The Hand That Feeds the Dead (1974)

Dir: Sergio Garrone
Star: Klaus Kinski, Katia Christine, Marzia Damon, Carmen Silva
a.k.a. La mano che nutre la morte and Evil Face

According to Wikipedia, this came about after director Garrone was introduced to Turkish producer Şakir V. Sözen, who offered the use of a large villa as a location, in exchange for casting actor Ayhan Işık. Rather than making the planned single film in six weeks, Sözen suggested using it to make two films in eight. Garrone agreed, and so was born this and Lover of the Monster, with which Hand shares much of the same cast and crew – some of the footage shot turns up in both as well. Which makes sense, since the plots overlap enough to have caused confusion over the years. In both, Kinski plays mad scientist Nijinski – there, a mere Doctor, now he has been upgraded to professorial status – who lives on a remote country estate with his wife, and carries on the dubious medical experiments started by his late father-in-law, Baron Rassimov.

The desired outcome is different, however. Where Monster was somewhere between Frankenstein and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, this one is a cross of Frankenstein and Les yeux sans visage. For Professor Nijinski has been experimenting in an effort to repair the damage done to his wife Tanja (Christine), who was badly burned in a fire. As a result, she has become a recluse who rarely ventures out, and only does so wearing a veil. Her husband has been predating the local countryside for subjects, with the help of his mute minion, but fortune smiles on him when a carriage accident literally drops newlywed couple Alex (Işık) and Masha (also Christine) on his doorstep. While they recover from their injuries, they stay in Nijinski’s house, alongside two other women. Katia (Damon) is supposedly writing a book about the Baron, but is actually investigating the disappearance of her sister, while Sonia (Silva) is a whore, bought onto the estate as an unwitting source of spare parts.

That both Masha and Tanja are played by the same actress, more or less tells you where the rest of the film is going to go. We’d worked out how it was going to end quite some time in advance, and the movie did not disappoint in this aspect, shall we say. There were some unexpected diversions along the way, however, not least the lesbian canoodling between Katia and Sonia – even if the post-canoodle cuddle is rudely interrupted by the minion. We were also impressed with the use of a tuning fork to manipulate said henchmen, suggesting that the Professor’s research has perhaps also gone into the area of mind-control.

Even though it was close to four years ago that I watched Monster, the similarities are striking, and there were times where it would have been very easy to forget which movie you were watching, they share so many elements. It definitely evokes a sense of deja vu, in its purest sense. Hand is perhaps – it has been four years! – slightly more Gothic in tone. I feel like its closest cousins might be the Hammer films of the early seventies, when the British studio started adding more exploitative aspects to its traditional story elements. There’s a great deal of creeping around corridors by candlelight, with the heroines typically wearing the kind of floaty nightgown, no-one ever wears outside of period horror movies.

The surgical sequences are similarly lengthy (though it does appear there may have been a stand-in for Kinski during them), and surprisingly gory. The effects were by Carlo Rambaldi, who worked on the two Andy Warhol films, Blood for Dracula and Flesh For Frankenstein, the same year as this. He would take home the first of his three Academy Awards for visual effect three years later, for his work on King Kong, also winning for Alien and E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, Rambaldi designing the title character in the latter. Safe to say, creating that lovable alien is quite some distance from fabricating the face-flaying which provides this film’s most memorable moment.

The plot does offer some twists in the later stages, and it turns out that Prof. Nijinski perhaps isn’t such an unrepentant villain as he initially appeared. His harvesting of female skin donors from the countryside nearby is largely driven by a devotion to and love for Tanja, which is almost touching (if you squint at it from the right angle, under appropriately subdued lighting). It’s bordering on poignant when the carpet is pulled out from under his affection,  with Tanja deciding instead to take advantage of the obvious opportunity presented by her new looks. However, other aspects of the script don’t work as well, such as the police investigation into Nijinski, that gets early screen time, then is all but forgotten in the second half.

Kinski is solid, effective, and by his standards, very restrained: the film still entertains almost in direct proportion to the amount of Klaus present. Which as a rule of thumb, means the second half is likely superior, as the movie settles down on him and Tanja. The first half seems to suffer from a lack of focus: at various times, it feels like the heroes are going to be Alex and Masha, then Katia and her boyfriend. To be honest, they’re nowhere near as interesting characters as the Professor and his veiled spouse. The writer should have concentrated on their story, and kept the others more firmly in the supporting roles they deserve.

The rest of the technical elements are as solid as they were in Monster, with good use being made of the countryside locations. I think I preferred this one to its partner. Both Kinski and Christine deliver better performances, and there’s something almost Shakespearean about the tragic way this ends. The pacing during the first half could certainly do with some tightening up, yet this one eventually proved able to sustain even my wife’s interest – and she is usually a good bellwether that a Kinski movie is decent quality!

