A scary thing happened on the way to the Movie Forums - Horrorcrammers

Tools    





This is a fun film to just sit back and watch when you’re in the mood for some silly, violent fun. *Wasn’t so sure you’d enjoy it as much as you did.
Interestingly, I'm not sure I'd file this one under "fun". It is over the top, for sure. But there's a lot of darkness, genuine menace, and just sadness to many of the scenes, like the subway shot pictured in my review, or the hopeless nature of the Orphans.



Warriors is rough around the edges but I’m a sucker for a simple premise action movie like heroes trying to get from point A to point B.





From Beyond, 1986

Crawford (Jeffrey Combs) is working as an assistant to scientist Edward Pretorius (Ted Sorel), attempting to finalize a machine called the Resonator. The machine enhances the pineal gland in the brain, allowing one to see creatures. But things go wrong and Dr Pretorius ends up dead and Crawford lands in a local hospital, accused of both murder and madness. Psychiatrist Katherine McMichaels (Barbara Crampton) is called into help determine Crawford's sanity, and she decides to return him to the site of the experiments so that he can relive the events. But when Crawford complies and rebuilds the Resonator, things go very, very wrong . . .

I absolutely loved this film, and loved it in so many ways.

In many ways, this movie made me think superficially of Hellraiser, only a version where Kirsty kind of likes what she finds in the box.

What I loved the most about the film was the way in which it pulled off two equally strong character stories/arcs with both Crawford and Katherine. Crawford serves as an interesting foil to Pretorius, he is spooked by what he's seen and is afraid of what it might do to Katherine, himself, and a detective named Brownlee (Ken Foree) who has come to supervise events in the house. In many ways, Crawford takes on a role that would more normally be reserved for a female character--maybe the wife or girlfriend of the mad scientist. He has an admirable strength of spirit and a sense of right and wrong, but at the same time is more passive than you might normally see in a male lead. The portrayal of this more gentle masculinity (in contrast to both Brownlee's physical dominance and Pretorius's sexual aggression) is interesting.

Then there's Katherine, who gets the obsessive scientist trope that is almost always reserved for male characters while a girlfriend or wife frets about the way that he is changing. Katherine's character arc is more than foretold in her large glasses and precise french braid---both items that just scream "I am repressed and just wait until something happens that makes me take off these glasses and undo this hairstyle". But I still really enjoyed watching this version of that trope. To begin with, Katherine starts from a genuinely good place: she had a father who was mentally ill, and she begins to believe that the Resonator could have significant impact on the treatment of people with schizophrenia, a disease whose "treatment" often ends up zombifying its sufferers. But the Resonator unlocks something deeper inside of Katherine, and she finds herself drawn to its power and sensual pleasures.

There are a ton of monster mythologies in which men and women become affected and then release their inhibitions. Vampires and werewolves in particular often serve as paper-thin analogies for the inner-monsters of lust and desire. In the wrong hands, this can come off as really cheesy and exploitative.

The use of sex and sexual dynamics in this film is, to its credit, really thoughtful, in my opinion. Almost inescapably, sex and power are intertwined. Issues of control and dominance and power exist in some way in most sexual relationships, and in this film these are amplified. Pretorius, even pre-Resonator, is very into dominance. While it is unclear from a sequence we see of him dominating a female partner just how consensual his relationships are, there are two hints that his encounters are more abusive. IMDb notes that there was a cut scene in which Pretorius drove a nail through a woman's tongue against her will. In describing Pretorius and the women he brought around, a clearly upset Crawford relates that their nice dinners and conversation "always ended in screaming." It seems pretty clear from the way he talks about it that he wasn't just upset from hearing some edgy sex---it sounds more like he was witness to abuse or assault. And Pretorius-as-monster is obsessed with not only pleasure but consumption of others, conflating sexual pleasure with absorbing their bodies.

Several scenes take place in Pretorius's sex room. (One of my favorite touches here was that Crawford gives Katherine his bedroom and he ends up sleeping in the sex room on a little cot under a giant photograph of a nude woman). Katherine's transformation, in which she puts on a dominatrix outfit, also seems to align with her need for control. She talks a lot about control, repeatedly asserting that she just needs to be able to focus, and that she is confident that she can control the events if she is left to her own devices. She rejects warnings from Brownlee and Crawford about the obsessive and addictive signs of her behavior. I thought that it was interesting that Brownlee and Crawford do not seem to have that same hang-up about control, and while they are both *ahem* affected by the Resonator, neither goes to a place of aggression or dominance.

