A Return to Salem’s Lot (1987)

directed by larry cohen
larco Productions/420 demons

As this picture began to unspool, I didn’t know if I’d be able to stand it, because once we reach the town of Jerusalem’s Lot, the production quality (acting, costumes, props, makeup) takes a severe nosedive – and it was iffy from the get-go. I persevered, however, and was amply rewarded by general weirdness. (I also greatly enjoyed the credit “Based on characters created by Stephen King,” as the only way in which that is true is if one considers the town of “Salem’s Lot” itself to be a character.) Okay, look, in terms of actual credibility, this flick is nowheresville; it plays more like a made-for-TV movie than the 1978 Tobe Hooper-directed Salem’s Lot CBS “miniseries” and is chock-full of several stripes of bad acting that run the gamut from half-baked to hammy. Throw in a Nazi hunter to save the day, and you’ve got everything you always wanted in a fear, and less! This is where sequencing can be important: after watching Scarecrows, this flick wound up being highly enjoyable.

why did i watch this movie?

As acknowledged, I am a bit of an S. King obsessive, so I’ve wanted to investigate this one for quite a while, especially after having viewed Cohen’s Special Effects.

should you watch this movie?

It depends on how SERIOUSLY you take “Salem’s Lot” to be a “gripping masterwork of horror,” or whatever people consider King’s (or Hooper’s) Dracula redux to be, because this is a tongue-in-cheek treatment of the (purported) source material.

highlight and low point

The last time I watched a vampire flick I learned how to revive a bloodsucker; this time I found out a mortal can impregnate one and that its ashy remains may spontaneously combust. This is the terrifying leader of the hemovores:

rating from outer space: D

Scarecrows (1988)

directed by william wesley
effigy films

I would be inclined to call this picture “comically inept” except for the fact that nothing about it is funny – especially not the hour and a half or so I wasted watching it. Laborious, idiotic and pointless, this film has three characteristics in preponderance:

  1. voiceovers, to the point that it seems as though large swaths of the flick were shot without any dialogue whatsoever
  2. a repeated closeup* of one of the appellative dummies so prevalent it lends itself to disbelief
  3. blatantly obvious continuity problems for roughly the first third of its running time, which also return at the end

The latter involves an aircraft out of which hijackers are parachuting in pursuit of their heist money, for which they’ve been double-crossed. When the paratroopers land – allegedly this flick is known as “Paratroopers” on the German DVD market – they’re in pitch-dark night, but all shots of the airplane flying are in varying levels of daylight (early twilight at worst). As for the narration, one of the voices illuminates the turncoat’s thoughts, except that when he actually speaks, it’s … in a different, accented voice. As to the “action,” you may reasonably inquire why the scarecrows are killing people. Well might you wonder: no one knows. “I think this place is possessed by demonic demons,” one annoying character says to another. And they can’t be stopped! Except for when they can.

why did i watch this movie?

I have lousy decision-making skills, apparently.

should you watch this movie?

Bake a cake. Ride a bike. “Mail” a “letter.” Take a long walk off a short pier. Write poetry, even!

Highlight and low point

Paced as poorly as the rest of this venture, the credits last more than seven full minutes.

rating from outer space: f

*this one

Blood Bound aka The Dark Rite aka Bloodline (2019)

written and Directed by richard lemay
southern fried filmworks/film mode entertainment/garden house entertainment/bloodline productions

It CAN’T be a good omen that a film’s own production company’s website doesn’t have its title of record updated, or that its “release” schedule on IMDb only lists “(internet),” but truth will out, and this movie is, like, an emo vampire picture. Even if the brooding deep dark character isn’t a vampire. Know what else isn’t a good sign? This explanation: “Two hundred years ago a distant cousin of mine made a pact with a demon to give our family unlimited power. He was greedy and didn’t realize he was binding our whole family to darkness. In exchange, every 25 years we must sacrifice four human lives, one being a member of our own family.” (SHHHH! THAT’S AN IMPORTANT HINT!) This is a teen-soap-opera horror of a type I wasn’t aware they were still making, and it’s got more angst than you could hit with a stake. Even if the demi-magical evildoers aren’t vampires. Note to all aspiring screenwriters out there: Just recycle some shit, that’s how you’ll get your script into “development.”

why did i watch this movie?

Hey, ’19,” I thought. “That’s, like, a new release.”

should you watch this movie?

