venetia Stevenson, a 50’s blonde model and actress who also appeared on “77 Sunset Strip”. She is studying American History in college under Professor Alan Driscoll, played by the always amazing Christopher Lee, in a non-Hammer film non-vampire role. Driscoll is giving a lecture on the witch trials, and shows an unnatural intensity toward the subject. Speaking of unusual attraction for witchcraft, Nan, who is an over-achiever, tells him how she wants to know more on the subject to help her grade. He sends her to Whitewood to learn first-hand from the locals more about the lore, explaining that he knows Mrs. Newless of the Raven Inn.

Nan goes off to Whitewood, despite objections from her boyfriend Bill, her brother Professor Richard Barlow, and common sense. Nan is nice looking, intelligent, and likeable. As portrayed by Venetia Stevenson, she is capable of showing us a sympathetic character you want to both root for, and choke for her many bad decisions. Her lack of discernment in this story would embarrass a five-year-old, but if she had an ounce of wisdom, there would be no movie.

She pokes around Whitewood for a few days to learn about witchcraft and lore from the townspeople. The set of the town is quite impressive for an older movie. The buildings do look ancient, the backdrops eerie, and the use of fog is quite effective. Nan meets the inn keeper, Mrs.
Newless. Newless is mysterious, creepy, and bears a strong resemblance to the woman killed in the beginning of the story.

She also meets the librarian; another young girl about her age, probably early 20’s who has only been in town a couple of weeks. Her name is Patricia Russell, and she is played by Betty St. John. Betty should be familiar to fans of 50’s and 60’s films, having appeared in such movies as “The Robe” and “Corridors of Blood”, also with Christopher Lee.

Ms. Russell is living with her grandfather, Reverend Russell. He warns Nan to get out while she can, but does not elaborate. Despite her many warnings, poor Nan bites the bullet fairly early in the movie. This movie has drawn many comparisons to Psycho partly because of this part of the story. For example, she is in a strange inn (like the Bates Motel). She is up to something forbidden by showing a strong interest in black magic, whereas the girl in Psycho is actually breaking the law. Just before being killed off, both characters are seen wearing black “bad-girl” undergarments, pretty daring in the 50’s and 60’s. Black bras and underwear always indicate a dark character trait in early films, and nearly always mean this person’s going to meet her maker very soon!

So poor Nan sneaks around and stumbles upon a ritual involving witches observing Candlemas. They tie her down and one reveals herself to be Mrs. Newless, who is really Elizabeth Selwyn. Get it? Newless is phonetically Selwyn backward. Elizabeth kills Nan off-screen in a scene that builds up dramatically and is quite effective.

This is one area where the movie is so much better than modern movies. There is not one drop of blood, though lots of violence occurs or is implied. What you don’t see is much scarier than actually seeing lots of gore for gore’s sake. Just before a person (or in one case, a poor animal) is killed, it cuts to another scene, or occurs off-screen.

Nan’s brother Richard sets out to find her after she disappears and misses her aunt’s birthday party. He learns more about her research after talking to the librarian Patricia. The two hit it off pretty quickly. Her grandfather warns Richard about hanging around and advises him to leave.
However, soon it is obvious Pat is the next victim. Reverend Russell tells Richard how to stop the witches with a large cross. Why this information has never been used before now is unclear, but that’s unimportant. Meanwhile, the boyfriend who until now has been largely useless and unlikeable shows up to town to also search for Nan. Just as he arrives, he has a bad car wreck in one of the films “gotcha” scary scenes. He lumbers on into the village anyway,
showing up in time to help Richard and Pat. The townspeople are apparently all witches and warlocks, having grabbed Pat for the final sacrifice, which has to be done by midnight, because that’s how these things work.

Richard and Bill work together to save the day. The conclusion has Bill taking a cross from the hallowed grounds of the church and carrying it to the sacrifice. The cross has the startling effect of causing the witches and warlocks to burst into flames. The effect is unexpected for a movie of this era, and is intense, as we see several of them running around consumed by fire, sometimes in the same frame. Kudos to the effects team and stunt men. You see it lots of times now,
but this is an early example as far as I can tell.