Lover of the Monster (1974)

Dir: Sergio Garrone
Star: Klaus Kinski, Katia Christine, Ayhan Isik, Erol Tas
a.k.a. Le Amanti del Mostro

lover_of_monster_poster_01Watching this, it struck me that Kinski would have been a good alternative to Udo Kier in the same year’s Flesh for Frankenstein. For this Italian/Turkish co-production starts off looking like it’s going to be another version of the Frankenstein story, with Alex Nijinski (Kinski) and his wife Anna (Christine), moving into the rural mansion which was her late father’s home, as well as his laboratory. Alex becomes increasingly fascinated by the experiments carried out by his father-in-law, and starts to return the laboratory to its former, functioning state, unaware – or not caring – that his wife is being wooed by an old flame, local Doctor Igor Walensky (Isik). When her pet dog turns up dead, Alex seizes the chance to try out the lab equipment and…

Well, and that’s where the film makes an abrupt right-turn, into the street which is home to another classic of 19th-century horror literature, Robert Louis Stevenson’s Doctor Jekyll and Mister Hyde. For, while attempting to resurrect the pooch, Alex gets a shock – no, literally, since part of the machine, which relies on high-voltage electricity for its power, malfunctions and sends its energy into its operator. For reasons never satisfactorily explained or explored, that turns him into a part-time maniac, roaming the countryside and killing anyone unfortunate enough to cross his path. When the dead bodies start turning up, the local authorities choose to blame any conveniently handy vagabonds. One innocent man is lynched, and after the murders continue unabated, another gets hauled in for a show trial which would make Stalin shuffle uncomfortably. Meanwhile, it’s just starting to dawn on Alex what’s happening during his blackouts.

It’s obviously a good role for Kinski, who gets both to be restrained and subdued (particularly by his standards) as Alex, then is given free rein to go totally over-the-top and let rip as the monster. Initially, it isn’t clear Alex is the culprit, with most of the monster’s early attacks being shown from its point of view, which seems like a waste of Kinski’s talents to me. There’s a strange tension to the relationship between Alex and Anna, apparent upon their arrival, when she shows him to her father’s room, then declares, “My room is in the other wing of the house.” It’s mentioned on occasion that the source of the tension is his possessiveness, Alex saying, “I’ll try to make you forgive my moments of jealousy,” and at another point, Anna says, “Your absurd jealousy offended me.” However, there’s never any specifics provided, and its an angle which doesn’t go anywhere, even though it seems to be Alex’s ongoing love for Anna, which propels things to their final, tragic conclusion.

monstroThe production values are solid, and it has some of the same lush cinematographic feel enjoyed by the better Hammer Productions of the sixties, even if the music largely consists of the same cue, used almost regardless of whether or not its appropriate. Beyond Kinski, the cast are solid, rather than memorable: neither Christine nor Isik have much to do or show any real character arc. It’s remarkably restrained in the exploitation aspects: the killings are positively bloodless, and up until the end, when Christine does her best to make up for lost time, there’s no nudity to speak of either. That’s surprising for two reasons. Firstly, the sex/horror combination genre was well under way by this point – not least at the hands of Hammer – and secondly, Garrone was hardly averse to the sleazier aspects of cinema. To demonstrate that, in his filmography, this comes in between writing The Big Bust Out, a.k.a. Crucified Girls of San Ramon, and his best known directorial work, the Naziploitation entry, S.S. Experiment Camp.

Perhaps the most unusual aspect is the socio-political one. The authorities fail to consider, even for a moment, the possibility that the killer could be a member of the local upper classes. Instead, they just naturally blame a tramp, and execute the first one they find, with little more concern than “I hope we found the right man or it would be a terrible mistake,” hand-waving away such concerns with “No-one in town could have done something similar… I think I can consider the case closed.” Then, when Alex’s murderous spree continues, and proves them wrong, it’s decided that the basic principle was fine, they just didn’t quite get the right vagrant. And the next one actually has blood on his hands! Never mind his “absurd assertions” that this is the result of a chicken he stole, “It’s enough to look into his eyes to be convinced of his offense.” It’s very clear Garrone does not have a great opinion concerning the fairness to be found in the legal and judicial systems.

Garrone had worked, at least tangentially, with Kinski before, having written the story that became 5 per l’inferno. And he worked with him again immediately, since this was also shot alongside/back-to-back with The Hand That Feeds the Dead (a.k.a. Evil Face). [The two are often confused: they have virtually the same cast and make use of the location, and similar premises, Kinski playing a mad scientist in both.] This is respectable enough as drama. anchored by the expected strong performance from Kinski. However, it definitely needs the rest of the film to be ramped up to match, coming over as too genteel to be particularly memorable, and feeling a good decade older than its actual age.