And building on that arc with Katherine, I liked the way that her persona post-Resonator reflects the exact accusations leveled against her by Dr. Bloch (Carolyn Purdy-Gordon). Bloch is clearly meant to be a villain who barely disguises her hatred for Katherine and gleefully threatens her with all manner of retaliation for stealing Crawford away. But some of her concerns and anger seem pretty well-founded. She accuses Katherine of exploiting people with mental illness and using them in experiments. Under the influence of the Resonator, Katherine does exactly this. In one of the most disturbing sequences of the film, Katherine sexually assaults an unconscious Crawford. She endangers both Crawford and Brownlee through her unwillingness to walk away from the Resonator.

The themes of dominance extend even to the visuals of the film, and it's not a mistake that the color and style of the wrist restraints used in Pretorius's sex room are almost exactly the same as those used in the mental hospital to restrain Crawford and later Katherine. There's an uncomfortable charge to a scene where a male doctor leers at Katherine as he prepares to administer electroshock therapy to her against her will.

And while the character work was my favorite thing, a close second would have to be the effects. Loved 'em. A mix of practical effects and some neat computer imagery. I read in the trivia of the film that they ran out of the budget before finishing the finale, but I thought the effects looked great from beginning to end.

I do wish that the film had been willing to play the character of Bloch a bit more straight. On the one hand, yes, the film is about control and domination, and I like that we see this play out in multiple contexts. And there is something to the idea of masking personal dislike behind moral outrage. But I also thought that many of Bloch's concerns about Katherine's professional behavior were valid. And just speaking personally, I find the idea of someone doing something horrible to you because they think they are helping more frightening than someone just being out to get you. Despite this, it was still pretty cool seeing an 80s horror film with a diverse collection of male and female characters with distinct personalities.

Lastly, I just adored the ending. It was bold and memorable and really fitting for the disturbing story it was telling. I probably liked this one a good deal more than Re-Animator, and I'm surprised it's not mentioned more often.




Not a fan of The Beyond. Prefer Re Animator from Gordon
What did you dislike about it? I thought that in terms of performance, visuals, and themes it was solid across the board.



The trick is not minding
What did you dislike about it? I thought that in terms of performance, visuals, and themes it was solid across the board.

I didn’t think any of them tie together well, outside of the visuals. Story wise, it was an interesting concept that wasn’t implemented well.



I didn’t think any of them tie together well, outside of the visuals. Story wise, it was an interesting concept that wasn’t implemented well.
What part of the story did you think wasn't implemented well?

I really liked the arc of Katherine grappling with her intertwined motivations (the "healthy" desire to cure mental illness and the "unhealthy" need for control that is amplified by the Resonator) and Crawford's hesitations around his affection for Katherine and his desire to be away from the house and Pretorius.



The trick is not minding
What part of the story did you think wasn't implemented well?

I really liked the arc of Katherine grappling with her intertwined motivations (the "healthy" desire to cure mental illness and the "unhealthy" need for control that is amplified by the Resonator) and Crawford's hesitations around his affection for Katherine and his desire to be away from the house and Pretorius.
It’s been a few years, but…..most of it. Katherine’s arc was among the most egregious. She turns the machine back on knowing how dangerous it is to do so, just for her own motivations.
It was an irrational reasoning for her character, and it just take highlights everyone else’s dumb decisions throughout the movie.
Just crummy writing.



Victim of The Night
This is a fun film to just sit back and watch when you’re in the mood for some silly, violent fun. *Wasn’t so sure you’d enjoy it as much as you did.
I'm with Takoma on this one, I've been a fan of this film for at least 35 years and I consider it a dark and edgy film.



Victim of The Night


From Beyond, 1986

Crawford (Jeffrey Combs) is working as an assistant to scientist Edward Pretorius (Ted Sorel), attempting to finalize a machine called the Resonator. The machine enhances the pineal gland in the brain, allowing one to see creatures. But things go wrong and Dr Pretorius ends up dead and Crawford lands in a local hospital, accused of both murder and madness. Psychiatrist Katherine McMichaels (Barbara Crampton) is called into help determine Crawford's sanity, and she decides to return him to the site of the experiments so that he can relive the events. But when Crawford complies and rebuilds the Resonator, things go very, very wrong . . .