Horror Hotel is a remarkable little movie in many ways. It has my admiration because of the tight direction, heightened tension without much violence (save for the fiery conclusion), and spot-on performances. I wish that Christopher Lee has a bigger part in this, but that is my only qualm.

Witchcraft purists might not like the fact that the script makes no distinction between witches and literal Satan worshippers, with them specifically calling out to Lucifer. However, if you study Christian Scripture, it is clear that there are only two paths; the One True God, or Satan. If you are not a believer in Christ, then all other paths lead to the devil.

James 3:15 says, Such“wisdom” does not come down from Heaven but is unearthly, unspiritual, of the devil.

I am not bothered by the depiction of pairing of witchcraft with Satanism. I just want readers to
know where I’m coming from. That plot point helped the conclusion make sense, when the antagonists are defeated by the appearance of the holy cross. I like horror movies with a spiritual
theme. Evil is ultimately undone by God, and in this movie it is shown unapologetically.

I highly recommend this movie, and give it the highest mark, four out of four.

Didja Know?

• I am by no means an expert in witchcraft, Wicca,
  or any of those themes. I had to do some
  research after seeing this movie on their ritual they call Candlemas. I found
  that it is actually a Christian holiday, observed to celebrate Jesus’ early
  life.
• Fun fact-Rob Zombie's song Dragula featured Christopher Lee's sound byte "...superstition, fear, and jealousy" 
• Betty St. John would later become the
  mother-in-law to American rocker Axle Rose of Guns N’ Roses
• Two minutes of footage missing from the American
  print showed Elizabeth in the initial burning scene declaring her allegiance to
  Lucifer and placing the curse on the village.
  The removal of this plot point would make her guilt ambiguous until
  later in the movie, but made certain bits of dialog sound confusing when
  referring to the curse over the town

Abraham Lioncoln vs. Zombies

Let me begin this review with a little background information so you'll know where I'm coming from. A company called Asylum Films has been producing direct-to-video films for years now, often releasing titles with names very similar to new theatrical releases. The most famous, or infamous example may be Asylum's Transmorphers, which debuted on video about the same time as the theatrical release of Transformers.

Naturally, purists cry foul when the company releases movies using this business model, but it's important to remember it is just that: a business model. Movies are made for one purpose, and one purpose alone: to turn a profit. If audiences are entertained by it, then it is not only profitable, but enjoyable. I can't fault Asylum for creating movies that resemble big-budget movies, especially since I've watched a few Asylum films. Today's review is for Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies, which at first glance brings to mind the upcoming Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.

It's easy to take pot-shots at Asylum for creating this, but let's be fair and point out a couple of things: One, AH:VH hasn't actually debuted yet, so it's impossible to compare it to ABVZ. Two, the former enjoys a reported budged of $70 million, while this movie was made for $150,000. The barometer for a film's entertainment value is not budget. For example, Michael Bay's Transformers: Dark Side of the Moon is easily one of the worst, if not the worst movie ever made, though it cost like, Infinity Dollars. I'm not embarrassed to say Transmorphers was a better movie, though that's like saying a route canal is superior to an anal probe, but I'm getting off track.

Let's talk Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies.

Was the much-less-expensive AHVZ entertaining? YES. I am happy to report that I am an unabashed fan of this film. I'm not bothered by the similarities in concept between this and that other Abraham Lincoln movie coming out this year. Besides, I've read the book that one is based on, and the story is not the same.

What the director Richard Schenkman did with a much smaller budget is pretty amazing. He and the special effects crew put enough spit and shine on this movie to make it look like a much more expensive film. The cast is large, comprising of the titular Lincoln, 12 Secret Service agents, a love interest, Confederate soldiers, Union soldiers, and hordes and hordes of zombies.

Top marks go to Bill Oberst Jr, who plays the title character. As Lincoln, he embodies a wise, compassionate, and level-headed leader. I appreciate his approach to playing Lincoln the way he did in this project. With the subject matter, it would be easy to see an actor play it way over-the-top, almost falling into parody-land. However, you could have removed zombies from this story and presented a period drama, and Oberst would be equally at home and just as effective. He shows restraint, remorse, and just enough zeal without going into smarmy territory.

