Superman 2 (1981): Richard Lester versus Richard Donner

In mounting the production of SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE (1978), Ilya and Alexander Salkind had envisioned doing two movies at one time; much like the duo had done with THE THREE MUSKETEERS and THE FOUR MUSKETEERS (released in 1973 and 1974 respectively). However, the massive budget and shooting schedule proved to be a daunting task and left them feeling uneasy about possibly wasting money on a sequel should the first picture not be a success. 

Donner's version

Production on SUPERMAN 2 was shut down in late 1978, and when the first movie was a surprise smash in December of that year, the sequel -- already around 75% complete -- was put back on the fast track to completion. 

Original director, Richard Donner was asked back, but his ego stipulated he would only return if he was given total control and only if producer Pierre Spengler was not involved. With those conditions not coming to fruition, Donner was out and Richard Lester was in.

Also out were all the scenes featuring Marlon Brando whose monetary demands were deemed unreasonable from an economic standpoint. These scenes were re-shot in Lester's version bringing back Susannah York (as Superman's mother) for some of the newly shot footage.

In 2006, Richard Donner's version (as close to his vision as possible) was released to DVD packed with extras. It's also graced with the conspicuous presence of Donner opining in a frequently negative fashion as if a great injustice had been done to fans of the series the world over.

Lester's version

The differences between the Richard Lester and Richard Donner cuts of SUPERMAN 2 (1981) are pretty staggering. Both films present a diametrically opposing view of what each director went for in terms of their vision. Lester has rarely ever said much about the picture outside of claiming ownership of the theatrical release; while Donner, here at least, is highly critical to the point of overkill. He freely slams and condescends the Lester film (and by his own admission, he's never seen it from beginning to end) so often, it's apparent the sting of his removal lingers some 35 years later.

Lester's version

I'll just get it out of the way and state that, in my opinion, the Richard Lester version of SUPERMAN 2 is the superior release. Despite touching up his version with modern effects technology, the '81 movie dominates Donner's in nearly every way. As Donner points out, his cut of the film that finally saw a DVD release in 2006 is as close to his vision as you can get. His cut even opens with this disclaimer -- "The following film represents SUPERMAN 2 as it was originally conceived and intended to be filmed."

Lester's version

Taking that into consideration, his version is, in my view, seriously flawed, and inferior to the one released to American movie theaters in 1981. Even so, there are some things I like better in his version, but these are few and far between. The following is a breakdown of the differences that I feel are pertinent to the success of Lester's vision over the 2006 Donner version, and also the few things I did like from Donner's picture.

1a. THE OPENING SEQUENCE AND CREDITS: DONNER'S FILM 

The beginning of Richard Donner's 2005 assemblage starts with a condensed version of the entire first movie; this includes new footage of the three super villains escaping their imprisonment in the Phantom Zone via a missile diverted by Superman from the conclusion of the first picture. The music that opens the film is very different from the theatrical release. It's noticeably less boisterous. The credits that follow are slightly different utilizing a different 'S' font, for example. 

According to Donner, the three villains were to have broken free at the end of the first film, ending that picture on a cliffhanger note. Either way, the line of dialog yelled out by Zod, "FRRRREEEEEE!!!" is cringe-worthy, and surely must have inspired George Lucas for that laughable utterance of "NNNNOOOOOOOOOO!!!" by Darth Vader at the end of STAR WARS: REVENGE OF THE SITH (2005).

1b. THE OPENING SEQUENCE AND CREDITS: LESTER'S FILM 

The opening of Lester's film shows us how the three villains came to be captured -- killing a Kryptonian guard and shattering a power crystal. We then see a shorter version of their trial before they're jettisoned into space. Instead of a lengthy montage of scenes, we get a very nice 5+ minute montage of SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE (1978) intermixed with the opening cast and technical credits. Zod and his cohorts are not shown escaping the Phantom Zone till much later; and thankfully, no guttural bellowing of "FRRRREEEEEE!!!" accompanying it. 

2a. POST-CREDITS SEQUENCE: DONNER'S FILM 

Richard Donner's first scene immediately after the credits has Lois Lane suddenly putting together the connection that Clark is in fact Superman. There's no build up to it; no opening action scene to pique her curiosity; she simply looks at a newspaper article and has an epiphany. This is then followed  by Lois jumping out of a window thinking Clark/Superman will save her. He does, but what makes this scene ridiculous is that once she's saved, she never questions just how Clark got downstairs so fast, nor does a crowded city street seem to notice Clark blowing strong wind from his mouth to slow Lois's rapid descent, or the red lasers he shoots from his eyes to open the awning that breaks her fall.

