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!

 

Blood Relations (1988)

directed by graeme campbell
sc entertainment

For the majority of its 90 minutes or so, this is more of a sex farce than a horror movie. Indeed, at times it reminded me of such bygone classics as Clue, as well as such bygone duds as the Sly Stallone vehicle Oscar. Numerous suspicious or threatening characters abound and … actually, all of the characters are suspicious, as it becomes increasingly more unclear who is trying to kill whom, or why. At long length, it does eventually swing into scary movie mode, but its overweening hucksterism is never superseded. It’s possible this film slipped through the cracks because it has a few moments that are too gory for what is essentially a noirish comedy of manners. As is often the case with such madcap romps, the story doesn’t wind up making a whole lot of sense, either.

why did i watch this movie?

I was under the misguided impression that it was a horror movie, with a larger cast of characters and a little more action amid the intrigue. I did have my doubts.

should you watch this movie?

Although normally I wouldn’t factor in such a consideration, I would say that this kind of film has seen its day, and revisiting it isn’t very edifying. It plays almost like a parody of a Universal picture, with a Vincent Price vibe. This could have been intentional, I suppose.

highlight and low point

The proper atmosphere is concocted and maintained throughout and the performers chew their scenery with aplomb. Unfortunately, the script lets them down, meandering redundantly to the SHOCKING conclusion, which cannot properly succeed in a setting wherein nobody is to be trusted and no one is likable.

rating from outer space: c-

Island of Blood aka Whodunit? (1982)

directed by bill naud
creative film makers/srn

Apparently also known by the terribly baffling title Scared Alive, this is one baffling, terrible piece of filmmaking. Not only is the script lousy, and the acting, but it’s technically awful as well – a large portion of the movie takes place at night, in various dark locations, and is so poorly lit and filmed that it is often impossible to tell what is happening, or which characters are involved. At other times, it is also difficult to discern which characters are which for other reasons, leading to further confusion. During several onscreen conversations, I found myself wondering who the dialogue was referencing, being unable to place the name. (Since characters seemed to go unaccounted and reappear at random, this is perhaps not entirely my fault.) Probably not quite as bad as George Phblat’s infamous Benji Saves the Universe, but it’s gotta be close. The ridiculous murder-presaging song that plays incessantly throughout (it’s called “Face to Face”) is kinda catchy.

why did i watch this movie?

I will once again allow that I chose this particular film precisely because it sounded as though it could not possibly be any good at all. I have been honing this skill for many moons.

should you watch this movie?

“It’s really bad” is my final statement on that.

highlight and low point

The fact that a terrible movie features within it the making of a terrible movie might have been interesting had the creative geniuses behind the cameras the wherewithal to evince any self-awareness, but we’re plunging too far into the realm of the purely theoretical here. At least one of the murders is so preposterous and slapdash that one might reasonably suspect this whole affair to be a jape.

rating from outer space: d-

New Year’s Evil (1980)

directed by emmett alston
golan-globus productions

Oh, man! In an earlier review I made a crack about Cannon Films, the purveyors of all sorts of cinematic treasures, and this masterpiece is from that very production studio’s defining era, when it was helmed by Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus! Imagine my delight! All right, I’ll settle down. This film, however, does possess all the hallmarks of its progenitors’ stable. It’s got replacement-level actors, including the tastefully named “Kip Niven” and the woman who played Pinky Tuscadero on Happy Days (Roz Kelly, for you trivia buffs). It also contains hilarious attempts at portraying contemporary culture, in this case “punk” and “new wave” bands and fans. (Ah, 1980.) The soundtrack alone almost defies description, particularly the title track, which possibly could sound less like “new wave” in the same manner that a jelly doughnut possibly could work less like a hammer. New Year’s Evil does, however, include one reasonably successful rendition of the SHOCKING twist – out of two, the second one being fairly predictable. A good time all around, fun for the whole family! Not really much of a horror movie in any way!

why did i watch this movie?

People, it’s called “New Year’s Evil,” and it’s set at a holiday party/concert hosted by a “punk rock/new wave” media personality.

should you watch this movie?

I encourage you to watch this movie, presuming you know how to weigh my recommendations by now.

highlight and low point

The utter disgust and disdain for the “punk/new wave” types exhibited by the lead detective is absolutely priceless, real ripped-from-the-headlines veritas. I would say it’s a shame that this flick isn’t sleazier, but it might belie the Cannon brand if it were, so I’ll instead point out several convenient police procedural errors that are hard to miss.

rating from outer space: b

Cellar Dweller (1988)

directed by john carl buechler
empire pictures/dove corporation ltd.

