Happy Hell Night (1992)

directed by brian owens
pavlina ltd.

The main thing I noticed in this peculiar low-budget pic is that almost all of the actors portraying college students are way too old; along with that factor comes the clumsy nature of the dialogue, somewhat common to B-movies trying to portray “realistic” campus life. Also evident is the off-brand quality of this production. Though a reasonable facsimile of a film a major studio may have made, the differences are definitely noticeable in set design and wardrobe, to name but a few departments. (Several of the performers also appear to be cut-rate imitations of Name Actors.) The coherence of the story – which is otherwise off-the-shelf tomfoolery – is similarly lacking, perhaps because it seems to be missing details that might have shed some light on various characters’ motivations. It is entirely possible I am putting too much thought into my analysis of this tale about some kinda demonic ritual pact. Oh, and the SHOCKING ending isn’t, of course.

why did i watch this movie?

It certainly looked lurid enough, but I was expecting it to be gorier, or scarier, and a little more fully realized.

should you watch this movie?

The version I watched began with what came across as a retro-style trailer for itself, and if you can locate that promotional clip, your viewing need go no further.

highlight and low point

The producers either were unconcerned about the shoddiness permeating various parts of their creation, or unwilling to shell out for any upgrades, and the results are at times remarkable. A reasonably terrifying movie could have been assembled from the raw material here, but it … wasn’t. A few too many shortcomings.

rating from outer space: D+

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-

The Driller Killer (1979)

directed by abel ferrara
navaron films

Abel Ferrara’s non-pornographic feature-length directorial debut, in which he also stars under a pseudonym as the main character, a struggling-artist type in the Big City. With two female roommates – one of whom is apparently married and affluent, the other of which is, like, spaced out, man. (The roommates have a shower scene, because it’s very important to the plot.) Of the plot, it must be said, there is one: Reno, the artist, is working on a painting he hopes to sell to the gay art dealer he dislikes but nonetheless depends on, because Reno has no money. Meanwhile, a band called Roosters moves into his same tenement building and practices their discordant off-key blues-influenced new wave at all hours. Naturally, he starts killing derelicts with a power drill. Then things start to go awry. The best parts of this movie are the Roosters, whose music is chaotic and senseless and not “good,” and the utter zeal with which the drill killings are performed. Abel Ferrara: we need filmmakers like him.

why did i watch this movie?

I actually started watching this movie because I wasn’t sure if I’d already seen it. Was I confusing it with The Toolbox Murders? Maybe.

should you watch this movie?

Personally, I always find it instructive to watch slice-of-life features set in New York City in the 1970s. The gritty realism permeates the glamorous façade.

highlight and low point

A compelling scene involving the three roommates and a pizza pie foreshadows a lot of the movie’s falling action, much as it clarifies the nature of their relationships. (I may be bullshitting you, true, but I did find it fascinating.) Some of the character development stereotypes or is otherwise less than charitable.

rating from outer space: c+

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

Alice, Sweet Alice aka Communion aka Holy Terror (1976)

directed by alfred sole
harristown funding/allied artists

This is a weird one, the kind of movie they really don’t make anymore. Kind of an American giallo, it also pays homage in a way to Don’t Look Back by Nicolas Roeg, complete with the signature rain slicker. (I have never seen Don’t Look Back, but am well aware of its tropes.) A familial study in more than one way – WHAT is her sister’s problem? WHERE is daddy? – the fun really begins when Brooke Shields is murdered during her First Holy Communion (oh, all right, the character she plays is). So what’s up with that priest, anyway? The SHOCKING reveal in this one mostly works, especially because at least one important ambiguity remains unexplained; also, some of the criminal acts in the film seem to arise mainly from malevolence or ill nature, not particularly to further serve the plot. There’s even a John Waters aspect to parts of this feature. Creepy and effective.

why did i watch this movie?

You know, I’m not entirely certain. I had come across the name several times while reading horror film histories, I know that. (“Alice, Sweet Alice,” that is, neither of the other two.)

should you watch this movie?

It’s a bit dated, to be sure, and I wouldn’t necessarily put it at the top of the “To See” list, but it is worth viewing.

highlight and low point

The varied acting performances on display are all well-accomplished, although more than one character occasionally seems too broadly drawn. The Roman Catholic focus may also throw some.

rating from outer space: B

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-

Terror Train (1980)

directed by roger spottiswoode
astral bellevue pathé ltd

Much, much better than it has any right to be, this often forgotten gem features terror, on a train. Said titular vehicle is carrying a New Year’s Eve party of medical students, some with a shady tragedy in their past. Also David Copperfield, the magician. And also a terrific character actor performance by Ben Johnson in his role as the train’s engineer; and also Jamie Lee Curtis in her fifth scream queen role; and also a fairly transparent exposition for the identity of the evil perpetrator, albeit with plenty of questions and suspicion for everyone. Basically, this is a classic ’80s-type slasher without any of the cliché … okay, without most of it. A good one.

why did i watch this movie?

You don’t really think I would pass up a flick called “Terror Train,” right? The presence of early career Jamie Lee Curtis in the cast helped, as that’s a reliable indicator of a certain je ne sais quoi. The inclusion of David Copperfield, the magician, cemented it for me, though. “THIS I gotta see,” I realized.

should you watch this movie?

A slasher pic released as the 1980s dawned with its manifold promises … ah, to once more stand at the threshold of such burgeoning opportunities for human endeavor.

highlight and low point

Really, the filmmakers do a pretty good job with the confined territory available, and the presence of an illusionist is a clever touch, as it presents multiple layers of uncertainty. The downside is a touch of redundancy in a few scenes.

Rating from outer space: a-