27) Disciples of the Crow (1983) and The Boogeyman (1982) - Obscure Stephen King flicks #7

"The Lord is he who walks behind the rows."

Director
John Woodward

Cast
Eleese Lester - Vicky
Gabriel Folse - Burt
Steven Young - Young Billy
John Woodward - Older Billy

I picked two movies for this post because (1) each was only 20 to 30 minutes long, and (2) they're both featured on a two volume VHS set called Stephen King's Nightshift Collection. The set includes four short movies - three of which are based on King stories found in his book of short stories, Night Shift. Why one movie, The Night Waiter (1987), in this King collection has nothing to do with King or his book is beyond me.
When it comes to obscure Stephen King movies, this set definitely fits the bill. I never even heard of them until I read an article in a recent issue of HorrorHound magazine that mentioned the title Disciples of the Crow. A quick Google search led me to this obscure collection not available on DVD.
The only way I was able to watch these movies, luckily, was on YouTube. Unfortunately, the King short The Woman in the Room directed by Frank Darabont, who's no stranger to directing other movie adaptations of King's work - Shawshank Redemption, The Mist, The Green Mile - wasn't available in English. It's found on volume 2 of this collection along with the other movie I reviewed down below, so I'll find a way to watch it soon enough.
Disciples of the Crow, based on the story Children of the Corn, is featured on volume 1.
When compared to the more popular movie Children of the Corn, which has weaved its way into pop culture spawning six sequels since its 1984 release, as well as a made-for-TV remake in 2009, Disciples of the Crow is actually a little better. This isn't saying too much as it's only a 20 minute film. It was also released before the more popular movie adaptation. Even today, people (whether they've seen the movie or read the story) use the phrase "Children of the corn" to describe country folks deemed not quite up to snuff with the rest of the society. The title has made its way into the lexicon of other book titles used as modern catchphrases - Catch 22, for instance.
Children of the Corn fails in its ending. It's tacky, stupid, and seems like an ending for the sake of an ending. That's my biggest problem with it. I'm just throwing that out there.
In Disciples, we see an opening of a dry atmosphere with a golden sun amidst the screeching of crows. We then see a young boy, Billy, perform a ritual with a crucifix in which he's making something with corn. He joins other kids, and the movie then cuts to families gathered in church. Billy sees Jesus on a stained glass window, where his face turns dark. Billy takes this as the sign to kill the adults. Before we see that happens, the scene switches to 12 years later.  
The story centers on a couple, Vicki and Burt, who while driving on a secluded road towards Jonah, Oklahoma, accidentally hit a young boy who ran out from the cornfields next to the road. When Burt gets out to see if he's ok, he finds a knife made from a corn cob, stabbed in the boy's side.
They pull through a small town which turns out is completely deserted.
It has been taken over by the cult of children, and their trip through the town quickly becomes an escape for their lives.
Disciples of the Crow has more mystery and intrigue behind it. It's too bad the movie is so short as it leaves a lot of unanswered questions. There could have been more to add, making it a better, scarier film.
The imagery is great, despite the movie's overall amateur appearance - looking and sounding (i.e. the poor dialogue) more like a film school project.
One thing I really liked over the more famous movie adaptation  was the adults death scene inside Mercy Baptist Church. In Children of the Corn, that scene takes place inside a diner, which is fine and creepy as hell. But to have it inside a Baptist church is much more dark, putting the mindset of the cult's god (he who walks behind the rows), shown through the action of the children, in a much more accurate light. We don't actually see the adults get taken down by the children as its more implied.
The movie did a decent enough job to tell its story in such a short amount of time, relying more on visuals than dialogue.
For Stephen King fans, Disciples of the Crow is a small obscure gem lost among bigger films made with bigger budgets, that's worth checking out.

The Boogeyman

"Maybe if you think of a thing long enough, and believe in it, maybe it becomes real. Maybe all the things we were afraid of as kids, you know, the monsters like Frankenstein, Wolfman, or Mummy - maybe they were real."