Short and inconsequential, this straight-to-video (and laserdisc!) offering is also kind of derivative, although there we go again … horror film, blab blah, &c. Not obviously reprising any particular movie – faint praise, perhaps, but it’s something –  Dweller doesn’t seem sure what niche it wants to occupy. It’s not quite campy, not very funny or scary, and not nearly as outré as it seemingly wants to be. Jeffrey Combs has what amounts to a cameo setting up the action as a comic-book artist whose hideous creation comes to life, quite in keeping with his erstwhile cottage industry of acting in Lovecraftian roles. Also appearing for some reason: a cavalcade of onetime TV stars including those who played Lily Munster, Ben Casey and “Eric” from Head of the Class. One interesting thing this flick has going for it is its bummer ending, which seems especially odd in such an essentially lighthearted affair. Kinda not really worth it.

why did i watch this movie?

You’ve got me there.

should you watch this movie?

Let’s imagine people still watch cable television the old-fashioned way. Say you were channel-surfing some evening because you were mired in ennui or killing time before doing something more active or exciting, and you happened upon this little number on “USA” or … some other channel that might be showing random movies. You’d keep it on for at least a few minutes. Probably.

highlight and low point

The animation, both of the comic-book art and what appears to be a good old-fashioned stop-motion creature, is a welcome effect. The other special effects are not so impressive, and neither are the generic character types.

rating from outer space: c-

Dead & Buried (1981)

directed by gary sherman
avco embassy pictures

More or less a Twilight Zone episode at feature length, this entertaining trifle never gets particularly scary, although a few of the death scenes certainly qualify as unpleasant enough. One might quibble that there’s an underlying plot hole for which it is particularly hard to suspend one’s disbelief – it of course involves the SHOCKING twist near the end, and I had been anticipating its revelation with mounting dismay for quite some time before it came to pass – but let’s face it, this is a horror movie, and demanding credibility could render the whole genre nonexistent. Outlandish characters are depicted with gusto and that old chestnut, the Small Town with a Secret, is given the right insider’s feel. The fact that the absurdist conclusion threatens to tip the scales to outright humor – if it doesn’t succeed, that is – doesn’t detract much from the overall effect. Fun, if not exactly crucial.

why did i watch this movie?

It’s got a pretty good reputation as a sort-of cult classic.

should you watch this movie?

[ominous crescendo]                                                                        Maybe you already have.

highlight and low point

Lots of amusement to be found around the edges here; the female characters in particular are played to the hilt. The major drawback, again, is that it won’t take long to figure out what’s going on – especially if you happen to be a fan of such series as, oh, I don’t know, The Twilight Zone, say.

rating from outer space: C+

Next of Kin (1982)

directed by tony williams
filmco limited/sis/the film house

Here’s a rarity for this list: a good movie. Actually good, that is, not “good for a horror movie,” not “good” (scare quotes) – a film that’s well-written, well-acted, well-directed … how the hell did this happen? I feel cheated. Not quite the supernatural assault suggested by the promotional artwork, this Australian feature is a rather more subtle affair centering around strange goings-on in the retirement home the main character has inherited following her mother’s death. These eldritch occurrences seem to have been foreshadowed by similar happenings related in her mother’s diary decades earlier. Are things not what they seem? How DO things seem? WHO can one trust, et cetera. This picture appears never to have had a domestic theatrical release, and the fine lead actress appears never to have had a further career. An understated, somewhat ethereal affair, its scares and the tension it creates are earned by never overplaying its hand and always retaining some rooting in reality. As I said, it’s a good one.

why did i watch this movie?

I actually passed on checking this one out several times, as the cover art and the vague synopsis seemed to portend more of a demonic, FX-laden tale than interested me. Obviously, this resistance crumbled.

should you watch this movie?