Coincidentally, Lester has a similar scene in his picture, but it simply plays off of Clark's bumbling nature. However, nobody seems to question just how in the hell he was able to crush the front end of a taxi (above) when he crosses a street without looking. So in that, both films have a moment of over-reaching comedy that's a bit hard to swallow.

Furthermore, Lester's film, like Donner's, features a scene where Lois puts her life in danger in an effort to oust Clark as the boy in blue and red. It comes much later, though. This sequence, in Niagara Falls (above), is far more believable. There's no one around to see it; and Superman is able to rescue her in a way that doesn't reveal himself, and reinforces his maladroit disposition all at the same time.

2b. POST-CREDITS SEQUENCE: LESTER'S FILM
 

While Donner's movie lacks an action scenario to start things off, Lester's movie abides with a Parisian set piece involving a group of terrorists who have placed a Hydrogen bomb on the Eiffel Tower. It sets up the events of the film nicely. Not only does Superman rescue Lois Lane from certain death, but his quick disposal of the ticking Hydrogen bomb results in the freedom of the three arch villains from the Phantom Zone.

I prefer this opening to Donner's. His film lacks action, and Lester's fills in the gaps -- this being one of them.

THE HUMOR OF SUPERMAN 2

   

Some reviewers have commented how serious Richard Donner's version is compared to Lester's. There's humor in both, but I don't find Lester's film to be campy at all. Much of the funny business in the theatrical release is derived from the characters and their nuances. Clark is clumsy simply because that is his nature. The same holds true for Otis, the doting sidekick of Lex Luthor. Granted, the scenes with Luthor and Otis in the theatrical release were all shot by Donner, anyways. However, his assembled cut has additional nonsense not found in the theatrical. Miss Teschmacher finding a bathroom in the Fortress of Solitude complete with flushing toilet sounds? Are you serious? 

3a. LOIS'S DISCOVERY THAT CLARK IS SUPERMAN: DONNER'S FILM 

Well here we are at a key point in this movie. Listening to his commentary, Donner is right pleased with himself for filming a scene where Lois Lane shoots Clark Kent with a gun in an effort to prove he's Superman. Personally, I find it hard to believe that Lois would risk a man's life to prove a point, although it's learned she's using blanks to pull off her stunt. Still, let's not forget she casually risks her own life by jumping from an upper floor window to again prove this very same point. The latter moment is one of the more painfully stupid moments in Donner's cut of the picture and shows his interpretation of Lois to be noticeably unstable.  

3b. LOIS'S DISCOVERY THAT CLARK IS SUPERMAN: LESTER'S FILM 

Eschewing the erratic, violent nature of Donner's Lois Lane, the reshot sequence of Clark's true identity makes more sense in Lester's version. Clark being clumsy, he trips over a bearskin rug and falls into a fire; yet his hand is unscathed. It's alluded to in a bit of dialog from Lois that subconsciously Clark meant to do it as Lois had been hounding him about his identity up to this point. For me, the Superman reveal in this fashion has more poignancy and believability in furthering the relationship of these two characters. Not only that, but it leaves the psychotic nature of Donner's Lois on the cutting room floor. 

4a. THE SUPER VILLAINS ARRIVAL ON EARTH: DONNER'S FILM 

Once Zod, Non and Ursa land on Earth, they begin their investigation of this new terrain, and also bask in their newfound super powers since their escape from Krypton's crystalline prison that confined them. Curiously, their exploration is erratically edited. They've barely been on Earth before the scene cuts away to something else. Then about five minutes later, we're back with the villains again in the same location. It gives the impression that they've not budged from their landing point the entire time. 

Lester's version

Lester's version

Their assault on the town is trimmed down considerably. For example, the stunt of the jeep going up a ramp and exiting the top floor through a sign of a bikini clad woman with the phrase, "Flash'em a coppertone tan" is taken out (see above). Even brief moments such as Ursa smiling after causing a helicopter to crash is eliminated. Why? Some critics state Donner makes the villains more menacing in his version. I don't think so. The editing in his cut strips a lot of that away; and losing the nuances present in Lester's film leaves the villains as little more than black-clad automatons. 