Fans of history will spot several references which would later be worked into actual Lincoln quotes, which I won't divulge here. This part of the script by Karl Hirsch is perhaps the only thing that bugged me from time to time. He felt the need to fill the story with so many nudge-and-wink moments, that at times it felt a little forced, such as when Lincoln warns a young Teddy Roosevelt that when near zombies, "walk softly...and carry this big stick".

I'm not a history buff, but Oberst's portrayal does make me want to know more about the real Lincoln. There are at least two more Lincoln movies coming out this year, but I can't see one being more compelling than this presentation. I have to confess, the delivery of the Gettysburg Address toward the end had me misty-eyed.

Having said all that, do not fret, monster movie fans-this is foremost a zombie movie. There is plenty of mayhem to be seen here. Zombie attacks are numerous and bloody. The scenes are tense and at times genuinely scary. This version of zombie lore has a rule that I am haven't seen before. The zombies presented here are at times in a state of "sleep". In this state of suspended animation, they just stand around in a daze, unaware of people slipping by if they are quiet enough. You might think this renders them less scary, but it does set up some nerve-racking moments as our group of heroes try to sneak past large groups of sleeping zombies.

Lincoln's weapon of choice is a folding scythe which opens up kind of like a switch-blade. When folded up, he is able to hide it in his coat. When needed, he slings it out and goes to town on his undead quarry. Guns are effective against the zombies as well, but the gunfire noise attracts more zombies. Consequently, the best way to deal with them is hand-to-hand, which makes for a much more exciting movie anyway.

As I said before, there are real historical figures in this movie, including Roosevelt, General "Stonewall" Jackson, and even Pat Garret, all of which play a significant role. The appearances are not mere cameos, however. All play an important role, culminating in a final act that I won't give away here. Suffice to say it is well-written and unpredictable.

Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies is available on Netflix, and in Redbox Rental kiosks as of this writing. Fans of B-Movies, Survival Horror, and zombie flicks will have a rollicking good time. I highly recommend this movie. 4 out of 4.

Didja Know?

Bill Oberst, Jr. just may not be the highest-paid actor in the United States, but he may be the most prolific. At the time of this writing, he has at least 18 projects including two short films in 2012 alone.

War of the Robots (1978)

I like to think of myself as the Jackie Chan of B-Movie Reviewers. I'll explain. I'm not saying I'm a kung-fu master, or a stunt-man or anything like that. Jackie is well-known for being those things, for sure, but that's not what puts him at the top. His edge is his willingness to hurt himself for his viewers. He has fallen from buildings with no wires or CGI, been slammed on concrete floors, and even once nearly died when he fell from a tree in a stunt gone wrong in Yugoslavia.

Well, once in a while, I put myself through painful experiences for this blog. While I'm not popular or even paid to do this, I feel an obligation to try on obscure B-Movies in order to dig up treasures for others who might want to check them out. On occasion, I find something so wonderful, so monumental, that I believe everyone should experience it once.
Today is not one of those days.

In 1977, Star Wars burst onto the scene and changed the way we view movies. The summer blockbuster was born. Naturally, this precipitated a slew of imitators, most notably from Italian film-makers armed with a small budget and a gaggle of good-looking bad actors. There are some examples of good efforts, some not as good, and some that make you cry for the sweet release that Death would bring.

In 1978, Italy unleashed War of the Robots on an unsuspecting public to cash in on the Star Wars craze. The basic plot of this film involves a group of space pilots who chase rogue aliens across the universe to re-capture two friends, Lois (the apple of hero John's eye), and Professor Carr. The heroes are in a space station that is going to blow up soon, unless they get Professor Carr back in time. Why is the station overloading? And where are the robots of "War of the Robots"? I don't know.

The capture involved a group of terrorists who look like blond Aryans or something. They come in the dead of night, wearing shiny jump-suits and sporting blond bowl-cuts. There are maybe five or six actors playing these guys, and they are used repeatedly, making me wonder if they are clones, or what. I don't know.

