(1972)
Dir - William Crain
Overall: GOOD
The film whose success made it possible for others to quickly come in its wake, Blacula remains historically noteworthy above anything else. Being the first depiction on film of a black vampire, it was culturally a big enough deal when released and thankfully a sufficient enough work to make the melding of horror and blaxploitation a viable box office commodity. It easily warrants inclusion on any serious horror buff's "to get to" list, but despite its archival merits, it makes both good and bad strides as an actual movie. The prominent technical issue with all blaxploitation films is assuredly present, namely being an unmistakable lack of budget. Director William Crain makes the best with what he has got, but a mere mortal as he can only do so much with the minimally designed sets, rather silly make-up, occasionally dodgy camerawork, and few and far between visual effects. For his performance as the title character, William Marshall mostly excels, but his mannerisms often clash with one another like how he can be a tragic figure in one scene and then a manically laughing fiend in the next. These are modest nitpicks though, as there are a number of memorable scenes, lucrative humor, (usually on the politically incorrect side like the liberal use of the word "faggot" and hilariously dated jive), and a well maintained tone, all surpassing what could have been a trashy affair.
(1974)
Dir - William Girdler
Overall: GOOD
One of the films that both was deliberately derivative of The Exorcist and one that got successfully sued by Warner Bros. for copyright infringement, Abby could easily stand as the best of any of said "rip-offs". The blaxploitation Exorcist premise on paper is intriguing enough, but it is very pleasantly surprising how well the film balances both its ridiculous and sincere qualities. Abby takes itself seriously which gives it an element of class, something thatis certainly added upon by William Marshall's distinguished performance as the virtuous priest. Director William Girdler though stages a generous amount of excellent horror set pieces and the budget never really comes into question with so many effective shots of a demon wreaking havoc. And on that note, there is plenty to chuckle at where Carol Speed's possessed title character's shenanigans are concerned as she spews forth outrageous profanities that are absolutely befitting to the evil trickster spirit that has taken her over. Yes it is definitely a stylized cash-in on The Exorcist no one will deny, (with the trips to African caves, voice modulated demon speak, and even the quick subliminal flashes of said demons' face on the screen), but it is also a lot more fun yet still on the safe side of not being brazenly over the top.
(1976)
Dir - Arthur Marks
Overall: MEH
Though mostly genuine and very well acted all around, (particularly from the lead Glynn Turman), J.D.'s Revenge is a bit dull pacing wise and has some rather glaring plot problems. It is hard to take things seriously when Louis Gossett Jr.'s hustler-turned preacher character is supposed to have aged thirty years yet actually looks younger with a shaved head in the present day. Also, why doesn't the spirit of J.D. Walker get that all important revenge part out of the way first before going about his switch-blade slashing/women beating business? He regularly looses control of the body he is possessing yes, but he also maintains it for random lengths of time depending on how many scenes the script has in it for him to unleash his violent pimping. Also, the ending leaves it wide open that in fact he can jump back into Glynn Turman's body whenever he feels like gambling or smacking some women around again, and they literally laugh this off as the characters walk away with their "happy ending". Things assuredly do not add up by the title credits and because the length of time it takes to get to them is not quite engaging enough, J.D.'s Revenge is a bit of an unfortunate flop.
No comments:
Post a Comment