The Purge (2013)

directed by james demonaco
Platinum dunes/BlumHouse/why not

I finally got around to seeing this after having been asked multiple times if I had, and although I found it passable, I’m not quite sure why it apparently carries so much cachet within certain populations. A thoroughly Hollywood production despite its minimal budget, it’s slick, glossy and hi-tech, but DOES that reassuring façade really provide the security to which we’ve entrusted it? Isn’t that “heavy,” man? Truth be told, I was a bit disappointed that the “Purge” action itself wasn’t depicted as more of a free-for-all. [Insert Ted Nugent guitar lick here] Indeed, the main set piece elicited in me a metaphorical sigh: “oh, look, it’s Them.” (You may substitute Ils if you prefer.) And none of the plot twists ‘n’ turns were much out of the ordinary, either. But with all that being said, it was still a fairly satisfying entertainment. Haven’t yet seen the prequel or sequel.

why did i see this movie?

Well, I had meant to see it since its theatrical release, as its teasers did their job well. Then I kept forgetting to do so.

should you see this movie?

When I say this is a “Hollywood” production, I mean it’s just contrived enough to remind you continually, HEY, THIS IS A MOVIE. Its big-ticket concept is not necessarily a bad thing, mind you, but one isn’t always in the mood for the proverbial popcorn picture.

highlight and low point

Nothing leaps to mind as a particular strength – the screenplay is too predictable – so I’ll say the neighbors’ revelation at least showed some creative spark. Therein also lies the film’s problem, of course; it mostly follows the rule book.

rating from outer space: c+

Cell (2016)

directed by tod williams
the genre company/benaroya pictures

When the novel upon which this film is based was first published, I was in one of my periodic phases where I was not interested in reading any more goddamn Stephen King novels, besides which I thought it sounded pretty stupid, given that it seemed a little late to be ruminating on mobile phones. (And paradoxically proved to have been early enough to make a more prescient statement than it did!) Then a similarly King-obsessed friend managed to goad me into catching up on his more recent works – Under the Dome and Duma Key, in case you’re wondering – and I was screwed. Cell the novel is not of the more admirable S. King, and neither is this adaptation worthwhile, despite – or because of – the author’s work on the screenplay. John Cusack takes the lead role, Sam Jackson shows up for a paycheck, and the ending is completely different from the book’s, and appalling. It’s also one of the movie’s only effective scenes, and made me wonder yet again why the best-selling author seemingly doesn’t have an editor. Or at least one who can talk him out of his poorer ideas.

why did i watch this movie?

I couldn’t help myself, the way it’s difficult not to look at the burning auto wreck as you drive past it.

should you watch this movie?

I bet it would be good for spurring a healthy debate about how or why actors appear in certain roles and/or movies.

highlight and low point

This flick feels really lazy, as though nobody in it or involved with it really gave much of a tin shit. So the ending stands out – because although it’s also lousy, for those familiar with the source text it’s at least pretty jarring.

rating from outer space: d

Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)

directed by rian johnson
lucasfilm ltd.

While technically not a horror movie, the moaning and wailing that greeted Episode VIII from its bereaved fanboys (and -girls) could have convinced one otherwise. Which, okay, I can dig where they’re coming from, as this installment plays for laughs more often than one might expect, obscures the franchise’s hoary catchphrase, and – heaven forfend! – introduces some new Ewoks porgs (and another animal species, which, uh, sparkles, besides). Honestly, I thought it had worse problems than that, but I’m endlessly fascinated by the Star Wars Universe, much the way I am by, say, the rock band KISS: No matter what they do, what they did was so epochal that I’ll keep reading about it and revisiting it. Disney, I think, knows this about its audience, which is why I have a hard time believing they’ll be wrapping this epic up after Episode IX, especially because that seems a difficult prospect at best given where The Reboot Strikes Back leaves us.

why did i watch this movie?

That cannot be a serious question.

should you watch this movie?

Well, if you’re a “Star Wars” type, you most likely already have, and if you are not, you probably won’t, and if you are new to this whole “Star Wars” thing, you should maybe start with “Episode VII.” So … you tell me.

highlight and low point

Jedi manages to stay entertaining for two-and-a-half hours, and this despite neglecting a few key characters just introduced in the last canonical segment. Luke’s divisive portrayal is an oddball key, a koan in action. Several scenes defy any and all acceptable logic, even given the disclaimer that they are occurring a long time ago in a nonliteral galaxy. With a magical spirit power.

rating from outer space: C

Fright (1971)

directed by peter collinson
fantale films ltd.