It has no bearing on my overall opinion of his movie, but the Donner version also takes Lucas level liberties with some effects shots. For example, when the soldiers hit Zod with a flamethrower, he blows the fire away from him and onto an adjoining building. The flame effects are new here, and not the ones originally shot. 

4b. THE SUPER VILLAINS ARRIVAL ON EARTH: LESTER'S FILM 

Instead of breaking up this scene a multitude of times, Lester's movie opts to stay on the villains till after Ursa fries the snake into a burnt cinder. There's also an added moment here missing from Donner's film that adds a bit of depth to the character of Non -- the silent, but deadly (and child-like) super villain. This right hand man of Zod is essentially the Kryptonian version of Otis, but far less inept. There are a handful of scene extensions with Non that are trimmed from Donner's version. These helped in giving him a personality as opposed to drawing him as a mere slave to his master.

The remaining segments showing the villains toying with the humans and destroying the town are much longer in Lester's version. As mentioned above, much of this is cut out of Donner's film. The villains did not have super powers prior to escaping the Phantom Zone, so it's only natural they'd want to utilize them in a variety of ways.

Donner's cut seems preoccupied with losing as many reactionary shots as possible; which again, forces some scenes to lose their momentum, and also lessens the expository refinements of the characters.

THE EDITING SCHEME OF DONNER'S SUPERMAN 2 

The editing in Donner's version is a bit of a mess when compared to the familiarity of the Lester cut after all these years. Some of the scenes are broken up in such a way, it disrupts not only exposition, but momentum as well. For example, Superman has already given up his super powers when General Zod, after receiving affirmation from Lex Luthor, makes the statement that the son of Krypton has abilities equal to their own. He's already gotten them back in Lester's film in the prior scene. This sort of scene shuffle is unnecessary. Some other scenes feel like they've been cut up simply to be as different as possible from Lester's film. If this version was indeed his intended vision, it's simply sloppy.

Lester's version

In addition, there are other moments of scenery shaving that leave certain sequences feeling rushed, or unfinished. And it isn't because shots weren't completed, because they exist in the theatrical release. Some of this trim work is low-key humorous moments that express character traits and qualities; such as the intro of the small town cops who have a run-in with the three Kryptonian villains. There's no lead-in to them meeting up with the bad guys in Donner's film. We see the police car in a wide shot and the deputy says, "They must be from LA." Yet we haven't even seen who he is referring to yet. Why the establishing shot and additional dialog from Lester's film was eliminated is bewildering, and one of a few similar instances found in Donner's streamlined, but less engaging picture.

5a. SUPERMAN LOSES HIS POWERS: DONNER'S FILM

In both versions, Kal-El decides to give up his Kryptonian super powers so he can enjoy an intimate relationship with a human woman; that woman being Lois Lane. It's understood that because he's the "Man of Steel", he can't co-mingle with a fragile human. In Donner's movie, Superman and Lois have already bedded down BEFORE he gives up his powers. I suppose one can tinker with this idea, but if he can be with a human woman while he's the Man of Steel, why the need to eliminate his powers at all then? And where did Lois get that bright blue Superman shirt? Is there a merchandising outlet somewhere within the Fortress of Solitude? If there's a toilet with working plumbing, than I suppose so.

5b. SUPERMAN LOSES HIS POWERS: LESTER'S FILM

Lester's version makes more sense, yet again. Before they consummate their relationship, Kal-El makes the decision of a lifetime -- to abandon his role as Earth's savior. It's interesting to note Chris Reeve's performance between the two pictures. In Donner's movie, he comes off a bit selfish and impulsive; traits you wouldn't expect Superman to display (at least not till SUPERMAN 3!). But in Lester's film, Superman's choice, as misguided as it may be in hindsight, shows genuine compassion and emotion in making his decision. In this version, Superman discusses his decision with his mother in re-shot footage, since the Brando bits were not used.

6a. THE ATTACK ON THE WHITE HOUSE: DONNER'S FILM

This is one of a scant few instances where I think Donner did it best, but only because we get more of it. This was sort of the last stand of humanity, and when Washington has essentially surrendered, it's left up to the Man of Steel to save the day. There are two moments during this extended sequence with Zod that seem out of character, though. One sees him casually leaning against a wall with his arms and legs crossed. The other has him take up a machine gun and kill some men with it while he laughs. Ursa I could understand displaying this malevolent sort of emotional display, but Zod was always reserved, only showing emotion when he became excited, or angry.

