Shadows of the Mind (1980)

directed by “bernard travis”
production concepts ltd.

How bad must a movie be to be disowned by a pseudonymous director whose only other non-pornographic credit of any note is the notorious Last House on Dead End Street? Should you need to know, you could find out by enduring this obscurity, which earns its nearly unwatchable status due to an amateur lead actress, sloppy production, risible technique, and omnipresent, blaring piano-and-flute soundtrack. Concerned that viewers may not pick up on what it may consider the subtleties of its plot – in a nutshell, the Electra complex – it telegraphs them, resorting at one point to blatantly depicting the manifest symbolism. (For additional emphasis, key dialogue is repeatedly applied to parallel situations.) One whole character is a meaningless red herring, perhaps more than one … which only leaves two characters besides the lead, and one of those seemingly wandered in from one of the director’s works “for mature audiences,” to no particular purpose. This film‘s pointless and atrocious, which is perhaps why the only version of it readily available in the ether is subtitled (poorly!) in Dutch.

why did i watch this movie?

Presumably due to its association with its lousy director, Roger Watkins, and his initial celluloid creation.

should you watch this movie?

To answer that affirmatively,  you’d best possess quite the appreciation for incompetence … unless you’re a masochist.

highlight and low point

The pivotal scene wherein one can see the boom mike for nigh on a minute is pretty special, while the lengthy sequence in a disused greenhouse fairly well encapsulates this haphazard cinematic attempt. The pitiful approximation of a burning body during the climax – superimposed flames with subjacent skeletal image – is an additional howler. Meanwhile, the credits boast “filmed on Location” … with no mention where.

rating from outer space: F

Friday the 13th Part VII − The New Blood (1988)

directed by JOHN CARL BUECHLER
friday four, inc./sean s. cunningham films/paramount pictures

It’s impressive to stand out for idiocy in a series whose main character’s backstory makes no sense whatsoever – if Jason’s so devoted to his mother, why’d he hide from her in the woods for 20 years? – and wherein he would later not only hijack a pleasure cruise but be found aboard a spaceship – having previously become immortal after being revivified by a couple of lightning strikes – but “The New Blood” manages to do just that, and not least because this chapter of the story introduces a young lady who has absolutely no control over her telekinesis right up to the point at which she can suddenly command it with pinpoint accuracy. Oh, and it takes place at Crystal Lake, where the accursed campgrounds have been upgraded into stately lakeside manses by some no-doubt visionary land speculator with a heart of pure graft. In addition, the murderous antagonist finds a  veritable Home Depot there on the lakeshore, as he has a seemingly unlimited supply of dangerous weapons at hand.

why did i watch this movie?

A yeomanlike review of “A New Beginning” by The Devil’s DVD Bin prompted my viewing the installments of this series I either hadn’t seen or couldn’t recall seeing.

should you watch this movie?

Scrutinizing five consecutive franchise flicks proposed an explanation for my uncertain recollection.

highlight and low point

Jason appears in multiple successive scenes with different woods tools; it had me yelling at the film as though I were watching it at a late-night festival screening with other yahoos. No attempt is made to justify the extremely dubious ending, and there’s little gore despite all the new weapons. Victims still die instantly upon being stabbed, at least.

rating from outer space: D[umb]

Demons (1985)

directed by lamberto bava
dacfilm, rome

A couple days ago, my brother says to me, “I was just thinking about the video for [Mötley Crüe’s] ‘Too Young to Fall in Love’ … what the hell WAS that? It made no sense.”

I thought for a moment. “That was the one with the ninjas, right?” I asked.
(It was. But maybe they were “samurai.”)

Well, sub out the ninjas for zombies – wait, sorry, “demons” – and exchange the “Asian” setting for a fortress-like movie theater in the middle of Berlin, add a lot of screaming … and it still might be more coherent than this Italian splatterfest. Clearly scripted with its eye firmly set on the teenage metalhead demographic (a key rampage is set to “Fast as a Shark” by Accept, and so forth), this blaring mess managed to give me a headache while also inducing boredom. Seriously, I was metaphorically glancing at my watch while enduring this nonsense. The ending sequence somehow manages to make even less sense than the rest of the film … in which Nostradamus is to blame for demonic carnage.

why did i watch this movie?

It sounded as though it would be a lot of fun. The novelty wore off quickly.

should you watch this movie?

It felt REALLY dated, and not just because I was watching a murky VHS upload. Too redolent of MTV, perhaps.

highlight and low point

This is the sort of flick wherein the language barrier makes the dialogue sound like phrases read from a textbook, and where the characters narrate all the action and describe everything they’re doing. Example: Three characters are watching a demon claw its way out of a woman’s back. One of them exclaims, “Look at her back!” They are all already looking at her back.

rating from outer space: D+

The New York Ripper aka Lo squartatore di New York (1982)

directed by lucio fulci
fulvia film s.r.l.

“The violence here is ugly, demeaning and frightfully pathological,” the author proclaims, adding that the film “features long, lingering and loving shots of gratuitous sex, nudity and horrific violence.” He further contends that the picture is “reviled for its rampant misogyny, unspeakably deranged mutilation of women; and its duck-voiced, interminably quacking psychokiller” and “remains a hollow, forced, uninspired effort that very few have rallied to support.”

Well, sure, you think, but everyone’s a critic, and you crane your neck to see the title … and discover that those quotes are taken from the 1996 book Lucio Fulci: Beyond the Gates – A Tribute to the Maestro by Chas Balun.