This title might seem a misnomer, as this mild-mannered British production does not provide its audience much in the way of chills or thrills. For characters in the movie, I suppose the moniker may be more apt, but many of the emotions on display are too restrained for such easy classification. Some anger is displayed, sure, and the young lass played by Susan George spends much of her screen time FREAKING OUT – her mewling, whimpering, sobbing, puling and so forth obscuring her Saxon patois till it’s all but incomprehensible at times – but all this really accomplishes is to annoy the living hell out of certain viewers, such as this one. This film actually is more or less a rumination on various mental states, and does not convey the sensation one reasonably might expect. It does, however, contain a few oddities. The police are depicted as almost comically inutile, seemingly by design, and a thought-provoking sequence involves one of them getting “the gun” out of its secure locked storage. Cultural differences! In addition, one of the characters is a toddler who seems sedated throughout much of his screen time.  Overall, the picture feels rather disjointed and haphazard.

why did i watch this movie?

I was scouring lists of pix I’d considered and could remember nothing about this one. I looked it up and thought, oh why not, 1971.

should you watch this movie?

Unless you want to catch an eyeful of some early ’70s ladies’ fashions, there’s no real reason to do that.

highlight and low point

The outmoded attitudes towards any variety of ideas or concepts, including but not limited to mental illness and a woman’s capability and/or agency, provide some food for thought. The ending is spectacularly unsupportable.

rating from outer space: d+

IT (2017)

directed by andy muschietti
new line cinema

I … have read over 60 Stephen King books – which is to say, most of them. IT is one of my favorites, so I am perhaps biased in my abjuration of this werewolf picture. But what makes the book work is the relationships of the “Losers’ Club” kids – with each other, and with the adult world – and we get almost no sense of that in this retelling. Instead, we’ve got a bunch of kids who decide to hang out together for some reason and, moreover, to confront the hideous monster killing children in their town. Their enemies, meanwhile, are even less well-drawn, so further impetus for much of the action is lost. The climactic scenes inside the monster’s lair are well-envisioned, and a few of the individual vignettes are effective. But the best scene was spoiled by being included in the trailer, and I feel like a sucker for having bought into it. I’m still gonna see Part II, of course.

why did i watch this movie?

The trailer made it look as though someone finally had figured out how to film an S. King adaptation effectively – especially the concept of splitting it into two halves.

should you watch this movie?

‘Twas a runaway smash hit, and continues to receive overwhelmingly positive word-of-mouth, so what do I know.

highlight and low point

The foreign screener I watched rendered the title, literally, as “The.” Besides that, the film did a good job of ratcheting up the tension until the Losers’ decision to enter the sewers in search of their evil quarry. Again, however, the depictions of the kids had little depth, and a few of the alterations and additions to their exploits and backstories were peculiar, to say the least.

rating from outer space: C

Hypothermia (2010)

directed by james felix mckenney
glass eye pix/dark sky films

Featuring the absolute worst creature costume since at least the embarrassing Howard the Duck, this production derails itself by punching above its class, so to speak. Ambition is a fine, fine attribute to possess, but man, if you do not have the budgetary capabilities to make your mysterious and deadly lake predator look like anything but a guy wearing a rubber suit, you might want to consider taking your script in a different direction. (This applies even if making low-budget horror is your backer’s stated goal – and specialty, in the case of Larry Fessenden, overseer of Glass Eye Pix and its ScareFlix subsidiary, whose banner flies over Hypothermia.) The ultimate shame of it is that aside from a few acting performances that aren’t quite professional grade, this little ice fishing movie had some potential. It’s also a little shy on running time and has a non-ending to rival any other you’ve ever seen. And, possibly, to “top” it.

why did i watch this movie?

It sounded as though it would be the kind of schlock that is my general focus here. It was also low-rated, which I often find to be a compelling and effective lure. Pun intended.

should you watch this movie?

Although it isn’t the worst possible choice you could make, it doesn’t really distinguish itself in any honorable way.

highlight and low point

You don’t see too many movies with a focus on ice fishing, that’s for sure, and this one also has an admirable lack of sentimentality for its characters. On the other hand, the creature. The filmmakers try almost every trick in the book to disguise this egregious fault, too, but succeed only in calling  more attention to it.

rating from outer space: d-

May (2002)

directed by lucky mckee
2 loop films

Now here we have a bona fide black comedy. This is a dark, dark picture, but it is laced throughout with unmistakable pathos, and the escalation of terrible miseries suffered by the eponymous character produces a kind of shell-shocked humor. Certainly, very little in this movie is funny per se, but it lurches enough toward the absurd to make it matter. It would be hard to definitively describe this as a horror film, but in all honesty, I’m not sure what else it could be called, either, given the internally logical extreme it eventually reaches. Carried not only by its madcap premise – May has trouble making friends, let’s say – but by the outstanding title performance from Angela Bettis, it’s an engaging accomplishment. Which is not to say it’s for everyone. In fact, a sequence or two in the latter half had me watching from between my fingers, and I seek out movies like this on purpose. But it manages to tug at the heartstrings in between blows to the head, and even the hokey (and ultimately predictable) final scene couldn’t besmirch it too much. I can see why this was a critical success.

why did i watch this movie?

I really, really liked McKee’s The Woman, and as mentioned just above, this flick got good press and sounded like my kinda thing.

should you watch this movie?

