Scream – And Die! aka The House That Vanished aka Scream and Die aka Please! Don’t Go in the Bedroom aka Psycho Sex Fiend (1973)

directed by joseph larraz aka josÉ ramÓn larraz
a blackwater film production

So many titles and so many threatening adverts for such a tepid plod whose only semblance of tension arises from the wait for occasional actress and future lad-mag model Andrea Allan to disrobe. Who’s the killer, you might wonder for an idle minute, correctly identifying the obvious attempts at misdirection, and also realizing that you don’t much care so long as you’re assured the picture will be ending. When it does reach that ending, full dark night abruptly shifts to very bright daytime. Clearly, the filmmakers wanted to get it over with, too. Perhaps this is why they don’t bother tying up any loose ends … such as letting us in on why our heroine got involved in this affair in the first place, or how some of the action could have occurred unless the culprit read the script, or by what means one of the characters ends up dead during the finale when she couldn’t reasonably have been anywhere near the location in question. This movie also contains an incestuous sex scene, because why not throw that in there, too.

why did i watch this movie?

I must have been lured in by the promise inherent in the lurid early ’70s British cinema I’ve been “enjoying” of late, but to be frank, I have no idea.

should you watch this movie?

It’s not nearly lurid enough to justify that.

highlight and low point

The second murder scene is pretty intense, I suppose, but by that point it isn’t even interesting enough to sustain one’s attention. Some of the leftover mod touches of a foundering Swinging London are amusing. A tangential subplot involving pigeons goes absolutely nowhere. Yes, pigeons.

 

rating from outer space: D

Seizure aka Queen of Evil (1974)

directed by oliver stone
cine films inc./euro-american pictures/intercontinental leisure industries ltd./queen of evil ltd. partnership

This audacious piece of humbuggery is the directorial debut of one Oliver Stone, who you may remember from such critically acclaimed films as Salvador and Platoon, or from creating proto-memes in the ’80s with Wall Street, or for his radical-chic flashback Born on the Fourth of July, or from such widely derided slop as The Doors, or from putting you to sleep with Heaven & Earth, or for his meta provocateur turn in Natural Born Killers, or for the overcooked pastiche of U Turn, and so on and so on and SO on, and no, I haven’t bothered with one of his interpretations or obsessions in a long time. Well, get this – right from the jump Ollie wanted you to know all about the creative process. This is actual dialogue:

Author: You really believe in God.
Distinguished friend: I believe in myself, Edmund. Therefore, I have faith … in Him.

Anyway, the Queen of Evil – Kali, it’s theorized – shows up at the writer’s house while he’s having a party, with her henchmen Jackal and Spider, the latter of which is played by Hervé Villechaize, and none of whom may exist. OR DO THEY. Chaos, intrigue, etc., ensues. The picture concludes with a threefold twist ending. Maybe fourfold, who can tell.

why did i watch this movie?

I had no idea such phantasmagoria was Mr. Stone’s entry into the world of directing.

should you watch this movie?

It’s ludicrous enough.

highlight and low point

The Queen of Evil is portrayed with a deliciously arch sangfroid and Stone’s latencies amuse, but you can’t top Villechaize being credited with the still photography for this production in addition to his onscreen role. Also hard to top: how very silly this all is.

rating from outer space: C+

The Werewolf and the Yeti aka La maldición de la bestia aka Night of the Howling Beast aka Horror of the Werewolf aka The Curse of the Beast (1975)

directed by m. i. bonns
profilmes, s. a.

I learned something important from this movie, which could one day save my life: Chaining a werewolf to a tree won’t control it. In addition, I was reminded of something completely different, which is that movies that have dubbed English dialogue can be a lot of fun. This Spanish offering is so undoubtedly below the level of even a B picture that it’s fairly incredible it’s from as late as ’75; you’d be forgiven for thinking it a decade older than that. Set largely in “Tibet,” it can’t even attempt to disguise the fact that most of the picture is filmed outdoors in Spain. The casting, meanwhile, does proud by that of John Wayne as Genghis Khan in The Conqueror.

“Tibet”

Whenever he’s onscreen, the werewolf sports a mod outfit he shares with his human self, which no one seems to notice for far too long. The werewolf is also fond of pro wrestling leaps and suplexes and carries and such. Despite at least one of its many monikers, this extravaganza features no yeti until it has fewer than seven minutes left to run. 

why did i watch this movie?

I couldn’t not watch something known as “Night of the Howling Beast,” especially after a brief glance at its particulars.

should you watch this movie?