Crawlspace (1986)

Dir: David Schmoeller
Star: Klaus Kinski, Talia Balsam, Barbara Whinnery, Kenneth Robert Shippy

“We were doing this one scene in the crawlspace–so it was uncomfortable for everyone. I asked for a second take and Klaus shot out like a bullet, running toward me–as if he were going to attack me. He was screaming at the top of his lungs, ‘I am not a hamburger! I am Klaus Kinski!’ ”
David Schmoeller

The first time I was aware of this film was not through the movie itself, but through the short created by writer-director Schmoeller 13 years later. Entitled Please Kill Mr. Kinski, which showed up on, of all things, a DVD collection put out by Troma. That’ll be covered elsewhere on the site, but in brief, it details the hellish experience the director had, working with Kinski during the shooting of Crawlspace in Rome. When I eventually saw the film, I must confess to being somewhat disappointed. Not, I should stress, in Kinski, who gives one of his more impressive English-language performances. But the whole idea of a mad doctor scuttling around inside the walls of his apartment complex, spying on and murdering his tenants, is a pretty ludicrous concept.

Fou  a tuer 001frfrThat barely scratches the surface of the madness which is Dr. Karl Gunther (Kinski), the son of a Nazi war criminal who escaped Germany and hid out in Argentina. The apple didn’t fall far from the tree, with Gunther Jr. euthanizing patients at his hospital, and graduating from there to full-fledged murder. When the heat grew too much in Buenos Aires, he headed for America, and sets up as a landlord – catering to pretty young female tenants in particular [Schmoeller makes a cameo near the beginning, as a prospective tenant who fails all of the good Doctor’s criteria] But it’s not long before he’s keeping a woman (Tane McClure, Doug’s daughter) in a cage, having removed her tongue. After every murder, he plays Russian roulette, greeting his survival with a muttered, “So be it…” Then there’s watching films of Hitler, while smearing make-up on his face and yelling “Heil Gunther!” It’s almost as if the writer started with a list of “Ways to make your character seem insane,” and included them all.

This makes some sense, with a bit of background. Schmoeller’s script was written on request by Empire’s Charles Band, who wanted a script which could be used with a set that was already built for another shoot. The original version perhaps made somewhat more sense, as the central character there was a Vietnam vet, who returned from his experiences mentally broken. He recreated his POW camp in the attic, and used bamboo traps to ensnare his victims. However, Band nixed the idea, suggesting the lead be made a Nazi, and that he could get Kinski for the role. Schmoeller agreed, and rewrote the role specifically for him. And, I have to say, it fits Klaus like a glove. You just can’t imagine anyone else playing the part. Every twitch, gaze and mannerism is Kinski being Kinski. Of course, that might largely be down to Schmoeller’s on-set problems: he said, “I would go to work every morning with my stomach in a knot.” So, how do you direct, that which will not be directed?

One imagines, probably by standing back and getting out of the way, once other possibilities e.g. murder, have been exhausted. That’s largely what happens to the storyline as well: it stands back and gets out of the way of Kinski’s performance. The basics are established quickly i.e. Gunther is a loony, and there’s a new tenant, Lori (Balsam) after the previous occupant makes the mistake of going into the attic. I had to smile at this exchange, Schmoeller clearly riffing off one of Klaus’s most iconic performances:

Loril: I swear, the guy across the hall was a vampire. You know what I like most about this place?
Gunther: That there are no vampires?

crawlOnce the basics are established, not much actually happens, until the final 20 minutes. There’s a faux-rapist – ah, those wacky eighties! – and the brother (Shippy) of one of Gunther’s Argentinian victims shows up, creeps Lori out by knowing way too much about her. Gunther almost carries out a plan to execute him with a poisoned blowdart (because there is no better weapon to lug around a crawlspace than a blow-gun…), before opting for a more painful method of dispatch. That’s about it in terms of story arc, with the rest of the running time largely occupied by Kinski acting increasingly deranged. He finally topples over the edge, leaving Lori trapped in the house and the subject of an extended stalk ‘n’ slash sequence, as she crawls through the ducts and around the building, pursued by her landlord. The highlight here is probably when he gets on a wheeled dolly and starts whizzing round the ducts like a crazed street luger.

However, it is never anything less than thoroughly watchable, and it’s entirely down to Klaus. Without him, it’s difficult to see how this could ever sustain a viewer’s interest, though the Vietnam riff originally planned, might have gone in some interesting directions. Say what you like about Kinski – and Schmoeller certainly has over the years since – there’s no doubt that he could be utterly compelling. This is an excellent example of mediocre material being elevated by his presence, and after a spell of these review where he was an ancillary character, getting limited screen time, it was nice to get back to a movie where he’s front and center.  He certainly delivers – the US trailer below gives a good idea of what you can expect.