I would describe it as an emotional investment, but with that advisory, yeah, I recommend it.

highlight and low point

Several of the roles are performed impeccably, particularly May’s, and the more overtly funny moments are pretty damn good. (One of which is also among the sadder moments.) After the long, careful buildup, the decline and fall happens a little too quickly, but it’s easy enough to accept given the circumstances.

rating from outer space: a-

Death Ship (1980)

directed by alvin rakoff
bloodstar productions ltd./astral films limited

Confession time: It will in no way be possible for me to describe in mere words this incredible movie, and trust me, when I say “incredible,” I mean it. What we have here is one of the most completely batshit cinematic wonders ever concocted. Just about every time I was convinced nothing could top what I had just seen, well, you can probably guess where I’m going with this. How even to begin … Loath as I am to provide spoilers in these reviews (or indeed, as you may have noticed, much relevant information at all), let me relate to you this movie’s plot. A cruise ship is rammed by an unmanned Nazi vessel that pilots itself and is apparently sentient. It’s also bloodthirsty. No, really, the ship needs blood. We know this because after former cruise ship captain George Kennedy is taken over by the evil spirit of Death Ship, he informs his would-be successor Richard Crenna, when revealing his/its plans to kill said would-be successor and his family. (This is ¾ of the way through; almost everyone else who survived the initial calamitous event has already been bumped off by D. S.) Luckily for me, I was watching a version of this insanity that was helpfully subtitled, so as to highlight the ace dialogue, and treating me to captions such as [almighty crash], [explosion], and my personal favorite, [faint sounds of torture and suffering]. Although assuredly unintentional, this film is nonetheless a laugh riot.

why did i watch this movie?

DEATH. SHIP. Also, George Kennedy – guarantor of quality.

should you watch this movie?

Oh my, yes.

highlight and low point

Have I mentioned the stock footage? Or the children? Have a sampling of the drama:

“Where do you plan to sail her?”

“Eternity, Marshall. Eternity.”

rating from outer space: +/−

oh, no!

 

The Cadaver aka Sop (2006)

directed by dulyasit niyomgul
sahamongkol film

I have long wondered if one could fairly judge the quality of the acting in subtitled movies written and produced in a language not one’s own, or if the language gap and the distraction of reading the dialogue prevented accurate assessment of the performances. Well, after viewing this Thai production, I no longer wonder. No matter what the circumstances may be, it is plain Natthamonkarn Srinikornchot does not deliver good acting in the lead role. Her mien never changes much throughout the course of the picture; she seems to have only one emotional state and only one way to express it. As for the film anchored by her performance, it bears some striking similarities to The Cut – the Korean film sometimes also known as “Cadaver” – although it is by at least one measure not nearly as hard to grant credence. (On the other hand, both feature vengeful ghosts, so what am I even saying.) Both pictures also feature a coterie of young medical students, a tremulous lead female, a father figure on the faculty, and mysterious death. This one cost a lot less to make.

why did i watch this movie?

Having just watched and discussed a different Asian horror alternately called “Cadaver,” I couldn’t pass up the opportunity.

should you watch this movie?

Thailand is not often the setting for movies we see here.

highlight and low point

Pressed for an example, I’ll say the way the other characters react to Mai, the female protagonist, is pretty instructive, as they generally tolerate her at best. Some of the reasons become clearer over time, but otherwise no one seems too interested in her issues with the spirit world. The climax of this flick is inexplicably physically complicated.

rating from outer space: C

The Woman (2011)

directed by lucky mckee
modernciné

Okay. Well. The sequel to the previously discussed paragon of benevolence and good feelings Offspring, this lighthearted jest manages to outdo its predecessor in casting aspersions on the boundaries of human behavior. And that’s accomplished long before the revolting gore brightens things up. Starting its bleak portrayal of life in human society limning a few quirks and oddities, gradually revealing more depravity layer by layer and eventually producing complete incredulity, this movie is a skillful demonstration of how to achieve perfection in the art of shining a light on things your audience probably would have felt better never, ever seeing. A true sickie, horrible in almost every way by textbook definition.

why did i watch this movie?

I had been reading admiring takes of the strong responses this film provoked since shortly after its release.

should you watch this movie?

This celluloid entertainment is rife with distasteful orientations, taboo topics and inhumane actions. It is fairly  unflinching in its depictions, and occasionally seems as if it may be attempting to inject inappropriate touches of humor.

highlight and low point

Given what happens during the course of events in this picture, I am reluctant to endorse anything too enthusiastically lest I invite uncomfortable questions about my attitudes or opinions, but I will say I was impressed how the filmmakers handled their biggest obstacle – which is more or less the central focus, the captivity of the titular character in an outbuilding on a family’s rural estate. (Hint: this is how they lead us to a series of slowly dawning revelations.) The ending is a bit too pat, but after everything else that’s happened, it makes little difference. In a way, it even may underscore a certain sense of helplessness.

rating from outer space: a