Director
Jeff Schiro

Cast
Michael Earl Reid - Lester Billings
Bert Linder - Dr. Harper
Terence Brandy - Sgt. Garland

I don't know for sure, but I'd bet that the Stephen King short story The Boogeyman, published in the same book mentioned above (Night Shift) was an inspiration, somehow of another, for the story It. There are some similarities between the two stories. Well, mostly that there's a scary monster and children are its victims.
The movie opens with Lester Billings (Michael Earl Reid, Army of Darkness) finding one of his children dead in the bathtub.
The audience follows Billings as he discusses with his psychiatrist that the monster in his children's closet is real, and it's literally killing them.
He goes into gruesome details about how he has found his kids dead in there beds at night, with the closet door open, and how helpless he has been. We cut back and forth between scenes of Lester with his family, and his sessions with his doctor.
For a short psychological horror/thriller, this movie really pulled me in. And if you're not familiar with the story, the ending is great and unsettling.
Watching a man we know is fully aware of some paranormal being manifesting in his home and killing his children, who's trying to convince his doctor of what's happening, and the madness this drives him into is the stuff of good horror and thrillers.
Sometimes the monster in the story isn't the scariest thing. Rather, it's watching the main character live with the knowledge that something horrifying and unexplainable exists whether they like it or not. Watching the main character deal with something they have no control over in such a situation is half the scare. The other half is, well, the monster itself. And trying to get rid of it may not go the way the protagonist thinks it will. But if it leads to a resolution, we're willing to cope with our losses (or, rather, those of the protagonist), whatever they might be, just so we can have that resolution.
Reid plays his role well - a helpless father facing a reality that's unbelievable and larger than his imagination can fathom right in his own home. All he can do his grasp his shotgun and try to face it for the sake of his family. This, mixed with the screams of his children begging for him to save them, makes it hard to watch. Yet his performance is well done for what it is. You can't help but feel sympathy for Lester who's left to the mercy of authorities and his psychiatrist.
Initially, I thought the title seemed too generic and silly. I mean, "The Boogeyman?" Seriously? But watching it, it makes sense. It's the looming presence of evil who's always there waiting, and that knowledge consumes your sanity.
This movie is precisely that, and the ending is unexpected. It's an ending that really throws Billings' lack of control over the entire situation in his face.
Like Disciples of the Crow, this movie is worth watching for any big Stephen King fan. It's not a movie that'll blow you away. It's more like a really great episode of Tales from the Crypt or The Twilight Zone.
This was an entertaining short movie, and a creepy one as long as the audience doesn't let the films age or production value get in the way. It's worth checking out, especially for the die-hard King fans.
 
Obscure Stephen King

Memorable Roles in Horrific History - Bill Moseley in the Night of the Living Dead remake, and Army of Darkness

Bill Moseley in Night of the Living Dead (1990).

I didn't really discover actor Bill Moseley until I squeamishly sat through Rob Zombie's The Devil's Rejects. I had to pause and recollect myself while getting through that one. And then, like a teenager in a slasher flick just asking for trouble, I went back for more with Zombie's House of 1,000 Corpses. (I watched them out of order.) Moseley was in that, too.
Though both those movies were disturbing, gruesome, and all too real, Moseley was fantastic. He is one scary actor, and I mean that as a good thing.
He strikes me as someone who loves what he does. Moseley puts his love of acting and horror into his performances, and it shows. His sharp stare and gaunt features help make him one freaky character...a horror icon on par with Bela Lugosi.
But there are two movies I've seen, long before I watched any Rob Zombie movies, that I just learned also starred Bill Moseley - Tom Savini's underrated 1990 remake of Night of the Living Dead and Army of Darkness (1992). 

Moseley's roles in horror movies are normally disturbing, maniacal, grotesque, and horrific. I'm thinking primarily of his character Chop Top Sawyer in Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 and Otis Driftwood in House of 1000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects. He returned as Otis Driftwood in the new 2019 movie 3 From Hell - a movie I have yet to see.
In Army of Darkness, he plays Evil Ash's right-hand man, the Deadite Captain. It looks like a fun role. Moseley puts his joy and heartlessness into that monster. It's unforgettable, and he looks incredible!
Moseley's gaunt appearance, dark sunken yet piercing eyes, and a smile that's nothing but evil makes him perfect for horror movie roles. He puts all he can into these characters. While Anthony Hopkins playing Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs can make the audience take a liking to a cannibal serial killer, Moseley makes the audience feel the disgust and hatred they should feel towards his characters. Driftwood most certainly comes to mind in that regard. His mind is given to evil, his behavior is fixed on it, and that's what makes him scary. He is truly unrepentant. Moseley pulls that off fantastically and convincingly.
The role of Johnnie in both the original and remake of Night of the Living Dead is crucial thought it's brief. It's a different kind of role for Moseley.
As he and his sister, Barbara, are visiting the grave of their mother, he's dubious at first, taunting her with that one line so famous in horror movie history, "They're coming to get you, Barbara."
He quickly comes to her aid when she's attacked by the first zombie we see. This is before anyone is aware there's a zombie infestation.
It sets the tone of the movie. Moseley is able to maintain an air of uneasiness. That small part deserves a big nod.
Of course, Russell Streiner who first uttered that famous line as the character Johnny in George Romero's original 1968 movie, deserves a salute. Moseley reprising the role deserves to be just as iconic.

