Night of the Demons

Night of the Demons

Plot:

The old Hull house is something of a local legend. It was a funeral parlor, until someone went mad and massacred everyone in the place. Which might have had something to do with the fact that even the early natives considered the land accursed ground. What better place for a group of high schoolers to throw a kickass Halloween party?

Comments:

Ah, the 1980’s where an idyllic time. Nintendo made life worth living, Mad magazine was still funny, and Madonna had not yet become the walking joke she is today. Everything was hunky dory. Well, at least that’s how us quickly aging Gen-Xer’s see it. We tend to gloss over things like the anxiety of nuclear obliteration, New Coke, and the fact that otherwise sensible people (myself included) found ‘Alf’ to be entertaining. Why do I bring this sad dichotomy up?
Well, it’s something of a metaphor for the film we’re about to discuss. The mid to late 80’s saw something of an explosion in the production of cheap, obscure horror films. For the most part, these films were carbon copies of the ‘Friday the 13’ blood and “teenage” nipples formula. (Today’s example is more in the Spam in a funeral parlor than ‘Friday’ vein, but whatever.) Generally speaking, even the best of these weren’t very good, and yet, we miss them terribly. (Hell, the current remake-a-palooza makes even ‘Jason takes Manhattan’ seem sophisticated by comparison.)

Now don’t get the impression that I’m out to knock the film we’re about to discuss. 'Night of the Demons’ certainly has its good points, but much like the heady times that spawned it, it tends to be remembered through a haze of nostalgia as being much better than it truly is.

There is much to like about ‘Night’. The semi-expressionistic animated titles are cutely creative and do quite well in setting the mood. Cinematography is very nice indeed, and the director has a good eye for color. The setting is positively perfect. A dark, cavernous funeral parlor on Halloween night, who could ask for anything more? Besides, try as one might no red-blooded American male can hate a film that’s sole purpose seems to be to strip its starlets naked, get them to tongue-kiss, then have them smear the walls with buckets of gooky fake blood. There is no doubt that ‘Night' excels at being a cute time waster, trouble is, it never aspires to be anything more.

The main problem with this film is that it is dumb. Dumb, dumb, dumb. And not funny, wink at the audience dumb. More like, “Why are we even bothering to write this? Damn kids will watch anything.” dumb. The dialogue is terrible, substituting vulgarity for wit. Characterization is just as shallow as you’d expect from a film of this type and period. Worse yet, not only are players mono-dimensional, they also tend to be annoying as hell. For example, Hal Havins as “Stooge” is a total detriment. Fat, stupid, and Loud, his character spends a good half of the film bellowing and belching out equal parts inanity and obscenity. Yes, setting up irredeemable dingleberries to serve as canon-fodder is well-established old slasher saw; that doesn’t make it good! I certainly don’t mind if a “scary” movie eschews real horror for more of a comedic vibe. (Ala Sam Raimi.) However, just as a film cannot truly be frightening if we do not care about its characters, neither can it be greatly entertaining if they keep us in a state of irritation. (To make matters worse, Stooge takes way too long to get his, and let’s not forget that the dead come back in this film. Oy.)
For the most part, players have trouble portraying even these watered down roles. Though we all loved her in ‘RotLD’, Linnea Quigley in particular gives a bad performance. It’s an odd combination of lethargy and unbelievably exaggerated ditzyness. (Then again, she was generally hired because she possessed an *ahem* couple of other talents.)
These characters are all flat, all cliché, and they all make the same old mistakes.

While the film sure takes its sweet time gearing up, there are plenty of nice little touches to distract us from the movie’s mundane bulk. As I previously noted, the setting is just ducky. The house might be said to be a starring player itself. (Pretty sad when mortar and brick emotes better than flesh and blood.) It’s so nice and dark, and cobwebby, and desiccated; reminds me of home. While the writing is awful for the most part, the house’s backstory es muy creepy. Through some clumsily delivered exposition, we learn that the land served as sort of a gateway to “those who were and shall be again” long before the house was even constructed. (The Native Americans found this out the hard way, when a wayward brave was found eating the flesh of his wife in a tee-pee he had constructed out of his compatriot’s entrails. Reminds me of the Hockomock swamp.) Bringing up another sparse instance of a competent authorial flourish, the demonology is surprisingly accurate from a paranormal perspective. (Well, the whole possessed corpses tearing people apart thing is a bit of a stretch, but the conjuration, and scent manifestation stuff is all spot on. Never hold a séance in an abandoned funeral home/port hole to Hell folks, it’s just a bad idea.)
Once the demons have gotten their foothold in this world, the proceedings pick up quite a bit. It’s at this point that the film becomes closest to being frightening, what with deadites (or whatever the generic equivalent would be) chasing the few remaining survivors through the pitch-black labyrinthine halls of an inescapable nightmare.

The fact that the film is a pale imitation of ‘The Evil Dead’ (right down to the hurtling pov shots) may ironically be its greatest asset. Being more akin to splatterpunk than a straight-up slasher, 'Night' possesses at least some modicum of novelty and zest, not to mention many excellent gore effects. Faces are melted, limbs severed (only to later spring back to unholy life) and in a charming little epilogue, razor blades snacked upon en masse. The film’s most famous and probably most convincing effect of course involves Linnea Quigley inserting a tube of lipstick into very realistic prosthetic bosom.
(I don’t know how or why she does it, but might I say, “Ouch!” Oh, and just a side note, I recently went with a friend to visit his grandma in the nursing home. As was our tradition before she had moved, we brought along a gruesome film [this one of course] to view. Wouldn’t you know it, the nurse picked Ms. Quigley’s exhibition as the exact moment to walk in on us!)

Did I say the film’s greatest asset was its ‘Evil Dead’ panache? Silly me, that honor obviously goes to the young Amelia (aka Mimi) Kinkade in the role of Angela; spooky goth chick cum demon possess-ee’. (And along with Anya, the creepy hippie girl from ‘Children Shouldn’t Play with Dead Things’, a fitting prototype for the future Mrs. BogMan. Oh, my poor Mother, but I digress...)
Kinkade is quite talented (not to mention yummy as all hell) and manages to impart a great deal of verve to a character that was basically written as a 3^rd tier Freddy knock-off. Tis’ a great shame is that she never managed to make a go of any type of big time acting career. Aside from the character of Angela, whom she would twice more portray, her film resume is remarkably under whelming. Oddly enough, she is presently employed as a pet psychic. (I might say that all that acting talent did come in handy after all, but that would be unforgivably presumptuous of me. *Snicker*)

All things considered, ‘NOTD’ isn’t a bad little film, it just could have been a hell of a lot better if a wee bit of thought had been put into it. Between the absolutely nummy Kinkade, nubile neckid’ 20-somethings, and gruesome gore effects, there are certainly worse ways to spend an evening. (It also serves as setup for an utterly magnificent sequel, but that’s another review.) While it can be annoying, it’s never boring, which is the sole saving grace that elevates an exercise as weakly scripted as this from mere mediocrity to the level of a slight recommendation.
‘Demons’ isn’t a classic, but it’s classic 80’s splatter, and one of the better examples of this overproduced and under-thought sub genre. If you haven’t seen it, before, I think you’ll have fun. And if you have, well, you can just fast forward to the naughty bits.

6.0