El caballero del dragón (1985)

M8DSTKN EC008Dir: Fernando Colomo
Star: Harvey Keitel, Maria Lamor, Miguel Bosé, Klaus Kinski
a.k.a. Star Knight

Well, it’s certainly different, that’s for sure. Not least in its casting. Kinski as an alchemist, I can get my brain around – it’s really just a Spanish, historical variant on the mad scientist role he has played often enough. But there was apparently once a world in which the producers thought, “We need a medieval knight. I’ll tell you who we should get: Harvey Keitel.” Admittedly, this was during the eighties, when Keitel was largely floundering in obscurity; the previous year, in Nemo, he had basically played Zorro, so I suspect he was operating in “Don’t send me the script, just send me the check” mode. Not that he’s terrible, it has to be said. Just that watching the Bad Lieutenant riding around in armor on horseback in a film which occasionally teeters into Holy Grail territory, is not what I expected. Chalk up another of the odd pleasures I’ve experienced, courtesy of Project Kinski!

Note the use here of Kinski taken from 'Aguirre'!

Note the use here of Kinski taken from ‘Aguirre’!

This is not exactly a common genre either, that of medieval sci-fi. A “dragon” is pillaging the land, culminating in it stealing away the king’s daughter, Princess Alba  (Lamor). The king’s leading knight, the presumably ironically-named Klever (Keitel), goes off to try and rescue her, having been promised her hand in marriage and half the kingdom if he succeeds. But the only person who has kinda worked out what’s going on is alchemist Boecius (Kinski). He has taken a break from his research towards an elixir of eternal life, along with his work as the king’s physician, and knows that the dragon is a UFO, piloted by a humanoid and telepathic alien, Ix (Bosé), possessing a haircut which positively screams “mid-eighties.” Ix’s armor is actually a space-suit, protecting him from earth’s atmosphere, but that hasn’t stopped him from falling in love with Alba, and vice-versa. Will this tale of inter-stellar love have a happy ending?

Arthur C. Clarke once wrote, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic,” and that’s one of the concept at the heart of this film. I like the idea that people would interpret extra-terrestrial phenomena, in a way which fits their existing world view – in this case, in terms of dragons or demons. Boecius’s capacity to grasp the situation leads him to be accused of being in league with the devil, leading to his arrest – though curiously (albeit fortunately for the plot), rather than being burned at the stake for witchcraft,  he is still allowed to accompany Klever as he heads off on his mission. It’s not often that Klaus gets to play a character who is easily the sharpest tool in the box, and it’s a shame that he isn’t given more to do, such as interface with Ix to a greater degree. Instead, he literally sits around with his hands tied for most of the second half.

M8DSTKN EC012But there is a fair bit to enjoy in the rest of proceedings, though it’s hard to be sure how seriously we are meant to take proceedings. I mentioned the Holy Grail above, and its most obvious influence is the Green (rather than Black) Knight character, who guards a bridge, refusing to let everyone pass – but in reality, is completely incompetent and incapable of stopping anybody. While I understand the aim was comic relief, he seems to have strayed in from a completely different film, and instead does a pretty good job of destroying the “magical realism” atmosphere which is otherwise being built up nicely.  Helping that out is Jose Nieto’s score, which is genuinely impressive and evocative – like the Green Knight, it appears to have strayed in from another movie, only in the soundtrack’s case, it’s a much better one.

To be honest, the climax of the film is implausible, even by the low standards set over the first 80 minutes. It relies on Boecius having developed an elixir which, never minding working on humans, is also capable of affecting aliens to whom our atmosphere is lethal, and presumably have a radically different physiology. But I can’t say I minded too much, being willing to cut the film some slack due to its original approach and theme. Still, it’s shaky enough that I was surprised to discover it reportedly received an American theatrical release in 1986:  I guess standards have dropped significantly over the last two decades. This is fairly readily available now, having apparently fallen into the public domain, and as a result shows up on some of those big box sets, with titles like Sci-Fi Invasion 50 Movie Pack. You can even find the full thing on YouTube, albeit in a version which isn’t just dubbed, it’s also slightly out of synch. However, I can’t claim with a straight face that this impacted my enjoyment of it too much!

Android (1982)

Dir: Aaron Lipstadt
Star
: Don Keith Opper, Brie Howard, Klaus Kinski, Norbert Weisser

“I thought it was a clever little movie. It is the first movie I’ve done that children might like. The greatest thing in the world is to do something for children.”
Klaus Kinski

Hmm. Not sure I’d entirely agree with Kinski on its suitability for a younger viewing audience, but I can kinda see where that’s coming from. This plays almost like a sci-fi reworking of Pinocchio, centered on an artificial boy, who wants nothing more than to be truly human, with all that entails, both good and bad. However, with Kinski in the role of Gepetto, you won’t be surprised to hear that the results are rather darker. There’s no Jiminy Cricket here to provide a sense of conscience; instead, it’s all morality through circuitry. I did read one review that suggested it was a sci-fi version of Rebel Without a Cause, calling it “a game fantasy about children rebelling against their parents,” though Opper is obviously much more well-mannered version of James Dean. Indeed, having helped bring two children through their teenage years to adulthood, the slight backtalk we see here hardly registers as rebellion (our general rule of thumb was, if the police weren’t involved, it didn’t count!).