This leads to one of my many beefs with this movie. The appearance of the blond bowl-cut bad-guys is so similar to some of the blond bowl-cut good-guys, it quickly becomes confusing on who is who. Did the Italian film-makers assume that in the future, everyone would be blond, and most would have a bowl cut? I don't know.

At any rate, our heroes hop in a ship and chase aliens along their known trajectory, and come across two ships. Now, if it were Captain Picard in this situation, he would hail them, and determine if this group of ships has their friends. Then, they would negotiate their return.

This is not Star Trek, though.

The heroes don't ask questions, they just blast away, killing the aliens quickly, and do not even ponder if they just vaporized their friends. At any rate, they decide to land on a nearby planet to check it out. Why did they choose the planet? I don't know. Once they are there, they do encounter inhabitants who attack them initially, because you know, it's their planet and the humans are technically invaders. After a brief encounter, we get a look at the inhabitants. They have in interesting look, having evolved the way cave salemanders have evolved, with weird-looking eyes. The makeup job was well-done:

As you can see, the effect is rather creepy, and one of the highlights. Back to the story...the leader of the aliens accuse the humans of being "men and women of Anthor". What does that mean, what is Anthor, and why is it significant? I don't know.

Soon, the blonde Aryan-looking dudes show up, wreaking havoc and fighting our heroes some more. During this segment, one of my biggest laughs occured. The heroes are inside the caverns while they leave behind a senior commander. He is supposed to be from Texas, at least in this American English dub. He has the funniest faux Southern accent this side of Nicolas Cage. His Texas-ness is stressed by the fact that when he is in charge, he feels compelled to remove his space boots, and put on cowboy boots. They go so well with his shiny space-suit.

Our heroes do eventually end up on the bad-guys' planet, and we get to see one bright spot in the film. It does boast some interesting set-design. This is before the days of CGI and elaborate back-drops. The set for the bad guys lair took lots of construction and design work.

The heroes have another fight with blonde Aryan-looking dudes, who this time, whip out light-saber looking weapons. Yay, now something I can relate to! They fight, and learn that Carr and Lois have either been working as double-agents, or are brainwashed by the aliens. It is never explained, but by now, my brain is mush, and I don't care.

Oh, and the aliens want Carr to build a machine like the one he built on Earth. I don't know what kind of professor he is, nor do I know what the machine is he built on Earth that the aliens want on their planet. Maybe it's a kickin' expresso machine, and they are jonesing for some good java. I don't know, nor do I care by now.

Still...light sabers! They fight the blond Aryan dudes, eventually breaking one of them open, and showing us that these are the robots of "War of the Robots". Finally, some clarity.

They escape, with the aliens in pursuit, and during the chase, now-evil Lois confers with the alien leader, whose name is Gonad.

I'm not kidding.

I'm not sure if the Italian dialect has a homonym for 'Gonad' that means something other than the American vernacular, but it is pretty funny, especially when Gonad is kind of, shrivelled and odd-looking. He actually looks like the Emperor from Star Wars:

The heroes fly away, have another space battle, and save the day. Oh, and there was another sub-plot about someone named Julia who also loves John, and appeared for about a millisecond in the beginning. She shows up and saves his useless life twice, and he decides she would be a better mate than the girlfriend-turned-Empress of the Aliens Lois. Whatever.

Lois turns on Carr and kills him, making me wonder if she is a triple-agent. I'm lost, and my eyes are bleeding. More battles ensue, and the good guys win. Can I go home now?

"War of the Robots" was made in Italy, and upon its release in the United States, the credits were re-worked to change the names of most of the actors to more American sounding names. For example, Giacomo Rosse-Stua was billed as James Stuart. Therefore, if you are a reviewer who is looking for background information on a given actor you might pull your hair out. That would stink. Again.

Bottom line, if you are interested in a nonsensical movie with some unintentional laughs, you can check this out. However, unless it comes out as an episode of Cinematic Titanic, Rifftrax, or Mystery Science Theater 3000 I'm not going near it again. Tread carefully at your own risk.

One-half out of four.

