Antibirth (2016)

directed by danny perez
traverse media/hideaway pictures

All right, now this is more like it. This flick is completely nuts, sort of a lower-budget X Files set in the rural hinterlands, homemade recreational drug territory. Featuring flashbacks, hallucinations, drugs real and invented, the military, prostitution, mutations, questionable pregnancies, abductions, untrustworthy acquaintances, bad decisions, shady characters and probably some other stuff, the plot takes a loooong time to gain any coherence, and when Meg Tilly’s loonybin character shows up to try to clue in our protagonist, naturally she is disbelieved. The film justifies itself after a fashion, in what is not a sympathetic manner but is definitely a memorable one. Truth be told, Antibirth is kind of a mess and could have helped itself by cleaning up a few discursions or extraneous characters. Overall, however, it manages to be both funny and nauseating, and is generally well-written and acted, usually avoiding cliché despite itself. Its surrealism probably aids it in that regard.

why did i watch this movie?

It sounded different. It also sounded a bit like a kitchen-sink script. (You know, with everything but … )

should you watch this movie?

Really, this is precisely the kind of flick I enjoy championing. Someone had an oddball concept and ran with it, showing some ingenuity in realizing his vision. It’s not great – it may not even be “good,” how would I know – but it’s got passion and a plucky spirit, and is its own creation. Bully, I say.

highlight and low point

The portrayals of the down-and-out female druggie pals are quite amusing and uncomfortably accurate, the conspiratorial overtones are spot-on, and the ending is spectacularly bananas. Some of the seedier, more tasteless stuff pushes too close to the generic at times, as do the hypnagogic scenes.

rating from outer space: C+

The VVitch (2015)

directed by robert eggers
rt features/parts and labor/pulse films et al.

The first time I tried to watch this film, I stopped after about 10 minutes, as it started off with what at the time seemed to be a hokey attempt at a period setting, in this case early 1600s New England. I kept seeing rave reviews for it, however, so I gave it another go. Turns out it was nothing that I had expected. Sure, it’s got the rustic isolation and the religious underpinning, but it focuses almost entirely on just one family, alone at the edge of the woods. Things proceed slowly for a while, with only some parent-child tension and sibling rivalries raising suspicion, but once the action begins, I had to hang on to my hat, figuratively speaking. Still, for most of the picture, it’s a fairly standard affair – so much so that before the final act or so begins, I was preparing to write it off entirely. That final act, however, earns the proceedings a different perspective by taking things to an unforeseen level. (One detail in particular surprised me.) Not perfect, and in places banal, but not bad at all for the first-time director.

why did i watch this movie?

I done TOLD you, I got worn down by the heapings of critical praise.

should you watch this movie?

If you’re looking for a moody, slower-paced experience with a serious left turn or two at its resolution, by all means.

highlight and low point

This is a fine work of craftsmanship, and its detail and atmosphere play a significant role in its successes.  It was excessively difficult for me to understand a lot of dialogue early on, however, what with the archaic speech and dialect and the unfortunate tendency of the cast to mutter sotto voce.

rating from outer space: B-

One Dark Night (1982)

directed by thomas mcloughlin
the picture company inc.

While it technically may be true that I’ve never personally been assaulted after hours in a mausoleum by psychokinetically controlled corpses , I think I safely can say that it wouldn’t seem as threatening in person as it does to several of the characters in this ’80s trumpery. The reason I state this with such confidence is that the dead (which appear to be wax dummies) are not reactivated or anything, they’re just being propelled slowly across the floor. That they apparently somehow manage to kill two people – by, uh, falling on them? – is a special bonus. The preposterous tale of a proponent of “psychic vampirism” experimenting in the manipulation of “bio-energy – the electromagnetic force in all living things,” this picture would be a complete failure if it weren’t so utterly absurd. As it is, it’s passable as kitsch … barely. The presence of Adam West helps in that regard, as does the fact that the dramatis personae largely are supposed to be portraying high-school students, which is patently ridiculous.

why did i watch this movie?

You know, scads of scare flicks have a similar “plot” as this one (the “spend a night in the mausoleum or equivalent for some reason” part, that is, not the telekinesis gobbledygook), so I may have chosen to start here because of the inspired title.

should you watch this movie?

The laughs one may get from the special effects are probably not fair compensation for enduring the hour and a half.

highlight and low point

The climactic scenes featuring the “attack” of the corpse puppets are hard to beat for sheer folly, but the director does not seem to have had much more skill in guiding the living cast members.

rating from outer space: d

Midnight (1982)

directed by john russo
independent-international pictures corp.