Really, you owe it to yourself to appreciate this fine, fine feature.

highlight and low point

Expert: “I would say it’s an anthropoid biped, of a powerful structure and characteristics of a man … but at the same time, the thumb doesn’t form a grip with the other fingers as it does with a simian.”

Colleague: “It also has long, heavy claws – which makes me think of some enormous canine.”

Bonus Travelogue: “Here in Tibet are hidden mysteries and secrets, enigmas most profound and indescribable.”

rating from outer space: C−

an enigma most profound and indescribable

Prey aka Alien Prey (1977)

directed by norman j. warren
tymar film productions limited

I’ll admit it, I enjoy it a little too much – trotting out the jejune sally that “the REAL horror here is blah blah blah” and so forth – but dig it, man, that foolishness is perfectly suitable for this bonkers English presentation. Oh, don’t get me wrong, this film is for the most part shoddy and boring, but holy cats does it contain some absolutely bizarre goings-on. For one thing, it’s only around 84 minutes long, but it manages to contain a four-minute-plus lesbian scene that is frankly a lot more explicit than I would’ve supposed. For another thing, at a certain point – for no discernible reason – everything goes slo-mo as the soundtrack suddenly becomes extremely psychedelic and discordant. And no kidding, even though the story concerns a space alien who’s on Earth scouting for new “protein sources” (“spoiler”!), heavens to Murgatroyd but that isn’t the REAL horror here. I watched the climactic action of this picture jaws literally agape.

why did i watch this movie?

This is the film Mr. Warren made right after the widely acclaimed cerebral exercise Satan’s Slave.

should you watch this movie?

I don’t think I really have an answer for that question. You’re on your own.

highlight and low point

The makeup and/or “FX” are, uh, minimally invasive, shall we say.

But seriously, one thing I did find laudable about this very strange flick is that it contains all of six actors. This film’s shortcomings are not a result of its minimal casting or financing, though the latter probably doesn’t help. ’Tis a pity they never made the sequel.  ’Tis also a pity some critics have identified all sorts of subtextual sociological signifiers that were almost certainly tangential to this preposterous undertaking. Sure, sure, I get it, “microaggressions,” I hear ya. [Backs away]

rating from outer space: C−

that’s a switchblade, would you believe

Satan’s Slave aka Evil Heritage (1976)

directed by norman j. warren
crown international pictures/monumental pictures limited

Oh, Satan’s Slave, where have you been all my life? Sure, I’ve recently watched a movie with that very title, as well as one dubbed “Satan’s Slaves,” but as I accidentally stumbled into the oft-overlooked category of British exploitation horror, I finally found the REAL DEAL. All right, actually, for about the first hour this burlesque is akin to a rambling and mundane country-house tragicomedy of (ill) manners, spruced up here and there with wildly graphic, explicit inserts of sex and murder, and murderous sex, and sexual murder – allegedly for profitable rerelease in the Asian market, which I am unsure ever actually occurred. (Similary, Crown Int’l Pix ostensibly was responsible for this film’s domestic theatrical run, with the secondary title, though the version I watched retained the original handle.) Such chicanery lends itself to rather glaring differences in film stock, exposure and so forth in some of the edits. At one point, too, the action appears to advance ahead of our understanding for a few moments, as though we’ve missed something. But hoo boy, once Frances the secretary reveals the sinister plot, it gets real good real fast. The SHOCKING twists that comprise the ending follow one another in rapid succession and all the tawdry, lusty mania comes to fruition as the diabolical cult approaches its goal. Highly recommended!

why did i watch this movie?

We have now learned that if it’s titled “Satan’s Slave,” your man Peppers is interested.

should you watch this movie?

(click to enlarge)

Why WOULDN’T you.

highlight and low point

Yeah, OK, this is a dour and unlovely flick, I’ll grant you that, and I reckon some of the more gratuitous and arguably extraneous scenes are worthy of scorn and/or derision, but it’s the little things, you know?

rating from outer space: B

Don’t Go in the House (1979)

directed by joseph ellison
turbine films

Well now, THIS is an unpleasant little flick. I mean, nothing in this picture is going to make a viewer feel very good, unless that viewer has got some serious issues. A few things may make the viewer laugh, sure, but this is a movie that is based around psychological problems brought about by severe child abuse, which it is suggested is itself a manifestation of psychological and/or emotional disability, and which itself is manifested in cruel, ugly, sadistic, misogynistic murder. (If you doubt that description, it involves a special room clad in stainless steel.) Oh, and extreme social dysfunction is added in just for kicks. On the upside, it’s got a disco theme underlying everything, and hallucinated ambulant corpses. Effectively dismal, better than I expected, and a reminder of how much I generally seem to enjoy films from this hopeless and beaten-down time period.

why did i watch this movie?

