unfortunate flaw


Not necessarily a fatal flaw, but one that detracts from my enjoyment: too much characterization for "the monster" of the piece.

The original movie quite fittingly made Janos Skorezny a dark, mysterious shadow-creature of the night, whose only personal history was cited from old records. Not so the Night Strangler, who at the end is not only shown far too much, has a much more "modern" history, but also has a dialogue with Kolchak that is much too aromatic of pathos. TOTALLY wrong approach:

Janos Skorezny did not get to have - did not NEED to have - a voice in the original movie; he never had to explain himself as being just a poor cursed creature, driven by simple survival to utilize human blood toward that means. Not so the Night Strangler, who, unlike his vampiric counterpart, gives Kolchak a ten minute monologue on who he is and why he must do what he must do. He even basically gives Kolchak a tour of his underground home. Not to mention that, as it turns out, the Strangler ... Is Quite...Mad: more pathos, as he tragically if not touchingly consults his mummified wife and family before spilling his not-so-baffling secrets to Kolchak. Mystery: gone. Horror: diminished. Villain: too fully revealed.

Not to mention that the notion of a chemically-immortal Civil War era alchemist simply cannot hold a horror candle to the suggestion of Vampirism's ancient and archetypal menace.

Not to mention that the film's early portraiture of the Night Strangler gives away the reason that the name "Richard Anderson" is listed in the opening credits. We know what the Strangler looks like even before he appears in the last fifteen minutes, and by God, he looks like Anderson; another mystery dispelled well before the climax. Richard Anderson does deliver a superlative performance, but it unfortunately functions as a complete deflation of all that went before it.

When a horror film shows too much of its monster, has the monster explain itself to its human nemesis, and gives the audience to understand the monster in much-too empathetic terms, the film has crossed the line from strong horror to semi-schlock. The only saving graces that buffer The Night Strangler from being total schlock are the strong performances, witty dialogue, and (at least some) on-location shooting in the real Seattle.

reply

I disagree. First, we all know the vampire legend, therefore there is no need for exposition by the villain as to what he's up to. I also find that his attitude, that he is somehow better and therefore deserves to have the right to keep doing what he is doing, makes the audience even more want to see his end. Too much of what goes on in The Night Strangler is the same formula as The Night Stalker, and here is a difference that I feel adds to the film.

"Do I look to be in a gaming mood?"

reply

I agree that the vampire was a scarier antagonist for Kolchak, but the climax of each movie used their respective monster to good effect. There’s no doubt that Kolchak feels threatened - and frightened - at the end of each movie.

As for The Night Strangler’s monster being a little too loquacious, I think that was done on purpose. If he’d been voiceless and enigmatic, the filmmakers probably knew they’d be accused of simply repeating the first movie.

reply

The first one was better, but I still liked this one.

reply

I think you're right. Probably meant to directly contrast with Night Stalker.

reply

I think you mean to say this was an improvement from the first film where we got no backstory or dialogue from the vampire

reply

Far from being a flaw, I considered the ending where Kolchak confronts this monster/murderer an original/creative difference to the 1st one.
Having the story of this killer come out in the open, and hearing him explain his story was if anything pretty interesting to me.
Kolchak by then had already uncovered his identity by his own digging around/research.
So he knew who this killer was and the fact that he had to commit his killings every 20 years roughly speaking.
So it was left up to the killer to explain why he had to do this every 20 years.
This adds to the story and by no means diminishes the movie at all.

reply

I agree. The first film had a voiceless vampire. It was very effective and quite scary in its own way.

This time they went in a slightly different direction. I give them credit for not doing an exact repeat of the first story or the first monster.

reply