Flight To Mars (1950)

If you have observed the news in recent weeks, you will have noticed a lot of attention on the Mars Rover story. JPL gathered $2 billion and developed another robot with excavation tools and cameras for sampling rocks and soil on the Mars surface. The purpose of the mission is to try to determine whether Mars sediments and rocks contain fossilized bacteria or other evidence of life on Mars. The reason JPL was able to justify that kind of money on this mission is that we have an unquenchable thirst to know more about Mars. Did life exist there? Are there microbes present now? Was there, or is there presently, water underground? Because of all the focus on Mars recently, I decided to watch another movie centered around the Angry Red Planet.

Enter "Flight To Mars", released in 1951. This is a charming little movie that cashed in on the space movie craze of the early 1950's. This film follows a group of scientists and one reporter to Mars. Reportedly shot in five days, the movie does feature impressive special effects for the day, as well as some of the best set design in a genre film for the decade. The ship itself is sleek looking on the outside, as many 50's star ship depictions are. The interior looks pretty authentic, incorporating gyros to keep everyone upright and able to walk around. If you are a sci-fi film buff you may think you've seen this before when we get inside the ship, and you'd be right. The interior is the same interior from "Rocketship XM", shot the year before.

We also get plenty of character development while on the way to Mars. We meet Dr. Jim Baker (Arthur Franz) who is leading the mission. His assistant is along for the ride, in the form of the beautiful Carol Stafford, played by Virginia Huston. She has been at his side for three years, learning the trade and becoming indispensable. She also has been in love with Jim, who is more interested in tweaking his instruments than his love life. He is stringing her along, and obviously loves his job more. Enter the reporter, Steve Abbot (Cameron Mitchell). Steve is our everyman in this story, not invested in the science at all. He is more concerned about the human element of the story.

Being that Steve is a reporter and more observant than the average person, he quickly picks up on the fact that Carol loves Jim, Jim loves science, and Jim treats her rather coldly. Steve jumps on the opportunity to hit on Carol at every turn, which she rejects because she prefers to be mistreated by a guy who barely acknowledges her existence.

When the crew makes it to Mars, things go wrong as they often do in these movies. Fuel is used up because the ship has to re-route around an asteroid field. They lose some of their landing gear, forcing them to crash-land on the Martian surface. The crash scene, by the way, was pretty well done and reused multiple times in other movies. Our heroes put on their oxygen masks (but no suits!) and look around. The ship is too damaged to fly again, so they set about making a plan. They discover ruins, and surmise that the civilization may have been dead for millions of years.

Soon, they meet the inhabitants. Interestingly, the Martians have to wear space suits, while the humans only have to wear an oxygen mask. By the way, the space suits worn by the Martians were used previously in the movie "Destination Moon". This is where the movie falls into one of the conventions we see in a lot of older sci-fi films of the day: the Martians look exactly like us. This doesn't cheese me off nearly as much as it used to. The human-looking Martians also speak perfect English, having learned it from Earth broadcasts. Thankfully, they weren't watching Jersey Shore, so they don't speak like idiots.

We learn that the Mars population lives underground, drawing their power and building materials from the element Corium. Unfortunately, the Corium is running dangerously low, prompting the Martians to hatch an insidious plan to help the humans fix their ship, and then steal it, heading to Earth to plunder their resources. Not all Martians fall into this camp. Some want a peaceful resolution, including the Martian girl Alita. Alita is played by the stunning Marguerite Chapman, a tall brunette best known for co-starring in "Seven-year Itch" with Marylin Monroe. Alita is also something of a scientist herself, and quickly catches the eye of Dr. Jim Baker. Not surprisingly, he spends most of his time working to repair the ship with the leggy Alita, all but forgetting poor Carol.

This gives Steve the opportunity he needs to leap on Carol, once she gets over Dr. Baker. Once the movie gets over the soap-opera elements, it gets into gear. The scientists learn about the plan to steal the ship, and hatch a plan of their own. I won't tell the rest of the story, but I will say that once it gets into gear, things flow better.

"Flight To Mars" was written by Arthur Strawn, and incorporates elements of the Russian silent film "Aelita: Queen of Mars", most notable the title character, which became Alita in this movie. Overall, this is an enjoyable film. I'm taking a point away because of the human-looking Martian copout. I recommend it for fans of the genre. Three out of Four.

