MOTD is famous for being a gruesome "Eyes WIthout a Face." It is that. But it also has some surprisingly strong acting (given the genre), cinematography, direction and, yes, writing.
The story-line is simple enough: The mad scientist undone by his belief that his talents can undo the past. The old ends-justify-the-means tale of human nature. But what sets this one apart is is the Edgar Allan Poe-style writing and the cast that brings it to life:
Richard Basehart plays the gruff, self-assured Dr. Chaney; Gloria Grahame as his (coldly realistic) helpmate Katherine and an ensemble of victims, including Lance Henriksen, who do a fairly good job of conveying the depravity of it all. (If there is a weak link here, it is Trish Stewart as "Nancy,.") Basehart's Chaney is the core of the film, yet his is a character that develops over time: Early on, he puts aside his professional moral qualms and almost convinces himself of the utility of his cruelty. However, over time, he comes to recognize that he is being undone by his own actions and by chance--something that Katherine recognizes from the start. (And I would note also the very Edgar Allan Poe-like theme of his actions effects on Nancy: Her beauty subsides in direct proportion to his determination to restore the past.) All said and done, character development is not the sort of thing expected in B-movies.
Like the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre," there is a sort of gritty 70s realism here that lends a plausibility to the plot. Unlike the TCM, however, there is no "dark humor" to offset the darkness. This is why, in last analysis, MOTD is often regarded as little more than a gory, bleak B-movie. I disagree with that assessment, but understand why viewers would label it such. My own two cents is that Pataki would have profited from toning down the gore. It wasn't really needed. The writing is tight; the direction very competent; and features some remarkable moments in a film where one would not expect the same.
The story-line is simple enough: The mad scientist undone by his belief that his talents can undo the past. The old ends-justify-the-means tale of human nature. But what sets this one apart is is the Edgar Allan Poe-style writing and the cast that brings it to life:
Richard Basehart plays the gruff, self-assured Dr. Chaney; Gloria Grahame as his (coldly realistic) helpmate Katherine and an ensemble of victims, including Lance Henriksen, who do a fairly good job of conveying the depravity of it all. (If there is a weak link here, it is Trish Stewart as "Nancy,.") Basehart's Chaney is the core of the film, yet his is a character that develops over time: Early on, he puts aside his professional moral qualms and almost convinces himself of the utility of his cruelty. However, over time, he comes to recognize that he is being undone by his own actions and by chance--something that Katherine recognizes from the start. (And I would note also the very Edgar Allan Poe-like theme of his actions effects on Nancy: Her beauty subsides in direct proportion to his determination to restore the past.) All said and done, character development is not the sort of thing expected in B-movies.
Like the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre," there is a sort of gritty 70s realism here that lends a plausibility to the plot. Unlike the TCM, however, there is no "dark humor" to offset the darkness. This is why, in last analysis, MOTD is often regarded as little more than a gory, bleak B-movie. I disagree with that assessment, but understand why viewers would label it such. My own two cents is that Pataki would have profited from toning down the gore. It wasn't really needed. The writing is tight; the direction very competent; and features some remarkable moments in a film where one would not expect the same.