I absolutely loved this film, and loved it in so many ways.

In many ways, this movie made me think superficially of Hellraiser, only a version where Kirsty kind of likes what she finds in the box.

What I loved the most about the film was the way in which it pulled off two equally strong character stories/arcs with both Crawford and Katherine. Crawford serves as an interesting foil to Pretorius, he is spooked by what he's seen and is afraid of what it might do to Katherine, himself, and a detective named Brownlee (Ken Foree) who has come to supervise events in the house. In many ways, Crawford takes on a role that would more normally be reserved for a female character--maybe the wife or girlfriend of the mad scientist. He has an admirable strength of spirit and a sense of right and wrong, but at the same time is more passive than you might normally see in a male lead. The portrayal of this more gentle masculinity (in contrast to both Brownlee's physical dominance and Pretorius's sexual aggression) is interesting.

Then there's Katherine, who gets the obsessive scientist trope that is almost always reserved for male characters while a girlfriend or wife frets about the way that he is changing. Katherine's character arc is more than foretold in her large glasses and precise french braid---both items that just scream "I am repressed and just wait until something happens that makes me take off these glasses and undo this hairstyle". But I still really enjoyed watching this version of that trope. To begin with, Katherine starts from a genuinely good place: she had a father who was mentally ill, and she begins to believe that the Resonator could have significant impact on the treatment of people with schizophrenia, a disease whose "treatment" often ends up zombifying its sufferers. But the Resonator unlocks something deeper inside of Katherine, and she finds herself drawn to its power and sensual pleasures.

There are a ton of monster mythologies in which men and women become affected and then release their inhibitions. Vampires and werewolves in particular often serve as paper-thin analogies for the inner-monsters of lust and desire. In the wrong hands, this can come off as really cheesy and exploitative.

The use of sex and sexual dynamics in this film is, to its credit, really thoughtful, in my opinion. Almost inescapably, sex and power are intertwined. Issues of control and dominance and power exist in some way in most sexual relationships, and in this film these are amplified. Pretorius, even pre-Resonator, is very into dominance. While it is unclear from a sequence we see of him dominating a female partner just how consensual his relationships are, there are two hints that his encounters are more abusive. IMDb notes that there was a cut scene in which Pretorius drove a nail through a woman's tongue against her will. In describing Pretorius and the women he brought around, a clearly upset Crawford relates that their nice dinners and conversation "always ended in screaming." It seems pretty clear from the way he talks about it that he wasn't just upset from hearing some edgy sex---it sounds more like he was witness to abuse or assault. And Pretorius-as-monster is obsessed with not only pleasure but consumption of others, conflating sexual pleasure with absorbing their bodies.

Several scenes take place in Pretorius's sex room. (One of my favorite touches here was that Crawford gives Katherine his bedroom and he ends up sleeping in the sex room on a little cot under a giant photograph of a nude woman). Katherine's transformation, in which she puts on a dominatrix outfit, also seems to align with her need for control. She talks a lot about control, repeatedly asserting that she just needs to be able to focus, and that she is confident that she can control the events if she is left to her own devices. She rejects warnings from Brownlee and Crawford about the obsessive and addictive signs of her behavior. I thought that it was interesting that Brownlee and Crawford do not seem to have that same hang-up about control, and while they are both *ahem* affected by the Resonator, neither goes to a place of aggression or dominance.

And building on that arc with Katherine, I liked the way that her persona post-Resonator reflects the exact accusations leveled against her by Dr. Bloch (Carolyn Purdy-Gordon). Bloch is clearly meant to be a villain who barely disguises her hatred for Katherine and gleefully threatens her with all manner of retaliation for stealing Crawford away. But some of her concerns and anger seem pretty well-founded. She accuses Katherine of exploiting people with mental illness and using them in experiments. Under the influence of the Resonator, Katherine does exactly this. In one of the most disturbing sequences of the film, Katherine sexually assaults an unconscious Crawford. She endangers both Crawford and Brownlee through her unwillingness to walk away from the Resonator.