It is really hard to take seriously.

highlight and low point

That the demon who eats still-beating hearts from human chests is not one of the most labored – pun inevitable – plot points in this picture should clue you in on the level of creativity we’re dealing with here. Also, a detail crucial to the SHOCKING twist at the end impossibly evades the notice of the character it will directly affect. Eden Brolin does a passable job with her thankless role, I guess.

rating from outer space: c–

Bride of Re-Animator (1990)

directed by brian yuzna
wild street pictures/re-animator iI productions

Even before the extravagant reprise of the first film’s opening credits sequence, I feared that this picture would be too obviously a sequel, as all the signs were there. Indeed, moments of one-upmanship pertaining to certain effects, scenarios and locations are present throughout, but the director mostly manages to evade scenes of blatant repetition and also avoids the cardinal sin of reductionism. Even so, at moments it threatens to get a little too cutesy, the parallelism to Bride of Frankenstein doesn’t quite work, and the inclusion of Dr. Hill’s head at times feels forced (and for a while appears to have been forgotten). When things really get dicey near the ending, however, it is about as uncomfortably eerie and threatening as one could reasonably hope from a Lovecraft adaptation, and it succeeds, humor and all. I did not expect this one to be this good – and maybe it isn’t – but Jeffrey Combs delivers enough of a tour de force to make fine assessment meaningless.

why did i watch this movie?

The original was terrific, and I’m still catching up on the 1990s.

should you watch this movie?

Respectable or not, it IS a sequel.

highlight and low point

The portrayal of Herbert West, as noted above, is splendid, and one observation he deadpans in the latter portion of the flick is laugh-out-loud funny.  Bruce Abbott and Claude Earl Jones also deliver worthy performances. Strong motivation is lacking on behalf of many of the characters, though, and if you’re not caught up in the zaniness, you might begin to see right through the flimsy premise.

I mean, presuming you’d be of a mind to take a production of this nature that seriously.

rating from outer space: B+

the credits thank “Mary Wollenscraft Shelly”

(and Tenzing Norgay)

Dark Souls aka Mørke sjeler aka Zombie Driller Killer aka Drill Murders (2010)

written and directed by césar ducasse and mathieu péteul
addict films

At this late date in the human experiment, it’s downright surprising to come across a picture that presents a fresh take on the undead/zombie genre, but this Norwegian offering does just that. Or DOES it. Deliberately vague, the flick doesn’t really sustain its momentum, but it never ceases to lure one along, either. Along about the climax, I suddenly detected a THX 1138 vibe, and some 28 Months Later – or maybe Shaun of the Dead – parallels occurred to me as well. (One man’s zombie is another man’s walking dead, as the old saying goes.) Largely dialogue-free for its final 20 minutes or so, the disconcerting nature of the proceedings persistently is heightened. You know things aren’t going to end well, but you’re just not sure exactly what that might mean. Not bad, could’ve been better, can’t think of any specific improvements offhand. Well, maybe a little more action wouldn’t have hurt.

why did i watch this movie?

Description: It was a dark and stormy night. Suddenly, a shot rang out. Haha, no, but the breathless review I saw did say it was depressing, confusing, and worth giving a look-see. Et voilà.


should you watch this movie?

I have made similar observations before, but this film-festival favorite (IMDb lists 36 screenings) will be acceptable to, and more than likely appreciated by, the sorts of viewers who enjoy productions of that ilk and/or on that scale.

highlight and low point

Without giving too much away, the various depictions of the stages of affliction of the most prominent victim are both poignant and blackly humorous to a degree. One serious bit of bad planning, though, involves a rather large discrepancy in the time-release nature of the malady. Also, an amateurish sheen prevails.

rating from outer space: B−

Sebelum Iblis Menjemput aka May The Devil Take You (2018)

written and directed by timo tjahjanto
screenplay films/legacy pictures

An Indonesian fright flick from one of the Mo Brothers – the one who also co-directed the bonkers “Safe Haven” segment of V/H/S/2 – this number doesn’t exactly charge out of the gates with much subtlety. Infused with some severe family drama, hinted at during the opening-credits montage of scrapbooked newspaper headlines, the affinity to Sam Raimi’s Drag Me To Hell has been noted, and the picture also contains more than a healthy dose of Evil Dead referents. But for all that, the film is often flat-out terrifying. I suppose the ending’s a bit of a letdown, but you can’t have everything, right?

why did i watch this movie?

Macabre instantly became a new favorite when I saw it, and its credits led me here. (I didn’t see the comparisons to the other flicks until after I’d made my decision.)

should you watch this movie?

Okay, so I have seen this described as both an “homage to” and a “knockoff of” the Raimi oeuvre, and I suppose either take is valid depending on one’s perspective. You pays your money and you takes your chances.

highlight and low point

Ordinarily, a feature with such imitative qualities would engender some disdain – and it has, with others – but the sheer enthusiasm its director infuses into this affair renders such matters moot, at least for me. As mentioned, I coulda used a different ending, but again, that’s merely my viewpoint – and by that time, I just may have been expecting something more divergent. What was especially noteworthy about this production was that even when I KNEW something in particular was about to occur, it still gave me the creeps when it transpired. I enjoyed the extra helpings of malevolence on display as well.

rating from outer space: a−