6b. THE ATTACK ON THE WHITE HOUSE: LESTER'S FILM 

In Richard Lester's interpretation, he condenses the action and makes it a quickly edited montage ending once the villains have knocked down the door to the Oval Office. While it's efficient in showing the power of the bad guys, I do like the way the scene plays out in Donner's film better simply because it's longer. But thankfully, Lester's film eliminates that awkward moment with Zod laughing while machine gunning Secret Service and military men.

THE 'SCRIPTING FLAW' IN LESTER'S SUPERMAN 2 

While Donner's movie is filled with continuity errors and choppier editing, the version of the film everyone is most familiar with has been scrutinized for not sufficiently explaining how Superman gets his powers back after giving them up so he can be with Lois Lane. At around the 60 minute mark, Superman, while at his Arctic home with Lois (above pic), explains his discovery of a glowing crystal shard that was kept by his Earth father when he was a boy. Superman goes on to explain that he was drawn to it, and this shard led him to the Arctic locale where it, the crystal, "built" the Fortress of Solitude. 

When Superman returns to his home in an effort to try and get his powers back (he's told earlier that the process cannot be reversed), he finds that same crystal lying where Lois carelessly left it; not far from the destroyed mechanism that operates the molecule chamber. Still retaining a flicker of its great power (above insert pic), it provides enough strength for Superman to regain his abilities. So the same shard that brought his full power to fruition, does so once more.

The Donner version (above and insert pics) doesn't have the explanation Superman gives to Lois. Instead, it is revealed via Jor-El at the moment he returns to the Fortress. Superman finds the glowing crystal amidst the rubble of the molecule chamber. He places it into the mechanism and Jor-El appears and reveals his son has a second chance. So basically it's the same thing in Lester's film, only without Marlon Brando's floating head explaining that the crystal contains his last remaining lifeforce.

7a. THE BATTLE IN METROPOLIS: DONNER'S FILM

The big battle between Superman and the three Kryptonian criminals is slightly different in terms of the action, but some of what is seen is Lester's footage, anyways; and it's much shorter than the one in Lester's film. There's some additional and different dialog (Superman asking Zod if he cares to step outside is replaced with "Haven't you ever heard of freedom of the press?") and some alternate destruction scenes -- the most noticeable is Superman being thrown into the torch of the Statue of Liberty. Some of the sight gags and comical bits from Lester's version are eliminated. However, the product placement for Coke and Kentucky Fried Chicken remain.

7b. THE BATTLE IN METROPOLIS: LESTER'S FILM 

While Richard Donner is no stranger at handling action, Richard Lester shows he's no slouch in the arena of big budget pictures. His Metropolis showdown is far more exciting, and longer than what we get in Donner's preferred version. But then, to be fair, Donner didn't get to shoot all of his footage for the entirety of the film. Regarding the Metropolis duel, on his commentary track, he never goes into detail as to whether his version of this battle would have been longer, or any more different. In fact, Donner doesn't seem to remember a whole lot.  

The humorous bits when the villains emit devastating wind gusts with their mouths are a nice touch, and are born out of the resulting destruction ie a bald man's wig flying off; ice cream hitting a guy in his face; a roller skater being propelled backward; and a guy in a phone booth holding on to that last call for dear life.

Donner gives the theatrical cut a lot of flack for its alleged heavy accent towards campy comedy. I have to disagree. His own footage bears signs of it (the aforementioned flushing toilet in the FOS, the Otis character, etc), and not limited to his scenes in the sequel, but also in the first picture which is all his. 

Some of the re-shot dialog from Zod comes off much better in Lester's version, too. 

8a. THE ENDING: DONNER'S FILM

As revealed by Richard Donner, the original ending of SUPERMAN (1978) was to have been a cliffhanger showing the three arch villains escaping the Phantom Zone via a diverted missile followed by them heading towards Earth. The reversing time to prevent destruction wrought by Lex Luthor and the death of Lois Lane was supposed to have been used in SUPERMAN 2. 