The themes of dominance extend even to the visuals of the film, and it's not a mistake that the color and style of the wrist restraints used in Pretorius's sex room are almost exactly the same as those used in the mental hospital to restrain Crawford and later Katherine. There's an uncomfortable charge to a scene where a male doctor leers at Katherine as he prepares to administer electroshock therapy to her against her will.

And while the character work was my favorite thing, a close second would have to be the effects. Loved 'em. A mix of practical effects and some neat computer imagery. I read in the trivia of the film that they ran out of the budget before finishing the finale, but I thought the effects looked great from beginning to end.

I do wish that the film had been willing to play the character of Bloch a bit more straight. On the one hand, yes, the film is about control and domination, and I like that we see this play out in multiple contexts. And there is something to the idea of masking personal dislike behind moral outrage. But I also thought that many of Bloch's concerns about Katherine's professional behavior were valid. And just speaking personally, I find the idea of someone doing something horrible to you because they think they are helping more frightening than someone just being out to get you. Despite this, it was still pretty cool seeing an 80s horror film with a diverse collection of male and female characters with distinct personalities.

Lastly, I just adored the ending. It was bold and memorable and really fitting for the disturbing story it was telling. I probably liked this one a good deal more than Re-Animator, and I'm surprised it's not mentioned more often.

This pleases me so much.
I watched this movie for the second time in my life as part of last year's Horrorthon. The first time, I lacked the vocabulary in lower-budget-but-creative Horror films to fully appreciate it, but I was still aware that this was better than it seemed like it should be.
When I came back to it last year I was just utterly charmed by the film and felt that this was kind of a special one for those whose minds are attuned.
I especially enjoyed Roger Ebert's thoughts on it, which I will repost from a few pages ago:

"Gordon's mission seems to be to return real fear, real depravity, to the horror film, and he's a genuine stylist. This movie looks a lot better than your average slime.
Combs has his hair eaten off by one of the worms, and Crampton is so distraught, she hardly has time to change into leather S & M gear... I was wondering why she took the time to change into leather until I saw the next scene, and then I got it: Stuart Gordon was asking himself when the last time was we saw a blond psychiatrist in leather battling with a slime-worm from another dimension? Every movie should have a first.
At a time when almost any exploitation movie can make money if its ads are clever enough, this is a movie that tries to mix some satire and artistry in with the slime."
- Roger Ebert.



The trick is not minding
I'm with Takoma on this one, I've been a fan of this film for at least 35 years and I consider it a dark and edgy film.

I don’t take it seriously enough to consider it “edgy”. Dark, somewhat, sure. Not that dark even, really. It’s goofy with the different gang motifs.



It’s been a few years, but…..most of it. Katherine’s arc was among the most egregious. She turns the machine back on knowing how dangerous it is to do so, just for her own motivations.
It was an irrational reasoning for her character, and it just take highlights everyone else’s dumb decisions throughout the movie.
Just crummy writing.
Huh. I mean, this may be partly because I just watched The Fly, but I feel like horror movies are full of scientists who continue experiments or using machines even after it's clear that it's dangerous. We can see that they are making a mistake, but they've got blinders on because they are so determined to make their discovery or complete their work.

She also only wants to keep going with the machine after it has influenced her, something that Browntree explicitly calls out when he tells her that her insistence on turning the machine back on has her "acting like a junkie". Her turning it on the first time isn't that dumb, because she thinks that Crawford is mentally ill and that the effects he described in the hospital are symptomatic of his delusions.

I think that there are some irrational decisions made in the film, but almost all of them are made under the brain-altering influence of the Resonator. And her ability to take a different path from Pretorius marks the difference in their characters and their larger motivations.

This pleases me so much.
I watched this movie for the second time in my life as part of last year's Horrorthon. The first time, I lacked the vocabulary in lower-budget-but-creative Horror films to fully appreciate it, but I was still aware that this was better than it seemed like it should be.
When I came back to it last year I was just utterly charmed by the film and felt that this was kind of a special one for those whose minds are attuned.
I especially enjoyed Roger Ebert's thoughts on it, which I will repost from a few pages ago:

"Gordon's mission seems to be to return real fear, real depravity, to the horror film, and he's a genuine stylist."
- Roger Ebert.
Yes. Something that I liked about the film was that I found it genuinely horrifying and upsetting, but at the same time really well grounded in its characters. I was rooting for the main trio even as they couldn't quite overpower their altered brain chemistry.



