Scientist Dr. Edward Pretorius has developed the Resonator, a machine that allows whoever is within range to see beyond normal perceptible reality. Side effects of this phenomenon include feelings of euphoria, stimulation of the pineal gland that may cause it to become enlarged, and allowing the things that live beyond our normal perception to see and interact with us, as well.
When Pretorius's reckless experimentation with the machine leads to his death, his assistant Crawford is blamed, and committed to a mental institution. There, he comes under the care of Dr. Katherine McMichaels. When scans show that Crawford's pineal gland is enlarged and growing, McMichaels becomes convinced of his innocence, and decides to rebuild the machine in order to prove it.
Somehow, she is able to convince the authorities to go along with this plan. Crawford agrees to accompany her - presumably since his freedom relies on the outcome - though he is certainly nervous about the possible implications of further experimentation with the machine. It has, after all, already claimed one life.
From Beyond is loosely based on the short story by H P Lovecraft. The film was directed by Stuart Gordon, the man behind the schlocky fun of the previous year's Re-Animator, which was also adapted from a Lovecraft story.
So how does this movie live up to the standards of its predecessor?
Pretty well, on the whole. Gordon made the deliberate choice to re-use the same leading cast members: Jeffrey Combs and Barbara Crampton. Gordon's motivations for this were not directly related to the quality of their performances in Re-Animator, but instead were because he had ambitions to make a whole series of Lovecraft adaptations using the same cast, as a deliberate artistic choice. However, I'm pleased to say that both are solid performers who commit to their roles, and are good fun to watch here. I wish Gordon had been able to follow through on his plans to make more of these movies with these leads, but alas, it was not to be.
On the technical side, while the film's effects are limited by its budget, they are overall pretty good within those limitations. The gruesome body horror practical effects are a particular strength, as are the practical monsters - I particularly liked "The Thing In The Basement". Some of the other effects, such as the post-production overlays of re-coloured eels as "otherworldly things from beyond" are not quite to the same standard, but I suspect they were a lot more affordable than the alternatives.
It won't be to all tastes, so it is worth nothing that there's a strong sexual element to the film; the 'resonator' specifically affects the part of the brain controlling sexual desire, there's a little bit of nudity and lots of revealing clothing. Some Lovecraft purists may dislike this, as his stories were generally sexless, but I actually think it is not a bad way to echo the author's obsession with genetic 'purity' without indulging his hideous racism. Also it was the 1980s, and "sex = death: was pretty much embedded in the horror DNA back then. Which is is problematic for other reasons, of course!
While the sexual elements may be positive, negative or neutral, depending on your tastes, the film is not without some definite flaws. The storytelling is occasionally a little muddled. For instance, the monsters' relationship with natural light seems a little inconsistently depicted, at first: shining a torch on one character pulls the critters away from him, but then shining light onto another guys draws the critters to him. I think the intended message in both scenes is that the creatures are "drawn to the light", but depicting this in two essentially opposite ways confuses the point a bit.
Overall though, the flaws don't detract from the carnival fun ride feel of the film: this is fun schlockly horror.
No comments:
Post a Comment