Made by a horror fan turned fledgling screenwriter (LIVING DOLL is his dubious claim to fame), HORRORSHOW is typical of the gore-dominated mindset of a generation or two of fans.
In a revealing interview for the DVD of LIVING DOLL, Paul Hart-Wilden reveals how a life-long love of the horror genre affected him, ultimately compelling him to seek employment as a film director. This audition reel dating from 1987 clearly didn't do the trick, as LIVING DOLL was given by its backer, schlockmeister Dick Randall, to other hands to direct.
What we have is random gore shots, knitted together in the usual nightmarish fashion, but amounting to mere filler. It's more accomplished than say the studied amateurism of a Don Glut, but shows about as much promise.
Paul talks a good game, and perhaps could be a TV guest-raconteur, based on his DVD interview material. But like so many other wannabes, he doesn't have the chops. And most distressing to me, is the spectacle of yet another schmo who professes love and respect for the classics (the Universal horror pantheon from the '30s and '40s) but ends up just another convert to the horror-porn school. 'Where is he now?' -working on the trash TV series "1000 Ways to Die". Ugh.
Perhaps had the Brits not been sheltered from real porn (and real, unedited horror, for that matter) by extreme censorship over the years, their view of cinema might not have become so warped. The whole notion of hunting down "video nasties" to see is merely a case of idiots internalizing the censors' folly. How about hunting down quality cinema??
Folks like Paul or the off-base nerds at Boum/Mondo Macabro merely rewrite cinema history to fit a bottom-feeding mentality. The notion that LIVING DOLL was the best the U.K. industry had to offer at the end of the '80s is pathetic self-delusion.
In a revealing interview for the DVD of LIVING DOLL, Paul Hart-Wilden reveals how a life-long love of the horror genre affected him, ultimately compelling him to seek employment as a film director. This audition reel dating from 1987 clearly didn't do the trick, as LIVING DOLL was given by its backer, schlockmeister Dick Randall, to other hands to direct.
What we have is random gore shots, knitted together in the usual nightmarish fashion, but amounting to mere filler. It's more accomplished than say the studied amateurism of a Don Glut, but shows about as much promise.
Paul talks a good game, and perhaps could be a TV guest-raconteur, based on his DVD interview material. But like so many other wannabes, he doesn't have the chops. And most distressing to me, is the spectacle of yet another schmo who professes love and respect for the classics (the Universal horror pantheon from the '30s and '40s) but ends up just another convert to the horror-porn school. 'Where is he now?' -working on the trash TV series "1000 Ways to Die". Ugh.
Perhaps had the Brits not been sheltered from real porn (and real, unedited horror, for that matter) by extreme censorship over the years, their view of cinema might not have become so warped. The whole notion of hunting down "video nasties" to see is merely a case of idiots internalizing the censors' folly. How about hunting down quality cinema??
Folks like Paul or the off-base nerds at Boum/Mondo Macabro merely rewrite cinema history to fit a bottom-feeding mentality. The notion that LIVING DOLL was the best the U.K. industry had to offer at the end of the '80s is pathetic self-delusion.