Coming out a few months after Blade Runner, this covers a similar theme – what does it mean, to be “human”? – albeit in a much smaller, low-key way. Like Runner, it’s set a little way into the future, in a corporation-controlled world. The location is a space-station, formerly a busy hub, but now reduced to a skeleton crew of Dr. Daniel (Kinski) and his android assistant, Max (Opper – though credited in the movie as “introducing Max 404”). Android research has been banned on Earth after some unfortunate incidents, hence their re-location beyond the reach of planetary laws. What disturbs this idyll is the arrival of a trio of escaped criminals, Maggie (Howard), Keller (Weisser) and her lover, Mendes (Crofton Hardester). When Max also realizes that his creator is working on a new, improved (and female!) android called Cassandra, that will lead to Max being terminated, he opts to throw his lot in with the criminals and assist their plan to escape back to Earth. But the good doctor has his own plans for Maggie, involving the transfer of her sexual experience in to Cassandra.

android

Shot in 20 days – 19 on set, plus one on location in an arboretum –  and edited in three weeks, this was originally a production for Roger Corman’s New World studio, test screenings led Corman to shelve it, but producers Barry Opper (Don’s brother) and Rupert Harvey bought the rights back, and took it on the film festival circuit, where it was fairly well-received. It certainly isn’t a typical Corman production, even though it does recycle some production elements such as sets and props from his earlier space operatic works like Battle Beyond the Stars – as an aside, James Cameron worked on this, as a design consultant in the art department! However, it’s much more restrained and thoughtful rather than exploitative: you can’t imagine many other Corman films which would have a montage of clips from Fritz Lang’s Metropolis, played out to a soundtrack of James Brown’s It’s a Man’s, Man’s, Man’s World.

It’s also fairly cynical in its view of humanity: while it’s difficult to provide specifics without spoiling the film’s big surprise, let’s just say that neither mankind, nor their creations, exactly come over as paragons of virtue. I found Maggie the most sympathetic character; she’s a white-collar criminal, as opposed to her more psychopathic colleagues. Kinski’s doctor is more creepy than anything else, and he’s clearly operating in mad scientist mode, virtually bereft of all human interaction skills. Initially, this seems a result of his being isolated, with no-one to communicate with, except an android he himself programmed; subsequent events, however, put a different spin on things, though you could certainly argue they raise as many questions as they answer. Apparently, Kinski refused to block out scenes or even rehearse with the other actors – and rookie director Lipstadt was probably in no position to argue, though it has to be said, it’s a decision which likely enhances the feeling of disassociation between the doctor and everyone else.

The production values are pretty clunky. We’re now closer to the setting of 2036 than we are to the film’s release, and there are aspects of the “future” it portrays which will simple seem woeful [half a century of progress has not, apparently, moved us past green-screen monitors]. The small budget – variously reported as from half a million to a million dollars – is somewhat disguised by the fact that there is a very small cast and only a handful of sets, but the spaceship effects are so bad they probably would have been better off not bothering. Random factoid I want to drop in here, for want of a better location: one of the landing party which arrives on the station near the end is Rachel Talalay, who’d go on to direct Tank Girl, in her only acting role.

Still, it’s an interesting concept, albeit one that’s largely derivative of its ideas from previous, better movies. It was also the film debuts of both Opper and  Howard – can you imagine your first movie role being to star opposite Kinski? She had been a drummer in an all-girl rock band, while he had previously worked as a carpenter for Corman, and between them, they succeed in holding the film together, with the bulk of the screen time. In particular, he carries out the shift from a wide-eyed innocent, curious about sex, to ruthless killing machine, obeying the instructions of his revised programming, with some deftness, and the themes the movie covers have also stood the test of time, rather better than the effects. If it’s no Blade Runner or Metropolis, certainly nor is it the Plan 9 I feared this might be.

android2

Death Smiles on a Murderer (1973)

Dir: Aristide Massaccesi
Star: Ewa Aulin, Sergio Doria, Angela Bo, Klaus Kinski
a.k.a. Death Smiled at Murder

Director Massaccesi is better known under one of the forty-plus pseudonyms he used, Joe D’Amato, being one of the most infamous grindhouse directors of the seventies and eighties. He was a pioneer of the “mockbuster,” a similarly-titled movie with the same themes as a successful mainstream film, e.g the 11 Days, 11 Nights series inspired by 9 1/2 Weeks, or Ator the Invincible, which came out soon after Conan the Barbarian. But he’s probably best know for such titles such as Erotic Nights of the Living Dead and Porno Holocaust. Those are more or less exactly as they sound: a mix of sex and violence which could be both soft- and hard-core. Having seen some of these, his reputation as the “evil Ed Wood” seemed largely justified.

