Blood Harvest aka Nightmare (1987)

directed by bill rebane
titan international

The type of independently made film of which one assesses the various costs the filmmakers must have incurred and wonders why they bothered, Nightmare (imaginative title, no?) boasts cultural oddity Tiny Tim as an apparently disturbed clown, and his irritating performance may well be the film’s highlight. With almost no cast – five or six characters – and a likewise limited storyline, it does not take long to figure out the SHOCKING identity of the Killer, and not even the Bloody Death scenes are any good, containing as they do no frights, no scares, and little gore. It is seriously hard to understand why this movie was made when they had so little with which to work. The lead Actress is naked for large stretches of the Action for no apparent reason.

why did i watch this movie?

In all honesty, I watched this movie because it sounded absolutely terrible. Success!

Should you watch this movie?

Should you need validation of your potential to make a film of your own, the realization that you could probably do better than this could do the trick, I suppose. Those that savor terrible music also might want to tune in to hear the opening theme.

highlight and low point

Tiny Tim’s acting is better than I expected it to be, I guess, in that he may do the best job amongst the small handful of hopeful thespians present. The production values are straight from the bottom of the barrel.

rating from outer space: D

Nightmare In Blood (1978)

directed by john stanley
xeromega

Purportedly a “horror comedy,” this offering could’ve used more of either, or both. Readymade for the bygone era of the “prize movie” – or Elvira, Mistress of the Night – Nightmare mostly plays it low-key, and is made with enough panache to avoid becoming fodder for MST3K types (or RiffTrax, if we wanna be up-to-date). The major problem it has is it doesn’t offer enough scares OR laughs for either aspect to become clear; it is also held back by its limited scope. The premise – famous vampire actor is marquee guest at horror convention, and actual vampire – probably works better if expanded beyond a focus on the same small set of characters. It may have been more effective in its own era, albeit merely with cult appeal – and turns out the writer/director, John Stanley, hosted a late-nite television program called Creature Features for eight years. Well, whaddya know.

why did i watch this movie?

Another unfamiliar title, its premise held promise … though I was unaware of its aim.

should you watch this movie?

If you have fond memories of watching B-movie scares on late-nite TV, or classic horrors during lazy weekend afternoon showcases, yes, by all means. I’d also be interested in hearing how it works or doesn’t when the intentions are clear beforehand.

highlight and low point

Some of the characters and scenarios are pretty amusing – the owner of the comics shop and the talkshow debate about whether horror movies are pernicious, for two examples – but too often the line between deft hommage and inept bungling is unclear. Much could well pass for unintentional humor. Is this a terrible movie, I found myself wondering, or a knowingly winking one?

rating from outer space: c+

The Void (2016)

directed by steven kostanski and jeremy gillespie
cave painting pictures

The trailer for this movie made it look SO good that little likelihood existed for it to live up to the promise, but with that being said, The Void was still well above average. A look at one man’s experimental approach to an afterlife, wrapped in a siege flick, it disappointed me a bit in that at a certain point the threat of zombie archetypes loomed. That fate was avoided, and its metaphysical mumbo-jumbo also saved it to a degree. Certainly a suspenseful movie, I must detract a few points for evoking reminiscences of Jacob’s Ladder, and also for reminding me a bit too much of the Thomas Tessier novel Finishing Touches. It is, however, entirely possible it purposely provoked such meditations.

why did i watch this movie?

My brother texted me a link to the trailer, and I was sold.

should you watch this movie?

With the caveat that the second half didn’t deliver enough of a payoff for my tastes, yeah, I could recommend that. It is an entertaining enterprise, for sure.

highlight and low point

Suspenseful frights abound, and a high WTF factor carries the momentum. My quibbles about certain revelations along the way may be peculiar to me, but I was hoping for something a little less … fantastical, I guess.

rating from outer space: b+

The Cut aka Cadaver (2007)

directed by son tae-woong
chungeorahm m&fc

The last couple Asian horror pictures I’d tried to watch I never finished, as the Japanese one (I do not recall the title) was just too confusing and the Korean one (The Second Coming) was too low-budget for its rather standard haunting-ghost malarkey, but I decided to try this South Korean production because the premise seemed straightforward enough given the genre conventions. That premise? Medical students have to dissect a mysteriously marked female corpse, and suffer the consequences. OR DO THEY. The Cut is mostly worth the effort, though it was not as creepy or frightening or mysterious (or confusing, or repugnant) as the best of the style. Mainly it reminded me why I have enjoyed other movies of its ilk, and that I still may. Perhaps a tad mainstream in execution overall.

why did i watch this movie?