I mean, this may be partly because I just watched The Fly, but I feel like horror movies are full of scientists who continue experiments or using machines even after it's clear that it's dangerous.
I agree, but I think that’s kind of true to life? (Again, I’ll get in trouble for saying that, I know )



The trick is not minding
Huh. I mean, this may be partly because I just watched The Fly, but I feel like horror movies are full of scientists who continue experiments or using machines even after it's clear that it's dangerous. We can see that they are making a mistake, but they've got blinders on because they are so determined to make their discovery or complete their work.

She also only wants to keep going with the machine after it has influenced her, something that Browntree explicitly calls out when he tells her that her insistence on turning the machine back on has her "acting like a junkie". Her turning it on the first time isn't that dumb, because she thinks that Crawford is mentally ill and that the effects he described in the hospital are symptomatic of his delusions.

I think that there are some irrational decisions made in the film, but almost all of them are made under the brain-altering influence of the Resonator. And her ability to take a different path from Pretorius marks the difference in their characters and their larger motivations.



Yes. Something that I liked about the film was that I found it genuinely horrifying and upsetting, but at the same time really well grounded in its characters. I was rooting for the main trio even as they couldn't quite overpower their altered brain chemistry.

Can’t compare it with the original The Fly since I haven’t seen that yet (I know, shame!) but I’ll use the remake instead. The difference between them is in The Fly, he hasn’t seen the ramifications first hand yet, while in The Beyond, they are clearly aware of the danger by this point. In most cases, Evil Scientists don’t actually fore see the actual results until after it’s too late, from what I recall from many of the films I’ve seen like it. The results are often what they didn’t expect. In The Beyond, they knew what it would do, and went ahead foolishly.
Now, I don’t remember if the resonator had influenced her or not, seeing as it’s been a few years, but I still can’t give the film a pass on that basis anyways, considering the writing.



I agree, but I think that’s kind of true to life? (Again, I’ll get in trouble for saying that, I know )
I absolutely think it is true to life, which is why I don't find it to be a misstep for her character. She is highly motivated (because of the history with her father's mental illness) and she genuinely thinks she may have cracked a huge part of what is happening with people who have schizophrenia. For both personal and professional reasons I totally get why she doesn't want to leave the house or turn the machine over to anyone else.



Can’t compare it with the original The Fly since I haven’t seen that yet (I know, shame!) but I’ll use the remake instead. The difference between them is in The Fly, he hasn’t seen the ramifications first hand yet, while in The Beyond, they are clearly aware of the danger by this point.
Seth in the remake of The Fly is very aware of the dangers, as his experiments have been horrible and disastrous. He has one successful teleport of a living thing and then drunkenly puts himself through the pods.

And don't get me wrong, I love the 80s The Fly, but to me that is a much dumber decision than Katherine turning on the Resonator the first time. (Because, again, she believes that at most the machine is creating delusions, not actual danger).

In most cases, Evil Scientists don’t actually fore see the actual results until after it’s too late, from what I recall from many of the films I’ve seen like it.
In every example I can think of, scientists DO see the problem with what they are doing, but they think that they can fix or refine the process. Jekyll and Hyde, The Fly, Eyes Without a Face. Even in the film you cited as liking more, Re-Animator, West injects his colleague after seeing that a different dead body came back as a violent zombie.

Like, to be very clear, it is not smart of Katherine to keep wanting to turn on the Resonator. But the movie knows it. The other characters know it and articulate it. Browntree literally packs them all up because he knows they need to get out of there and leave the machine alone. Her making a bad choice is not an accident of bad writing, it is an intentional part of her character arc, and the choice the both unites her with and ultimately differentiates her from Pretorius.

I'm fine with someone saying, ugh, I just couldn't watch this character make such a bad choice. I have movies like that (*cough* 50s The Fly *cough*) But I do think it's not quite right to say it's bad writing. I think that the writing of all of the characters was actually very intentional and thoughtful.



The trick is not minding
Seth in the remake of The Fly is very aware of the dangers, as his experiments have been horrible and disastrous. He has one successful teleport of a living thing and then drunkenly puts himself through the pods.