This, however, dates from early in his career – so early, in fact, he directed it under his own name! – and is largely competent, made with more care than later examples of his work which I’ve seen. Perhaps it was from before he adopted a more jaded and cynical approach, as voiced by a character in Emanuelle’s Revenge [note the mis-spelling of the first word!], who appears to echo D’Amato’s own frequently-expressed thoughts, “We’re not making artsy-farty crap for intellectual faggots. We’re out to make money!” Instead, there are certainly no shortage of “artsy-fartsy” elements, even if it also contains its fair share of nudity and sex. In terms of style, it’s somewhere between the giallo and Gothic genres, combining the more in-your-face and whodunnit aesthetics of the former, with the dreamlike mysteries of the latter.

It’s a period piece, set around 1909, and begins with Franz (Luciano Rossi) bemoaning the death of his sister, Greta (Aulin). The next thing we see is a coach accident outside the house of Walter and Eva von Ravensbrück (Doria + Bo); the driver is killed, but the passenger is Greta, and is knocked unconscious. She recuperates in their house, under the eye of the local physician, Dr.  Sturgess (Kinski). but a couple of problems soon arise. The maid, apparently knowing something, hands in her notice and leaves, but  on the way out takes both barrels of a shotgun to the face. Then, both Walter and Eva fall in love with the new house-guest. When Eva realizes her husband is winning the battle, she takes drastic action, luring Greta to the basement and walling her up there. Problem solved, right? Nope – as anyone familiar with classic horror will know, it’s never a sound solution. Eva soon starts seeing both the hale and hearty Greta, alternating with a decayed version, and when she tears the bricks down to make sure she is seeing things, discovers the body is no longer there.

deathsmiles3You’ll notice that Klaus’s character only receives a passing mention. That’s because, despite his co-star billing with Aulin, his role is largely incidental. He has a sideline, working to discover the secret of life in a basement laboratory with his mute assistant, and a medallion worn by Greta appears to have provided a breakthrough. One imagines he sensed something was up when he was able to stab her in the eyeball with a pin, and not even receive a blink; that, along with the odd scar on the side of her neck where the IV tube of elixir went in. Anyway, he successfully revives his own test subject, only to be offed, along with his assistant, by (presumably) the same person who killed the maid. Exit Mr. Kinski, before the half-way point has been reached, though he’d return for another Massaccesi movie later in the year, Heroes in Hell.

To this point, the film hasn’t so much been playing the cards close to its chest, as leaving the table entirely, and looking at them from a locked room in the next building. Even by the end, it’s far from certain that all the questions raised have even potentially been answered, and indeed, it seems more are raised. Walter’s father shows up, and appears to have had quite the relationship with Greta himself: yet he didn’t make any connection between her disappearance and the sudden arrival of a beautiful blonde at his son’s house? The film also treats us to an entirely incomprehensible moment, where a bunch of flowers thrown by Greta turn into a cat, which then scratches someone’s face off, over a period of what seems like several minutes. [Look, it’s a freakin’ cat: you outweigh it by a factor of about twenty, and gravity is on your side] “None of this makes any sense,” says an investigating policeman at one point, and by the time the final credit roll, you’ll almost certainly be agreeing wholeheartedly.

However, for all the questionable plot elements, I can’t deny that Massaccesi does a good job of generating a dreamlike atmosphere, where even the more dubious moments have a certain plausibility. The first return of Greta from the tomb is particularly well-done, and delivers a fine wallop [I didn’t see it coming, that’s for sure], while there are also a couple of other sequences that are well-put together and directed with finesse. Aulin is undeniably lovely to look at, and it’s entirely credible why both husband and wife would fall for her. This isn’t one to watch if you’re in a demanding mood; I’d probably recommend laying off the caffeine instead, and watching it just before bedtime, when your critical faculties are dulled toward sleep. Seen through that prism, it’s a lusciously-shot exercise with the air of a lesser story from Edgar Allen Poe, and provides a more than pleasant way to pass 90 minutes.

Timestalkers (1987)

Dir: Michael Schultz
Star: William Devane, Lauren Hutton, Klaus Kinski, John Ratzenberger

timestalkersThis TV movie first aired on CBS in March 1987, and more or less combines two standard Kinski tropes: mad scientist and black-hearted gunslinger. Things kick off when history professor and Western enthusiast Scott McKenzie (Devane) buys an old photo, and realizes that the 1886 image contains a man wielding a .357 Magnum – a gun which dates from almost a century after the photo was taken. He writes a paper on the picture, challenging his class to come up with a solution, and is subsequently visited by Georgia Crawford (Hutton).