This delight’s got a little bit of everything. It’s got a weird Satanist family cult, it’s got a teenage runaway from Troubles At Home, it’s got Lawrence Tierney, it’s got a road-trip film contained within it, it’s of a visual quality usually associated with home movies from the dawn of time, and it’s got a fabulous theme song that is completely out of place in its grim milieu and sounds as though it’s from the wrong decade besides. Midnight is also strangely paced and edited, and could be a Christian message movie in disguise. Let’s see, what else … travel montages, black characters that seem as misplaced as the title song, a blatant ripoff of Psycho, and an extremely abrupt and unlikely ending involving rescue, redemption and revenge. Oh, and more of the rebarbative laughter à la the goons from Death Weekend. All told, an entertaining exploitation picture – and based on a novel! Which I cannot WAIT to read. The auteur was a colleague of George Romero.

why did i watch this movie?

The allure of a low-budget flick involving running afoul of the law and Satanists was too great to ignore.

should you watch this movie?

This is an exemplary achievement in its genre, so if a mishmash of simulacra – both horror and otherwise – filmed quasi-guerrilla-style over a weekend with minimal postproduction is your bag …

highlight and low point

The chorus of “Midnight,” allegedly by “Quintessence”:

You’re on your own, you’re all alone, you can’t go home … a-ny-more You’re on your own, you’re all alone and midnight’s at your door

The “backwoods” angle is trite.

rating from outer space: C+

it is easy to identify a Satanist

Life (2017)

directed by daniel espinosa
skydance media/columbia pictures

Whee! Hee hee! Yee-haw! This giddy space-station extravaganza is an FX-rich disaster film that shamelessly reminds one of numerous other similarly themed flicks (and actually is reminding this guy of 2011’s Apollo 18 right now as he’s thinking about it). You know the drill:

space vehicle needs rescued / look something’s alive in there whoops shouldna done that / oh no there goes Tokio                    next verse, same as the first

What recommends this version of that movie is the vicious perseverance demonstrated by the organism in question, and the increasing desperation of the dwindling crew attempting to thwart its advances. The ominous possibility that all of Planet Earth could be endangered is a nice touch. Race against time: undertaken! Noble acts: attempted! Predictable conclusion: delivered!

why did i watch this movie?

Had it been a while since I’d been reminded that in space, no one can hear you scream, that is the question. Unfortunately, I have no answers.

should you watch this movie?

It’s a good time. No, it’s not terribly original, but the inexorable alien malevolence is impressive.

highlight and low point

The situation aboard the space station gets seriously out of hand, and the escalating insanity of the at first preventative and then preemptive steps taken against the marauding extraterrestrial thing is fairly captivating. A lot of what occurs is standard actioner boilerplate, however, and spoiler alert but I rather doubt one would utilize a flamethrower aboard a space station regardless of threat level. I mean, just as an example.

rating from outer space: c-

The Purge (2013)

directed by james demonaco
Platinum dunes/BlumHouse/why not

I finally got around to seeing this after having been asked multiple times if I had, and although I found it passable, I’m not quite sure why it apparently carries so much cachet within certain populations. A thoroughly Hollywood production despite its minimal budget, it’s slick, glossy and hi-tech, but DOES that reassuring façade really provide the security to which we’ve entrusted it? Isn’t that “heavy,” man? Truth be told, I was a bit disappointed that the “Purge” action itself wasn’t depicted as more of a free-for-all. [Insert Ted Nugent guitar lick here] Indeed, the main set piece elicited in me a metaphorical sigh: “oh, look, it’s Them.” (You may substitute Ils if you prefer.) And none of the plot twists ‘n’ turns were much out of the ordinary, either. But with all that being said, it was still a fairly satisfying entertainment. Haven’t yet seen the prequel or sequel.

why did i see this movie?

Well, I had meant to see it since its theatrical release, as its teasers did their job well. Then I kept forgetting to do so.

should you see this movie?

When I say this is a “Hollywood” production, I mean it’s just contrived enough to remind you continually, HEY, THIS IS A MOVIE. Its big-ticket concept is not necessarily a bad thing, mind you, but one isn’t always in the mood for the proverbial popcorn picture.

highlight and low point

Nothing leaps to mind as a particular strength – the screenplay is too predictable – so I’ll say the neighbors’ revelation at least showed some creative spark. Therein also lies the film’s problem, of course; it mostly follows the rule book.

rating from outer space: c+

Cell (2016)

directed by tod williams
the genre company/benaroya pictures

When the novel upon which this film is based was first published, I was in one of my periodic phases where I was not interested in reading any more goddamn Stephen King novels, besides which I thought it sounded pretty stupid, given that it seemed a little late to be ruminating on mobile phones. (And paradoxically proved to have been early enough to make a more prescient statement than it did!) Then a similarly King-obsessed friend managed to goad me into catching up on his more recent works – Under the Dome and Duma Key, in case you’re wondering – and I was screwed. Cell the novel is not of the more admirable S. King, and neither is this adaptation worthwhile, despite – or because of – the author’s work on the screenplay. John Cusack takes the lead role, Sam Jackson shows up for a paycheck, and the ending is completely different from the book’s, and appalling. It’s also one of the movie’s only effective scenes, and made me wonder yet again why the best-selling author seemingly doesn’t have an editor. Or at least one who can talk him out of his poorer ideas.

why did i watch this movie?