And don't get me wrong, I love the 80s The Fly, but to me that is a much dumber decision than Katherine turning on the Resonator the first time. (Because, again, she believes that at most the machine is creating delusions, not actual danger).



In every example I can think of, scientists DO see the problem with what they are doing, but they think that they can fix or refine the process. Jekyll and Hyde, The Fly, Eyes Without a Face. Even in the film you cited as liking more, Re-Animator, West injects his colleague after seeing that a different dead body came back as a violent zombie.

Like, to be very clear, it is not smart of Katherine to keep wanting to turn on the Resonator. But the movie knows it. The other characters know it and articulate it. Browntree literally packs them all up because he knows they need to get out of there and leave the machine alone. Her making a bad choice is not an accident of bad writing, it is an intentional part of her character arc, and the choice the both unites her with and ultimately differentiates her from Pretorius.

I'm fine with someone saying, ugh, I just couldn't watch this character make such a bad choice. I have movies like that (*cough* 50s The Fly *cough*) But I do think it's not quite right to say it's bad writing. I think that the writing of all of the characters was actually very intentional and thoughtful.
Oh! I forgot about the monkey! Thank you for reminding me. Yes, it was a dumb decision. He figured he the issue resolved. Anyways, I was actually referring to the fact that he didn’t expect to turn into a human fly hybrid, though. I won’t quibble, however. Not going to debate on which is the dumber decision either, because I don’t see why that matters.

I don’t agree the movie wasn’t written well. It goes far beyond than just Katherines example. The movie itself wasn’t written well. Why not destroy the machine? And her whole reasoning for taking him back to the house is stupid. And the detective just accompanies them as if it’s ok to enter the house a murder just occurred? And he just decided to hang with them? And after all they witness they just stay the night? That’s bad writing.
But thanks for telling me I’m wrong to think a that way. 🤷



Victim of The Night
I don’t take it seriously enough to consider it “edgy”. Dark, somewhat, sure. Not that dark even, really. It’s goofy with the different gang motifs.
Maybe it's a time thing for me. I saw it back before New York got cleaned up and this was the kind of horror-show many of us in the rest of the country believed New York actually was. I certainly don't remember anything goofy or the least bit campy about it but then I probably haven't seen it in like seven years.



The trick is not minding
Maybe it's a time thing for me. I saw it back before New York got cleaned up and this was the kind of horror-show many of us in the rest of the country believed New York actually was. I certainly don't remember anything goofy or the least bit campy about it but then I probably haven't seen it in like seven years.
I wouldn’t call it campy necessarily, but the gang motifs were definitely goofy at times. I’m thinking of the Baseball Furies and the gang on Rollerskates specifically.
Maybe I was just jaded when I watched this. But I didn’t think it was that dark and definitely not edgy. Just some fun action.



I don’t agree the movie wasn’t written well. It goes far beyond than just Katherines example. The movie itself wasn’t written well. Why not destroy the machine?
Crawford does try to destroy the machine. It is the first thing he does after the incident with Pretorius. And
WARNING: spoilers below
in the end Katherine does destroy the machine. There are repeated times earlier in the film where they try to destroy the machine but are physically prevented from doing so by the creatures.
.

And her whole reasoning for taking him back to the house is stupid. And the detective just accompanies them as if it’s ok to enter the house a murder just occurred? And he just decided to hang with them?
In the very beginning it's explained that Katherine has been brought in to decide if Crawford is fit to stand trial. She gets permission from the lead detective to take him back to the crime scene (which is acknowledged in the writing as being unconventional, but allowed because of Katherine's reputation in the field), and they are accompanied by Browntree as the person making sure that Crawford stays under control.

But thanks for telling me I’m wrong to think a that way. 🤷
You're not wrong to think however you think about the film.

I think that the decisions made in the film are consistent with the characters, and I'm just arguing that characters making bad decisions isn't always a sign of bad writing. Many of the bad decisions are baked into the story as a way of seeing how the characters are being affected or warped by the Resonator. I think that the film provides plausible answers to pretty much every "But why did they . . ." question, and further I think that the character choices are internally consistent.

You and I may just have different metrics for "bad writing". For me, good writing is more about characters being consistent and the broader world of the film being consistent. And to me, From Beyond checks both of those boxes.