She reveals that she is a time-traveler from 600 years into the future, and is hunting the man in the picture, Dr. Joseph Cole (Kinski). He worked with her father inventing the time-travel device, but when Crawford tried to stop him from changing history, Cole stole the device and vanished – it now appears, going back to 1886. What exactly was his purpose? Bipping back and forth in time, Scott and Georgia try to figure that out, and how to stop Cole before he can carry out his plan to alter the future by changing the past.

As with most films about time-travel, it’s best not to stare too closely at the plot, because the paradoxes that result are almost insurmountable. [Spoilers follow, as a necessary result] If Cole is going back to kill the ancestor of the man who helped invent the time-travel gizmo, doesn’t that mean it won’t be invented? If that’s the case, how could Cole then go back in time to begin with? Also, why bother going back 700 years? That’s like trying to stop Hitler by finding his ancestor in 12th-century Germany. Why not just pop back a week and poison Crawford’s coffee? And don’t even get me started on the ending, which can only by explained by a complete and willful ignorance of the works of Ray Bradbury. Let’s just say, I doubt it turns out well.

That’s a little disappointing, considering this was written by Brain Clemens, who is quite a renowned figure in genre media. He wrote the original pilot for The Avengers (younger readers: the seminal 1960’s TV series, not the PPV comic-book franchise) and also wrote and directed Captain Kronos: Vampire Hunter, one of the more under-rated entries in the late Hammer horror canon. Here, he may have been limited, since he’s supposedly working from a source story – Ray Brown’s The Tintype, though I add the caveat since I’ve been unable to find out any significant information regarding it, or indeed Brown, who has no Wikipedia entry or even other IMDB credits.

timestalkers2This definitely appears to have been influential on a number of later, larger works: the most obvious are Timecop, with one batch of time-travellers, trying to stop another from screwing up the timeline, and Back to the Future, Part III, which also focused on time-travel to the Old West. However, those wouldn’t be released for another seven and three years respectively, so let’s give Timestalkers credit where it’s due. On the other hand, there are a few elements that are horribly dated: most obvious is a sequence where they visit another Old West collector, seeking information. He hauls a song out of his database, and plays it for them, accompanied by 16-bit graphics that may have been cutting-edge in 1987, but are now wrist-cuttingly awful.

Casting Kinski in a TVM is a bit like the cops sending a battalion of tanks to handle a domestic dispute: it’s simply overkill, considering the amount of restraint required for the medium. Whether by chance or design, Kinski doesn’t actually get to interact much with the other main characters. There’s an argument with his colleague Crawford that certainly demonstrates Klaus’s fire, but for much of the rest of the time, he’s roaming the 19th century on his quest, all by himself. However, he does get to do a decentish Travis Bickle impersonation, staring into the mirror, and in story terms, I liked how he gets into an army base, by traveling back to before it was built, passing through where security will be, then coming back. I also enjoyed the scene in which Cole pulls off a carjacking that would look impressive in Grand Theft Auto V, shoving the owner out the door as it whizzes along, with a cheery “Thanks for the lift, mister.”

Actually, that quote provides a fairly appropriate summary of the film as a whole. It whizzes along, zipping from century to century in such a way that the flaws are somehat hidden, before coming to a moderately-exciting climax as the US President heads through the desert, and right into an ambush. This is where McKenzie’s Western-style training – none too subtly foreshadowed early, while the plot is ambling its way towards significance – pays off, though I do have to question his convenient, Annie Oakley-esque accuracy while on horseback, which is not addressed during the previous going. That’s the main flaw here: a script definitely in need of at least a couple more rewrites before being ready from prime-time, particularly occupying such a logically dangerous area as time-travel.

But by the low standards of made-for-television movies, I’ve seen much worse, and the performances are better than you normally get in such things. Devane sells the concepts involved with enough enthusiasm to convince the audience, if they’re prepared to squint a little bit, although former model Hutton is less than entirely convincing as A Scientist. Kinski is perfectly fine as an evil antagonist, but you certainly don’t get the sense he was taxed or challenged by anything here, although at least I could locate no reports of issues or problems during filming. The film is currently on Youtube. I can’t say how long it might last, but it has been up since February this year, and would seem to have a decent shot as surviving, so here you go…

Creature (1985)

titanfindDir: William Malone
Star: Stan Ivar, Wendy Schaal, Lyman Ward, Klaus Kinski
a.k.a. Titan Find, The Titan Find

“Klaus Kinski is dead now, and the world is a better place for it.”
— William Malone

This combines elements from both Alien (1979) and The Thing (1982) – and it wasn’t the first time Malone had gone to the former well, a couple of years previously having put together Scared to Death, about a monster that lives in the Los Angeles sewer system, coming up at night to suck spinal fluid out of people [as you do…] And in 2000, he’d complete the trilogy of Alien knockoffs with Supernova. But it’s Creature, whether under that name or Titan Find, with which most people are likely familiar.