Destination: Inner Space (1966)

In 1966, before we ever had movies like "Abyss", "Leviathan", or "Deep-Star Six", viewing audiences who stuck around for the second feature at the drive-in were treated to "Destination: Inner Space". This is not to be confused with 1987's "Innerspace" with Dennis Quaid. While other sci-fi films from the era tend to concentrate on outer-space adventures or flying saucer invasions, this one stood out as an underwater invasion, albeit with only one antagonist.

It seems a marine biology lab is perplexed by the repeated appearances of some large submarine or other object appearing on their radar, then disappearing. They call in a Navy commander, Cmdr. Wayne, played by Scott Brady. He confirms that this is not a navy ship, nor any type known thus far. The team, including him, diving expert Maddox, and Sandra, don their gear and investigate. They discover the large form is actually an alien probe, kind of like a flying saucer. In fact it is referred to as a USO, or Unidentified Swimming Object.

The ship itself is a pretty good effect. The model is remote controlled and moves about pretty well. Unfortunately, the size of it wasn't conveyed very well, as in one scene when a small fish was caught on camera swimming by it, completely killing the illusion. Additionally, the film suffered in the area of miniature sets. The underwater lab is obviously small, but the movie was made on a minuscule budget.

At any rate, as our heroes discover, the alien ship contains a strange metallic rod emitting radiation. They obviously haven't seen movies like this, because they don't know to leave it alone, deciding instead to take it back to their lab. The rod grows in size, and when nobody is around, it hatches something. When the scientists come back to investigate, they discover the busted rod. This leads to one of the genuinely scary moments in the movie. As our intrepid scientist is looking around, the monster leaps out of a corner. I have to be honest, while the design of the creature is not super-scary, it did scare the bejesus out of me here.

The rest of the movie involves a couple of moral questions, a surprising feature in a 60's schlock film. The main scientist, Dr. Lasiter keeps butting heads with Commander Wayne. Lasiter wants to keep the monster alive and study it, as it presents an opportunity to learn about an advanced alien species. Naturally, Cmdr. Wayne wants to destroy it, because you know, he's in the military, and they like to blow stuff up.

In addition, we have some characterization going on, when we learn that Maddox and the navy commander have some secrets from their past, having served together before. They each blame the other for a tragic accident that killed several sailors years before. They eventually settle their differences, and commence to kicking alien butt. The crew also includes a love interest for our hero, in the form of marine biologist Dr. Rene Peron, played by the lovely Sheree North. North was primarily known for the fact that about ten years before this film, she was the studio's replacement for Marylin Monroe once Monroe started acting all Lyndsey Lohan-ish. Ironically, she herself would be replaced by Jayne Mansfield, but in this film she actually plays someone of some substance and not window dressing. That was handled by the other girl in the cast, the younger Wende Wagner, Maddox's love interest. She has little to do other than stand around, look pretty, and scream a lot.

I'm probably too harsh on Ms. Wagner. After all, she did her own stunts, and was a natural in the many scuba scenes, actually having been a certified diver and reputedly an expert surfer. There is plenty of underwater shenanigans going on, as the creature swims about back and forth to the lab wreaking havoc. The beast himself looks like a cross between a pirahna and the Creature from the Black Lagoon. While he is not as cool-looking as the aforementioned Creature, he is still more awesome than the monster from "Horror at Party Beach".

The monster is played with unholy relish by stuntman Ron Burke. Burke was an expert swimmer himself, and moved about underwater in a pretty menacing way. The creature shifts his head a little bit side-to-side, calling to mind a shark swimming along. The design incorporated a large hunch on the back for the fin, allowing Burke to breathe through standard scuba gear. While he was on land walking around he wasn't that scary; but underwater was a different story. Props to the design team and Burke for his performance.

This movie received almost no notice upon its release in 1966, but is getting some more recognition now among sci-fi/horror fans thanks to entering the Public Domain. It is well worth a look. I rate this movie 3 1/2 out of 4.