As redundant as it is to see that ending tacked onto the sequel, it's nothing compared to the glaring goof that has Clark returning to that mountainside diner to settle things with a burly bully that had roughed him up during his spell as a mortal. At the point where Superman had turned back time, he never would have went to the diner in the first place. Apparently this went unnoticed on Donner (and his editor) who proclaims on the DVD commentary that this is how he would have ended the film.  

Aside from that, Superman is bullied a bit by Zod (who's uncharacteristically gabby here) and his companions, and it looks very awkward. When the villains are defeated after the big switcheroo (the music used isn't all that exciting and feels out of place), Luthor tries to smooth things over with Superman, but he flies away with Lois seemingly leaving the 'greatest criminal mind of our age' behind. Even more startling is what comes next. Superman proceeds to destroy the Fortress of Solitude with Luthor in it! How cold-blooded is that for the Man of Steel? However, he does the reverse time gimmick putting everything back to normal well before the villains were accidentally loosed from their prison; which leaves only the glaring continuity error described above staring you in the face. 

8b. THE ENDING: LESTER'S FILM

Lester's film returns us to the Fortress of Solitude for one last showdown with the super villains. Both good and bad guys show off abilities we haven't seen yet. The villains turn invisible and Superman uses his 'S' as some sort of netting that temporarily puts Non at bay. Unlike Donner's version, Zod and company have a brief battle with Superman before the Kryptonian savior shows he's a bit of a trickster himself by manipulating Lex Luthor into unwittingly leading the villains to their doom. The finale of Donner's version is talky while Lester's is thankfully not. The familiar John Williams music (Ken Thorne was the composer working from original material from John Williams) heightens the sequence. 

Again unlike the Donner cut, the return to the diner makes far more sense as there's no turning back time to mess things up. To compensate, Lester's version features the 'Kiss of Forgetfulness' scene. To erase the knowledge of his identity, Kal-El lays a magical kiss on Lois's lips which causes her to forget he is Superman. I thought the scene worked just fine while maintaining the romanticism felt between the two characters in this relationship that can never be. 

The very last sequence is also fitting. Superman returns the American flag to the top of the White House, and as he does, he exchanges dialog with the President proclaiming that he won't let him down again. If you recall, Superman was busy thinking about his libido and not world affairs during the time the Kryptonian villains were wrecking havoc. Since Superman represents the very essence of American patriotism, this scene is an important one in the success of Lester's picture. It's a fitting way to end the picture as Superman flies into space while the familiar theme music soars over the soundtrack. 

THE LAST WORD 

For a film that was as huge as this one, and had as many production problems as it did, Lester's SUPERMAN 2 (1981) is pretty spectacular; and an amazing cinematic feat all things considering. Most films that have this level of difficulty with reshoots turn out to be disasters. And Donner's film, while it's nice to finally see it over three decades later, is an average film at best. Primarily of curiosity value, Donner's SUPERMAN 2 (2006) fails to overshadow what has come before it, in my opinion. At any rate, Richard Donner still has one helluva good Superman movie under his belt. And if it hadn't been for that hugely successful 1978 adventure, there never would have been a SUPERMAN 2 (1981).

 

From a Whisper to a Scream (1987) review

 

FROM A WHISPER TO A SCREAM 1987 aka THE OFFSPRING

Vincent Price (Julian White), Susan Tyrrell (Beth Chandler), Clu Gulager (Stanley Burnside), Terry Kiser (Jesse Hardwick), Rosalind Cash (Snakewoman), Cameron Mitchell (Sgt. Gallen), Martine Beswick (Katherine White), Lawrence Tierney (Warden)

Directed by Jeff Burr

The Short Version: Before he helmed STEPFATHER 2, the third TEXAS CHAINSAW movie, the second PUMPKINHEAD picture, and a couple of useless PUPPETMASTER sequels, Jeff Burr was one of the twisted minds behind the supremely nasty, low budget anthology, FROM A WHISPER TO A SCREAM aka THE OFFSPRING. If you like your horror down and dirty, this is essential lowbrow entertainment bolstered by a highbrow cast. Taboos are summarily trampled and torn asunder over the course of the films bleak 100 minutes. Make some room, CREEPSHOW, this is the other great anthology of the 1980s.



A reporter travels to Oldfield, Tennessee to speak with Julian White, the town historian, whose serial killer niece is to be put to death. Upon visiting White, he reveals the town itself as evil, manifesting murder and depravity in the people who have lived there since its founding. White unravels four sordid tales of unspeakable horror born in the town of Oldfield.