26) The Dark Half (1993) - Obscure Stephen King flick #6

George Starks' the celebrity. Not me.

Director
George A. Romero

Cast
Timothy Hutton - Thad Beaumont/ George Stark
Amy Madigan - Liz Beaumont
Michael Rooker - Sheriff Alan Pangborn
Julie Harris - Reggie Delesseps

The Dark Half, based on Stephen King's novel of the same name, tends to be buried among unheard of horror movies on some streaming sights. The movie leans far enough into the "under the radar" category (a phrase I like to use a lot) despite it being directed by horror director extraordinaire - the late, great George A. Romero (Night of the Living Dead, Creepshow.)
But unlike other Romero movies, this one ultimately falls flat despite its intriguing psychological thriller story line, and a decent dual performance by Timothy Hutton as the story's protagonist, Thad Beaumont, and the antagonist, George Stark.
Though I have yet to read King's book, the movie definitely has tropes used by King in various other stories - a writer struggling with some sort of demon whether it be alcoholism, writer's block, themselves, or in this case a psychological entity personified. Watching this brought some other of his stories to mind - Secret Window, Secret Garden, The Tommyknockers, and Misery. All these stories share such a trope.
In the movie, author Thad Beaumont writes suspense novels under the pen name George Stark. However, he plans to retire his pseudonym, which he declares to his fanbase, and to all the literary world. A photojournalist takes a picture of him standing next to a mock grave with Stark's name on it - a final symbol of George Stark's death.
Shortly after this all takes place, Stark is suddenly real. I mean, he's a real physical person. And he murders the photographer, Homer Gamache, who shot Beaumont and the fake grave for the news story.
Other people surrounding Beaumont begin to get bumped off, making Beaumont a prime suspect for Castle Rock Sheriff, Alan Pangborn (Michael Rooker - Guardians of the Galaxy, Walking Dead.)
There's evidence to suggest Beaumont is responsible, especially his finger prints being found at crime scenes. Pangborn doesn't arrest him as there's proof of Beaumont being elsewhere at the time of the murders. Even Pangborn begins to agree that something abnormal is taking place.
We learn early on in the movie that Beaumont had a parasitic twin who died in childbirth.
There's a scene that shows a fetus developing in Beaumont's brain. That part was creepy, but its purpose left me confused.
As Stark kills more and more people, Beaumont learns Stark is that twin that supposedly died at childbirth. Yet, somehow, Stark is an entity controlled by Beaumont's writing and his goal is to stop Beaumont from ultimately killing him (i.e. ending his series.)
The movie doesn't go deep enough into this interesting story. How is Stark Beaumont's parasitic twin yet controlled by his writing? The movie just introduces the premise, gets through it with little explanation, and then ends suddenly. It had potential to be a memorable movie, but it missed a great opportunity. Sad!
The story was really intriguing. Some major elements needed more substance and explanation. It's implied that Stark is a paranormal entity.
Sparrows play a part in the movie as harbingers of souls to the afterlife. And they're used to take Stark back to hell. Yet, he's the parasitic twin? Is he the ghost of the twin who somehow, through ghost magic became entangled in the identity of fictitious George Stark? I'm so confused! Please, movie, explain this to me!
The Dark Half had potential, but just missed the pot. The movie tries...really tries...to be that memorable psychological thriller. The movie had a great cast including Hollywood legend, Julie Harris (The Haunting, East of Eden).
Amy Madigan plays Thad's wife, Liz Beaumont. While I wouldn't say she was bad in this move, I liked her better in Uncle Buck. Hers wasn't a standout performance, but she was good in role along side Tim Hutton.
With the presence of Timothy Hutton who won both an Academy Award and a Golden Globe for the movie Ordinary People (1980), along with Romero's and King's name slapped by the title, The Dark Half tries to be as deep and serious a movie as other King adaptations of that time frame such as Misery (1990), Stand By Me (1986). It missed the bulls eye by a huge gap.
If only more time was given for in-depth story telling, The Dark Half could have been a much better movie. Perhaps so much so it may have been a movie up there among other popular King movies. Maybe? Otherwise, it's now a movie lost among unknown, obscure horror titles on Hulu.