The movie starts on Titan with the discovery of an alien in a capsule, which – to no-0ne’s surprise except the two poor slobs who find it – turns out not to be dead. One has his head explodes inside his spacesuit, and the other, apparently driven insane, flies back to Earth and rams his craft into an orbiting space-station. The final frontier has become the property of corporations in this future, specifically the American NTI and German company Richter Dynamics. The Americans send a ship out to Titan to find out what happened to the first expedition: there’s the captain (Ivar), corporate boss (Ward), engineering type (Schaal) and a “security officer” (Diane Salinger), who doesn’t speak to anyone else, even though they wonder why on Earth/Titan they would need one of those.

On their arrival, it becomes clear. Richter has also sent a ship, and have already landed. NTI’s craft sets down too, but it’s more of a “crash”, leaving their vessel crippled, running out of oxygen. Heading over, they discover a number of dead bodies, and their craft is visited by Hans Rudy Hofner (Kinski), the last survivor of the 20+ members of the German expedition. He informs them that what was discovered was an alien’s collection of life-forms, like a child’s butterfly collection, except a great deal more lethal. The particular creature they’re up against has the ability to take over the bodies of its victims and use them to lure in further prey, as well as generate visions that serve the same purpose.

You can probably work out the rest of the plot from there: the creature gnaws its way through the minor members of the cast, working his way up to the front of the credits, while they try to figure out a way to defeat it. Interestingly, the method eventually used is directly inspired – the film only stops short of mentioning its name – by 1951’s The Thing From Another World, based on the same source SF novel as The Thing. There are the usual false endings where the survivors are probably the only people who believe the creature has been killed (the viewer likely having checked their watch and realized there are still 20 minutes left), but to its credit, the story ties itself up more or less neatly, without having to resort to cliches like a final shot of an alien egg.

As a B-movie, this isn’t terrible: the main problem is that the two films from which it most obviously borrows, were both far superior in just about every way. Some of the effects crew supposedly went on to work on Aliens, and from a technical standpoint, it’s pretty respectable, considering the budget was less than three-quarter of a million dollars. There’s a very good exploding head scene, and plenty of prosthetic effects, but the creature is too blatantly a man in a rubber suit to provoke more than snorts of derision. The other performances are mostly forgettable: Diane Salinger, who played security officer Bryce, perhaps comes off best, simply because she has least to say, and the script is probably the film’s weakest link. Witness the thoroughly ludicrous explanation she offers for her absence toward the end, which is something an 11-year-old child would have rejected as implausible.

This is, extremely obviously, one of those roles which Kinski took for the money, but as usual, even if his motivation may have been mercenary, he’s good value in it. Particularly, keep an eye out for the scene, as noted and broken down by Du Dumme Sau in detail, where Klaus apparently acts and has lunch at the same time (below). Very considerate that, on a tight shooting schedule.

klaus_kinski_vs_sandwich

If Kinski’s role feels like a bit of an afterthought, that’s for the very good reason that it apparently was: “During the production they got more money – and the producers suddenly hired Klaus Kinski, even if there wasn’t a part for him in the movie, so Malone and screenwriter Alan Reed had to invent a character.” By Malone’s account, communication between director and actor largely consisted of screaming from both sides, which appeared to work best for both of them. The quote opening this review came from a 1999 interview Malone did with Fangoria, and it’s perhaps worth quoting some more of the director’s thoughts.

“Kinski was the craziest person I’ve ever met. I had him for a week on that picture, out of a seven-week shoot. I remember the first words out of his mouth. He put his arm around me on the set and said, ‘You know, Bill, when Nastassja was 12, I raped her.’ And things went downhill from there…. “

In the light of subsequent events – albeit involving Klaus’s other daughter, Pola – that’s an extremely unfortunate statement, though of course, Kinski was well known for behaving outrageously, purely  for shock purposes.  Malone’s opinion did seem to mellow subsequently, later saying: “He was a funny guy, and I think he would be happy I said the world was a better place without him. He reveled in that kind of thing.” Salinger also has some interesting stories of working with Klaus on the film, but overall, appears to remember him fondly, saying:

“Klaus taught me a great deal! We were wearing these padded, quilted space suits, and he taught me how to act [in them] with my back. I knew he was brilliant, but he would never hit his marks. He was basically ‘Fuck you, I’m the actor, you’re the camera. I’m not gonna follow you, you follow me.’ I remember Bill [Malone] saying to me that a lot of the great, brilliant footage that he had of Klaus he couldn’t use, because he was out of focus.”

The movie was re-released on DVD earlier this year, in a nicely letterboxed version: the copy I saw was streamed on Netflix, in a 4:3 ratio, and was probably too dark. The DVD comes with Malone’s commentary, as well as interviews with the surviving cast members, both of which I would be very interested to hear, so I’ll update this one if I get hold of it.