As I mentioned, I hadn’t much felt the urge to watch any Asian horror cinema lately, but the description of this one compelled me to give it a whirl.

should you watch this movie?

That depends. If you’re in the mood for a middle-of-the-road tale of vengeance (or something) from beyond the grave (maybe), it’ll suffice. If you’re looking for something more intense, however, this probably isn’t it.

highlight and low point

The SHOCKING TWIST is hinted at throughout, and the technique via which it is revealed is fairly de rigueur, but it works well enough. The also standard ambiguous ending is questionable.

rating from outer space: b

The Redeemer: Son of Satan aka Class Reunion Massacre (1978)

directed by constantine s. gochis
enterprise pictures limited

If you try, you can find the claim that this chunk of tripe was a precursor to the slasher craze or some such nonsense. What it IS is a convoluted bit of inanity that doesn’t make much sense and doesn’t really bother to try.

  1. There’s no “class reunion” as such, and it would be a stretch to call what occurs a “massacre”
  2. I don’t recall “Satan” being involved in any way
  3. Whatever “redeeming” may be in the offing is rendered somewhat inconsequential by the fact that what is happening is incomprehensible

The action comprises mainly contrived murders of characters that are sometimes difficult to identify, their relation to the story arc uncertain. Mix in a flashback here and there, intercut with a doomsday preacher, and so on and so on. Oh, and do NOT forget the supernatural (diabolical?) element. Precursor to the rise of the Slasher, or imitation giallo – your call!

why did i watch this movie?

I was expecting a class reunion massacre, perhaps with a twisted psychotic and some ’70s flair. Plus, I had never heard of it and it had an alluring title.

should you watch this movie?

If you are interested in tracing the process by which too many concepts can be combined into a movie that is both dull and silly, then I suppose so, yes.

Highlight and low point

The second or third murder (the first or second pertaining to the “reunion”) is thrillingly absurd in method or manner of death; the fact that I was not sure which character was being killed was a bonus. The last of the pertinent murders is almost equally absurd, but the identity of the character suffering it is not in question.

rating from outer space: D

Death Weekend aka The House by the Lake (1976)

directed by william fruet
cinépix film properties

One of them ol’ rape-revenge flicks, this Canadian turkey produced by Ivan Reitman boasts a rape scene that I wasn’t even convinced had happened, so effectively was it portrayed. Almost every character in this exercise in pointlessness is extremely annoying, ranging from the drunken hicks through the egocentric urbanite to the loutish, subnormal thugs. Seemingly random events meander on and on until the interminable harassment scene begins, and it’s all formulaic. The justifiable homicides, once they eventually start, more or less come out of nowhere, which is a nice touch, and some are fairly creative as well. Overall, however, if you actually for some reason watch this garbage, you’ll wonder why they bothered making it. Or if they knew.

why did i watch this movie?

That’s a good question, actually. Why DID I watch this movie? The description I read was wildly inaccurate, for one thing.

should you watch this movie?

I cannot imagine why you would want to do that.

highlight and low point

As mentioned, a few of the killings perpetrated by the heroine are kind of amusing, as is the initial establishment of her as an amply capable modern woman – especially for a MODEL, you dig. These few positives are overwhelmed by the disgraceful portrayals of the rubes and by the insufferable depictions of most of the baddies, whose incessant moronic laughter is truly grating.

rating from outer space: D

Deathwatch (2002)

directed by michael j. bassett
lions gate entertainment

More recent than the majority of the movies that will be discussed here, this offering is mainly psychological in effect, both for the characters and the audience. Set in the trenches of World War I, it very effectively conveys how miserable an experience that must have been. Besides the basic nature of trench warfare, wherein one is essentially fighting blind in claustrophobic conditions, it is cold and raining throughout almost the entire running time of the movie. This actually had a negative effect on the film’s verisimilitude, as I found myself thinking how unpleasant it must have been to act in it, thereby removing me from my immersion in its intended reality. Anyway, after a nighttime blitz, confusion ensues. By the time things get sorted out, you probably will have guessed the SHOCKING TWIST long before they get around to it onscreen. A pleasant surprise anyway, this one, as i just kind of stumbled across it while looking for more schlock to watch.

why did i watch this movie?

