[Stingy Jack]

Okay, I just watched this again.

Vod: The reason why that girl is an android is because the Silver Shamrock company turned her into one when they kidnapped her from the hotel room. If you'll notice, when she is rescued by the Doctor, she never says a word to him. Just follows him around. Of course, why she waits to attack him until they're in the car is beyond me.

DirT: According to the movie, Cochran is a modern day witch (or warlock, I should say), who is using a combination of modern technology and ancient power to perform a mass sacrifice on the feast of Samhain. The chips in the mask are embedded with a fleck of stone from one of the stones from Stonehenge. These stones, even a particle of them, contain "devastating" power. Which is how I suppose all those snakes and bugs are summoned into the masks.

I actually enjoyed watching this. True, the "technology" in the film is laughable (big, metal boxes with blinking white lights), and the masks look pretty dumb (I'm surprised they were such a great seller), but I have to say there are some things about it that makes me wonder what Braunbeck was talking about.

1. It DOES leave stuff for the imagination. The ending, in particular, is very chilling and effective. Also, when the nurse gets the drill to the head, they don't show it.

2. Braunbeck says "crushed skulls and splattered brains galore." I didn't see one crushed skull, or a splattered brain. What movie was he watching?? Although, the "misfire" victim was pretty gruesome! I loved that one.

3. The child dying wasn't as bad as he made it sound. The kid never utters so much as a squeak (it would have been worse if he started screaming), and he's wearing the mask, so you don't actually see what happens to him. All you see is him grabbing at the mask, then falling over as bugs and snakes pour out from under the mask.

4. I saw no Druid cult. I saw one witch (warlock), who had built himself an army of androids. That's it. Why he went from innocent toy-making to mass murder is never explained, though.

I DID like O'Herlihy's performance. I agree with Braunbeck on that one.

Overall, it's not a bad film. You have to give some credit for poor effects ... I mean, it was made in '82.