Jeff Burr, the director who would end up making a glut of horror sequels in the 1990s, raised some eyebrows with his first film -- a startlingly sick and twisted anthology movie. Some of those eyebrows were among the cast; one of which was star Vincent Price. Burr and the producer approached the horror icon at his home about appearing in the film. Seeming reluctant to do so at the time, they left the script with him. Having shot the four segments in mid 1985 and into the early months of 1986, Price eventually agreed to be a part of the wraparound portion of the production. Later on, he came to regret having participated because of the disturbing, and frequently sickening content of the movie. To read more on this story, and from the words of Jeff Burr himself, click HERE.

Reportedly, Price was trying to distance himself from horror films at this time; and I suppose a genre movie of this type wasn't preferable as the last such picture to feature him among the cast. On a more upbeat note of Price's involvement, this was a reunion of sorts for Vincent and Roger Corman, who directed Price in a classic series of movies based on the works of Edgar Allen Poe. Burr's movie was shot at Corman's studio, and the former New World Pictures owner visited Price on the set. Price was also visited by his MASQUE OF THE RED DEATH (1964) co-star, Hazel Court. The pictures of which can be seen at the CAC Facebook page HERE and HERE.



For whatever reason, the picture was later retitled THE OFFSPRING -- at least that's the title the film was advertised with when I saw the commercial in 1987. That moniker is rather curious since it is literally associated with the first tale. However, one could make the assumption that the title also refers to the offspring of evil that dwells within the town of Oldfield -- the subject of the movie.

Under either name, Jeff Burr's first movie is arguably one of the best horror films of the 1980s. By 1987, originality in the genre had all but evaporated. Ironically, the best genre pictures of that year were overlooked theatrically and became cult films of high repute with fans. Dominated by a lot of sequels and lackluster productions from horrors big names, FROM A WHISPER TO A SCREAM was a daring, taboo-trashing breath of fresh air. It's a rare type of anthology in that all the stories are strong and varied in their presentation. They do share a kindred thread with one another in that each story has something uniquely grotesque about it. The grim subject matter runs the gamut of necrophilia, cannibalism, incest, voodooism, deformities, and child murder.



The first segment gets things off to an unsettling start in detailing a disturbed man and his lust for his female boss, Grace (Megan McFarland). Right from the opening moments, we see that Stanley Burnside (a chilling performance from Gulager) is most definitely off his rocker. He lives alone with his sickly sister (where the hint of an incestuous relationship becomes glaringly obvious as the show carries on) and begins to feel a heavy sexual attraction towards his employer that leads to nasty consequences. 

Without revealing too much, let's just say that Stanley has a penchant for loving the dead. The sting in the tail sees Stanley getting his just desserts from beyond the grave in a literal, gruesome manifestation of the films theatrical release title.



Clu Gulager had quickly become something of a horror icon after his raucously hilarious performance in THE RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD (1985). He appeared in a few other horror films from around this time like NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 2 (1985) and HUNTER'S BLOOD (1986), but nothing quite like his role as psychopath Stanley Burnside. We're talking Joe Spinell level of maniac here, or a close approximation. Gulager's character possesses the same sort of mild-mannered exterior till something makes him snap. It's a fascinating, and scary performance with a touch of black humor about him. He wrings a great deal out of it within the approximately 20 minutes allotted the entry.

The second story continues the strong air of dread laid down by the previous tale. But whereas that one was set in modern times, this one jumps back in time to the 1950s. 

Jesse Hardwick (Terry Kiser) has apparently ripped off some gangsters and a liaison of his has betrayed him. During a chase, Jesse is shot in the back and ends up in a swamp near death. Later rescued by a raspy voiced elderly man, Jesse learns this old codger possesses the secret to eternal life and will do anything to get it for himself.



To say this episode is grim would be an understatement considering the strong aura of revulsion running through nearly every frame of this movie. What makes this tale such a downer is the double twist at the end -- a bit of cruel irony and the resulting poetic justice that itself is so sadistic, one can't help but feel sorrow for Jesse Hardwick; even if he deserves it. The man is selfish, heartless and uncaring for anyone around him, but the retribution meted out on him is extraordinarily merciless.