To be honest, because it sounded different from the schlock I usually watch, and also had the added novelty of being from the 21st century.

should you watch this movie?

That’s not such a bad idea – it’s probably better to see it thinking it’s a war picture or an action vehicle rather than a horror flick, though. Value added!

highlight and low point

Really, the absolutely bleak nature of the setting and environment so effectively leads the viewer toward each successive slice of despair and hopelessness that it’s an impressive accomplishment. A little predictable at times.

rating from outer space: b+

Unhinged (1982)

produced and directed by don gronquist
megastar films

Ya know, I could swear I saw a capsule review of this one that claimed it was at LEAST as good as Halloween, a true forgotten classic of the genre and … yeah, no. Not really. Kinda dating itself in that not a whole lot of action takes place – killings or anything else – Unhinged is mostly an atmospheric study of some creepy people in an old house in the middle of nowhere, where three young women wind up secluded after a suspicious auto accident. (At least, I gather it was to be perceived as suspicious, in the fine cinematic tradition, but I couldn’t actually tell what caused it.) The SHOCKING TWIST ending in this one is not all that shocking, and neither is it all that plausible, even for a movie of this sort. This information probably should not come as any sort of surprise to you.

why did i watch this movie?

In what may become a noticeable pattern, I was quite taken by the title, and further investigation – reviews such as the one mentioned above, a few still shots – made it sound a lot more interesting than it proved to be.

should you watch this movie?

It is most likely that you could find a better use of your time, even if only to check out a better movie of this ilk.

highlight and low point

It’s always fun when a picture apparently forgets a character along the way, and it is likewise often aggravating when one seems to hint at an intricate web of hidden secrets when there may, in fact, be no such thing. Could be I’m reading too much into minor points that only exist to flesh out the running time.

rating from outer space: c+

The Blood on Satan’s Claw (1971)

directed by piers haggard
tigon british film productions

This fine representation of early ’70s British horror would’ve made a perfect selection for any late-nite frightfest host or hostess – minus the scene or two of pubescent nudity, that is. Blood is a period piece, but of what period I am not exactly sure, in that I am hardly an authority on the confusing history of England. (It’s set in the early 18th century, so let’s call it “Jacobin.” Had I been paying more careful attention, I could probably pinpoint it better. Alas.) AT ANY RATE, the setup involves witches and villages. And madness! Political intrigue! The Church! Et cetera. The children have formed into a sort of consortium, in league with You Know Who. Actually, you don’t; the film’s a bit muzzy on that point. The minimal production values and genteel nature of the proceedings keep things from getting too out of hand.

why did i watch this movie?

It would be difficult for this reviewer to pass up anything called “The Blood on Satan’s Claw,” even if it IS a period piece from pastoral England. The synopsis made it sound bonkers enough.

should you watch this movie?

That’s probably not necessary unless you happen to be an aficionado of British horror of this era and are a completist to boot. Unintentional hilarity might also be a draw, I suppose, as in the case of the inverse fauness.

Highlight and low point

The special effects in this one really speak volumes, as they’re from the school of “obscure the demon or whatever it is behind smoke” and “wave the furry glove with claws in front of the camera in a POV shot.” By the time we finally SEE the demon or whatever it is, it is laughable. Meaning, I laughed.

rating from outer space: C

Hide and Go Shriek (1987)

Directed by skip schoolnik
new star entertainment

Now, here we have a prime example of why we watch ’80s slasher films. Start with the excellent title, then examine the questionable setup, in which a group of friends decides to celebrate high school graduation by spending an overnight in a … furniture store? (It’s owned by one of their fathers, you see.) Along with some teen sex hijinks, toss in a red herring and some mannequins, and by the time the gratuitous nudity splashes across the screen, you will be eagerly anticipating the SHOCKING TWIST at the end. I hope I haven’t spoiled it for you.

why did i watch this movie?

It’s titled “Hide and Go Shriek,” for crying out loud! Plus, it’s from 1987, a golden year for the Slasher film.

should you watch this movie?

I wholeheartedly endorse this movie, and should you choose to view it as though it came out of a time capsule, its presentation of the styles and sounds of the late 1980s will be informative, to choose just one adjective.

Highlight and low point

Why don’t they leave the furniture store, you may be wondering. Well may you wonder; such caprice of fortune propels this admirable genre, does it not? And so as not to reveal too much about the denouement, I merely question whether it would fly in today’s hypersensitive environment.

rating from outer space: a-