I don’t have much to add, but allow me to correct a misspelling from Mr. Balun’s tome: when describing the scene with the prostitute and the razor blade and the eye and the nipple, the erstwhile scribe meant to write “bisected.”

why did i watch this movie?

Its notoriety, I guess. I also kept running across it while looking for blog fodder, so I figured I might as well just get it over with already.

should you watch this movie?

I suppose it depends on just how much you want to see that bisection alluded to up above. Trust me, you can live happily without hearing the maniacally quacking killer.

highlight and low point

The sheer overkill of most of the slashing, which favors closeups for emphasis, is kind of breathtaking in its appalling level of sadism. Also often filmed in extreme closeup: Yes, people’s eyes, the both of ’em. Five, six times, at least. The “psychological insights” are probably some sort of attempt to lend this picture a feeble justification for its existence, to no avail. The anachronistic music’s pretty groovy.

rating from outer space: F

The Terror Within (1989)

directed by thierry notz
CONCORDE

The kind of picture wherein a lot of the action takes place inside massive “air vents,” this absolutely marvelous archetypal B movie was produced by none other than Roger Corman, and it gloriously suggests any number of ’50s and ’60s drive-in wonders. From the minimal casting to the plastic-fantastic sets, this SF horror pic pulls out all the stops. You got your overly obvious dialogue, you got your laughable rubber creature suit, you got your broadly drawn characters, you got your … dog. The tale of mankind’s last few (?) survivors after an unspecified disaster, besieged by mutants apparently spawned by … well, never mind making any sense of that, why bother. Terrific fun, couldn’t ask for anything more.

why did i watch this movie?

This has to have been a result of looking for more George Kennedy vehicles, I’d imagine. You may have noticed I’m a big fan of those. (Someday, you’ll understand.)

should you watch this movie?

Not if you dislike having a good time.

highlight and low point

Virtually everything about the set design is simply magnificent. The research station or whatever it is has a staff of six, yet the elevators are boldly designated with signage. They’re monitoring life outside and doing complicated experiments inside, yet when they need to reproduce sound, they have to resort to using a reel-to-reel recorder. They have banks of complicated computer equipment, but their video feed and lights constantly malfunction. And they’ve got a bitchin’ logo for some reason. Also, this is the only SF horror pic I can think of that might inspire abortion debates, as it’s the only one I can think of offhand that features a self-induced rejection of an alien-hybrid fetus. (Trust me, that’s not a spoiler.)

rating from outer space: “B” (of course)

Uninvited (1988)

“Written, produced, & directed by Greydon clark”
copyright © greydon clark productions, inc.
heritage entertainment

About three-quarters of the way through this inestimable SF/horror hybrid it begins to seem it was forced into its final form via a harried editing process, because scenes come and go abruptly and transitions cease to matter. It’s also around this time that one begins to notice certain amusing facets of the production, such as the repetitious establishing shots and the obvious discrepancies between the dimensions of the yacht we are to understand the characters are aboard and those of the ship we actually see them aboard. And of course, there are the many, many, many images of the cat. The terrifying, deadly, seemingly ordinary tabby cat. Now, budgetary constraints obviously played some role in this tomfoolery, but that can’t explain everything. Whatever the reasons, this hokey straight-to-video picture could have been a whole lot more satisfying. It just never goes quite far enough in any particular direction – much like the malfunctioning vessel that becomes a virtual … DEATH SHIP.

why did i watch this movie?

Without Warning was interesting enough, but I don’t think it led me here. There’s always the George Kennedy connection.

should you watch this movie?

I’d like to say it’s good for laffs, but its unintentional humor can’t overcome the sense of tedium.

highlight and low point

The overacted yet undersold deaths are priceless – as are the pics of the toy boat representing the seafaring watercraft – but I cannot overemphasize how many scenes in this film feature an ordinary cat doing ordinary cat things. Now, I happen to love the furry little demons the human race unwisely invited to share their homes, but such cinematography is incongruous with the desire to create an atmosphere of ill portent.

rating from outer space: D+

The Stuff (1985)

written and directed by LARRY COHEN
LARCO PRODUCTIONS

Here – if you don’t know – is your basic Body Snatchers tale about a, um, parasitic dessert. Well, it isn’t really a dessert, but it’s being sold that way at the behest of a secret business cabal whose profit motive compels it to ignore that it turns people into … something or another, somehow. Unless (or until) it kills them. As it proceeds, this flick rather unexpectedly invokes Colonel Kurtz from Apocalypse Now, while also managing to be evocative of Stripes, which requires a certain deftness. It’s also got some kinda shadow government thing going on, a rogue former FBI agent whose motivation remained unclear to me, a public relations and/or advertising maven as an uninteresting love interest, often laughable FX, a child actor in a lead role, and a strangely laid-back demeanor on everyone’s behalf, considering that, you know, the existence of the human race is being threatened by deliciousness on behalf of Big Confection.

why did i watch this movie?

It’s a Larry Cohen picture, or hadn’t you noticed?

should you watch this movie?

It’s fun, and not notably demanding.

highlight and low point

Satirical moments abound here, and they’re often pretty sharp, but the detritus of the 1980s cultural milieu contributes plenty of its own zest. At times, scenes seem to have been completed well after being shot, with conspicuous use of green screens, superimposed effects, and the like. (Trying to induce terror via a whipped cream-like substance has its perils.) Occasional FX involving body deterioration is actually pretty effective, though, especially in a questionably timed demise during the film’s climax. Superlative is the scene featuring an exploding The Stuff establishment stationed between what resemble McDonald’s and Kentucky Fried Chicken eateries from a model train setup.

rating from outer space: b–