It’s not going to scare you out of your wits or anything, but it carries itself with and merits considerably more gravitas than your typical horror.

highlight and low point

The attention to qualities often underserved or overlooked in horror cinema, niceties such as plot, character development, writing and direction, elevates this drama over many of its fellow travelers. A fairly significant clue to the outcome is given away during the opening moments, and the accents occasionally make dialogue a bit difficult for American ears. (Mine, anyway.)

rating from outer space: a-

Pieces (1982)

directed by j. piquer simon
almena film production/film ventures international

Wow, where to begin with this slice of cinematic … excellence. First off, it really comes across like an excessively long (and gory) episode of Police Squad! Lousy acting, ridiculous story, unbelievable characters … Pieces has got it all, and then some. (From Wikipedia, as written: “The film has retained a cult following however among bad movie fans on account of its numerous logical absurdities, gaffes, unlikely dialogue and ridiculous moments.”) From the opening scene on, nary a credible moment can be found. What is most difficult to believe, given the script and the circumstances of the production, is that the cast seems to be playing it completely straight. The apogee for this viewer is the “championship” tennis match between two women who play as though they had never held rackets before – which turns out not to be far from the truth. The SHOCKING postscript appended makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, but it sure should’ve led to an even more implausible sequel, with the added bonus of potentially being in an entirely different realm of horror. A sadly missed opportunity, in my opinion.

why did i watch this movie?

I had been interested in seeing this since probably shortly after it appeared in VHS format, way back in the mom-and-pop video-store days. Mission accomplished?

should you watch this movie?

Well, it’s definitely one of the relatively rare movies that really must be seen to be believed. Whether that’s a worthy pursuit is up to you.

highlight and low point

Not to imply that it’s all downhill from there or anything, but the introductory scene sets a haughty standard; one detail rendered me incredulous. The intriguing amalgam of stock characters left out of assorted equally highbrow endeavors is also quite a sight to behold.

rating from outer space: c+

Maya (1989)

directed by marcello avellone
reteitalia/trio film

Hahahahaha. Only tangentially a horror movie, this beaut is a “thriller” of the sort Cannon Films churned out for so many years, except without the finer qualities for which that studio was so widely admired. Set in “Mexico” (filmed largely in Venezuela), this cheerfully idiotic film is concerned with some sorta Entity of the ancient Mayan culture that … okay, the thing is, people are dying because – there’s this guy, see, he’s a, he’s a … archeologist? Anthropologist? Or is that the other guy, no, wait, that guy’s a folklore expert and a mystic, never mind. Anyway, the dead guy’s daughter comes down to, uh, okay, she … Let’s take stock: There’s the dead guy’s daughter, the gringo gambling man, his jealous local ex, the bar owner, unreliable locals, the planned ritual sacrifice of a village child – I’m probably forgetting some pertinent details – and finally, glowing eyes. Man, watch out for those glowing eyes. No, Doctor, I have no idea.

why did i watch this movie?

I read a few descriptions of it that described it as deliriously incoherent fun – pretty accurately, as it turns out.

should you watch this movie?

Do you miss the sorts of classics you’d find at random in days of yore by scanning “premium” cable movie channels in the wee hours?

highlight and low point

On top of everything else this fable has to offer, it’s overdubbed for the English-speaking market, which only adds drama to the meaningful dialogue. The portrayal of the locals is in keeping with its era and origin.

rating from outer space: C

The Mutilator (1985)

directed by buddy cooper and john s. douglass
OK productions

More or less what the previously discussed Nightmare/Blood Harvest probably imagines itself to be, this little pic has most of what you want from a kill-crazy 1980s indie feature: actors you’ll never see again, no attempt to hide the killer’s identity from the audience, an offbeat attitude, a rockin’ homemade theme song, and imaginative death scenes. What do I mean by “offbeat” approach, you’d like to know. The theme song I mentioned is “Fall Break,” the original working title for the film. Think about that for a second, while considering that the majority of the action takes place in or around a beachside bungalow. The characters are of a similar bent – they’re caricatured but not generic – and the humorous elements remain subtle and never overwhelm, despite the fact that the entire plot setup is basically absurd. Even that fact is treated with a shrug of acknowledgement. Mutilator sets a reliable template for a successful slasher film, one which was rarely followed so well without becoming repetitious in the countless ensuing rehashes.

why did i watch this movie?

As one among hundreds (or more!) of ’80s-era slasher flicks I’d neither seen nor knew existed, I was lured in by not only the impressive title characterization but the premise: kid accidentally kills his mother while cleaning his dad’s gun; mayhem ensues.

should you watch this movie?

Operating under the premise that you enjoy ’80s-era slasher flicks, I think you’d embrace this exemplar of the genre’s charms.

highlight and low point

The fact that this film doesn’t take itself too seriously while not descending into farcical idiocy is what really recommends it, in my opinion. Who dies when is predictable, as is the climax, but that’s what eventually begat metahorror, after all.

rating from outer space: a-