I couldn’t help myself, the way it’s difficult not to look at the burning auto wreck as you drive past it.

should you watch this movie?

I bet it would be good for spurring a healthy debate about how or why actors appear in certain roles and/or movies.

highlight and low point

This flick feels really lazy, as though nobody in it or involved with it really gave much of a tin shit. So the ending stands out – because although it’s also lousy, for those familiar with the source text it’s at least pretty jarring.

rating from outer space: d

Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)

directed by rian johnson
lucasfilm ltd.

While technically not a horror movie, the moaning and wailing that greeted Episode VIII from its bereaved fanboys (and -girls) could have convinced one otherwise. Which, okay, I can dig where they’re coming from, as this installment plays for laughs more often than one might expect, obscures the franchise’s hoary catchphrase, and – heaven forfend! – introduces some new Ewoks porgs (and another animal species, which, uh, sparkles, besides). Honestly, I thought it had worse problems than that, but I’m endlessly fascinated by the Star Wars Universe, much the way I am by, say, the rock band KISS: No matter what they do, what they did was so epochal that I’ll keep reading about it and revisiting it. Disney, I think, knows this about its audience, which is why I have a hard time believing they’ll be wrapping this epic up after Episode IX, especially because that seems a difficult prospect at best given where The Reboot Strikes Back leaves us.

why did i watch this movie?

That cannot be a serious question.

should you watch this movie?

Well, if you’re a “Star Wars” type, you most likely already have, and if you are not, you probably won’t, and if you are new to this whole “Star Wars” thing, you should maybe start with “Episode VII.” So … you tell me.

highlight and low point

Jedi manages to stay entertaining for two-and-a-half hours, and this despite neglecting a few key characters just introduced in the last canonical segment. Luke’s divisive portrayal is an oddball key, a koan in action. Several scenes defy any and all acceptable logic, even given the disclaimer that they are occurring a long time ago in a nonliteral galaxy. With a magical spirit power.

rating from outer space: C

Fright (1971)

directed by peter collinson
fantale films ltd.

This title might seem a misnomer, as this mild-mannered British production does not provide its audience much in the way of chills or thrills. For characters in the movie, I suppose the moniker may be more apt, but many of the emotions on display are too restrained for such easy classification. Some anger is displayed, sure, and the young lass played by Susan George spends much of her screen time FREAKING OUT – her mewling, whimpering, sobbing, puling and so forth obscuring her Saxon patois till it’s all but incomprehensible at times – but all this really accomplishes is to annoy the living hell out of certain viewers, such as this one. This film actually is more or less a rumination on various mental states, and does not convey the sensation one reasonably might expect. It does, however, contain a few oddities. The police are depicted as almost comically inutile, seemingly by design, and a thought-provoking sequence involves one of them getting “the gun” out of its secure locked storage. Cultural differences! In addition, one of the characters is a toddler who seems sedated throughout much of his screen time.  Overall, the picture feels rather disjointed and haphazard.

why did i watch this movie?

I was scouring lists of pix I’d considered and could remember nothing about this one. I looked it up and thought, oh why not, 1971.

should you watch this movie?

Unless you want to catch an eyeful of some early ’70s ladies’ fashions, there’s no real reason to do that.

highlight and low point

The outmoded attitudes towards any variety of ideas or concepts, including but not limited to mental illness and a woman’s capability and/or agency, provide some food for thought. The ending is spectacularly unsupportable.

rating from outer space: d+

IT (2017)

directed by andy muschietti
new line cinema

I … have read over 60 Stephen King books – which is to say, most of them. IT is one of my favorites, so I am perhaps biased in my abjuration of this werewolf picture. But what makes the book work is the relationships of the “Losers’ Club” kids – with each other, and with the adult world – and we get almost no sense of that in this retelling. Instead, we’ve got a bunch of kids who decide to hang out together for some reason and, moreover, to confront the hideous monster killing children in their town. Their enemies, meanwhile, are even less well-drawn, so further impetus for much of the action is lost. The climactic scenes inside the monster’s lair are well-envisioned, and a few of the individual vignettes are effective. But the best scene was spoiled by being included in the trailer, and I feel like a sucker for having bought into it. I’m still gonna see Part II, of course.

why did i watch this movie?

The trailer made it look as though someone finally had figured out how to film an S. King adaptation effectively – especially the concept of splitting it into two halves.

should you watch this movie?

‘Twas a runaway smash hit, and continues to receive overwhelmingly positive word-of-mouth, so what do I know.

highlight and low point

The foreign screener I watched rendered the title, literally, as “The.” Besides that, the film did a good job of ratcheting up the tension until the Losers’ decision to enter the sewers in search of their evil quarry. Again, however, the depictions of the kids had little depth, and a few of the alterations and additions to their exploits and backstories were peculiar, to say the least.

rating from outer space: C