Terry Kiser played another slimeball in FRIDAY THE 13TH 7: THE NEW BLOOD (1987) and also Bernie the dead guy in the WEEKEND AT BERNIE'S (1989 and 1993) films.



Story three as told to Beth Chandler (Tyrrell) via Julian White's (Price) vast library of murder cases goes further back in time to the 1930s. The setting is a traveling carnival run by a wide-eyed Snakewoman (Cash). A local girl falls in love with Arden (Ron Brooks), an attraction at the carnival who eats glass and metal pieces for a living. She wants to be with him, but for reasons he refuses to reveal, he cannot leave the carnival. We soon learn that the Snakewoman (she's not given a proper name, but she's played in frightfully maniacal fashion by Rosalind Cash) runs not only the show, but also the lives of those bound to it. She uses voodoo spells to keep her slaves in line, and to keep them from escaping. 

Unfortunately for him, Arden realizes the touch of  a woman is too good to pass up, so he flees the carnival with his new flame. Even more disastrous are the consequences Arden brings on himself and his girlfriend. There is no happy ending, of course, and no justice for evil. 



Fans may remember Rosalind Cash from THE OMEGA MAN (1971), DR. BLACK AND MR. HYDE (1976), and TALES FROM THE HOOD (1995) -- her last picture to see release before her death in 1995. 

One of the major midget stars of Tod Browning's FREAKS (1932), Angelo Rossitto, has a role in this segment. Rossitto had a long career and genre fans will surely recognize him from such pictures as DRACULA VS. FRANKENSTEIN (1971) and MAD MAX BEYOND THUNDERDOME (1985).



The fourth and final tale in this quartet of queasiness details the founding of Oldfield at the end of the Civil War. Sergeant Gallen (Cameron Mitchell) and his few remaining men are captured and taken to a strange commune of children in the woods. There is a distinct absence of adults and many of the kids are crippled or deformed; a result of the brutality and bloodshed of the war. The captured soldiers soon learn the terrible secret these kids are hiding.

This last story is the best of the bunch. The repellant subject matter and ghastly imagery is poured on thick in what amounts to a mixture of Lord of the Flies and CHILDREN OF THE CORN (1984). This is generally the one segment people seem to remember the most. The gore and prosthetics are plentiful when used to accentuate all the mutilations, dead kids, aberrant and abhorrent behavior. Keep an eye out for a shocking version of 'Pin the Tail on the Donkey'!



Cameron Mitchell is the big star of this segment. Well, big star among horror and exploitation aficionados. He was famous for his western roles, but in later years, he became a horror and Drive In movie staple both here and abroad. There are too many to list, but it's safe to say, if you're reading this, you've surely seen Cameron Mitchell in more than a few genre pictures.

The wraparound segment delivers one final shock to the system, but in the wake of everything that's come before it, it's far less grisly in tone. Compared with Vincent Price's other movies, it's understandable why he'd be upset over appearing in it. Apparently he never read the script, or simply glossed over it. Even so, he'd done some particularly nasty movies in his career, at least they were at the time -- WITCHFINDER GENERAL (1968) for instance. 

Aside from the film being reviewed here, Price starred in a few other anthologies. 1962s TALES OF TERROR had Price in all three segments. Ditto for the following years TWICE TOLD TALES, a Corman-less anthology from United Artists. THE MONSTER CLUB from 1980 didn't feature Price in any of the stories, but saw him paired with John Carradine at the title disco in the framing segment.



FROM A WHISPER TO A SCREAM (1987) is a runner up for best horror compilation movie of the 1980s. CREEPSHOW (1982) would take the top spot, in this reviewers opinion. Others like TWILIGHT ZONE: THE MOVIE (1983) and CREEPSHOW 2 (1987) are far too uneven. Entries such as SCREAMTIME (1983) and DEADTIME STORIES (1986) are homeless, quirky, off-the-radar pictures. 



Jeff Burr's first movie is very low budget in its own right, but there's no denying a passion for what he, his crew, and surprisingly high level stable of actors were able to accomplish with what little resources were at their disposal. Of all the other omnibus style pictures of that decade, FROM A WHISPER TO A SCREAM is easily the most repulsively downbeat with its distasteful denouements. It has balls -- blood-soaked as they are -- something visibly lacking from horror pictures of that time period and into the 1990s.

This review is representative of the MGM DVD.