As a viewer with some serious issues, this is my kind of picture.

should you watch this movie?

If you’re any kind of fan of exploitation flicks, grindhouse features, movies from the late seventies, or psychological problems, absolutely. This is one of the sorts of cinematic spectacles being aped stylistically by contemporary productions such as The House of the Devil or, I dunno, We Are Still Here, maybe.

highlight and low point

Personally, I enjoyed the mostly fruitless efforts co-worker Bobby makes to try to befriend the murderous lunatic, as I thought Donny the murderous lunatic’s social awkwardness was portrayed brilliantly. In fact, I generally enjoyed Bobby’s presence throughout the proceedings, though I remain baffled by the fact that when he believes Donny is in danger, he fetches local parson Father Gerrity and not, you know, the police.

rating from outer space: a−

Bonus track: “Boogie Lightning.”

 

 

 

Rituals aka The Creeper (1977)

directed by peter carter
astral films limited/coast films/canadian film development corporation

You know, I enjoy listing the multiple titles for some of these pix, mainly because it usually follows that the more different names a film acquires throughout its life of distribution, the more debatable its quality. There are exceptions, of course; every rule has them. This picture could be one of those exceptions. Its sobriquet may have been appended because somebody wisely decided that the original name didn’t make any sense whatsoever. Now, ’tis true that one of the characters in this patently Deliverance-derived flick makes an offhand remark – a barely audible offhand remark, mind you – that the subjects may be the victims of a demonic ritual, but … yeah, that’s not the case. They are, however, being stalked by a deranged backwoods weirdo. In the forests and wilds of Ontario. Including on a river. Despite that derivative handicap, however, the movie’s pretty good. Bonus points awarded because two of the friends here are played by the very same actors who played acquaintances in The Clown Murders, and for the fact that multiple reviewers have compared this affair to 1981’s Just Before Dawn.

why did i watch this movie?

I may have been misled by the title and synopsis into thinking it contained a “ritual” aspect. Crazy, I know.

should you watch this movie?

You probably won’t, but it does manage to link neatly the aforementioned Deliverance (from 1972) to 1982’s First Blood.

highlight and low point

One supremely shocking scene stands out, as it very well might have in any number of other scary movies, mainly because it so starkly emphasizes how hopeless the situation is for our protagonists. Overall, however, this is just too reminiscent of that earlier blockbuster production I do not want to name again.

rating from outer space: c−

The Clown Murders (1976)

DIRECTED BY MARTYN BURKE
MAGNUM PICTURES

Based around a rather dubious proposition – kidnapping an acquaintance’s wife to prevent him from making a business deal at, uh, the stroke of midnight, or something along those lines – the REAL horror here is in the breakdown of the characters’ shared relationships, man. Oh, and in the revelation of the ugly truths underlying their established personas. Or something along those lines. Only intermittently interesting for some of the glimpses at the dynamics of the power structure within this group of former school chums, events eventually take a dramatic and unexpected turn for the somewhat perverse once the action tips toward and past the climax. (Literally! In at least one sense.) It’s not too hard to figure out the mystery-of-sorts as regards the killer clown(s), but another mystery proves more elusive: what the hell?

WHY DID I WATCH THIS MOVIE?

The title caught my eye, but wouldn’t have convinced me without the summary promise of intrigue, which never developed. A caper undercut by duplicity it did turn out to be, but alas not nearly as interesting as it sounded.

SHOULD YOU WATCH THIS MOVIE?

I’m fairly certain you can find better examples of the basic motifs at work here, albeit probably without the clown costumes.

HIGHLIGHT AND LOW POINT

What really sold me on this flick was that it was one of John Candy’s first major film roles, and not a comedy. Unfortunately, he predictably played a heavier-set gentleman, one of whom’s friends constantly ridicules him about his size; throughout the film, his character is quite often seen eating. Since Candy reputedly had a lifelong struggle with his weight and self-image, and died at 43 because of related health issues, this was kind of a bummer. The turning point in the film, which involves his character, is itself extremely distressing for myriad reasons.

RATING FROM OUTER SPACE: C

Haunts (1976)

directed by herb freed
american general pictures/entertainment services international

An oddity, this number is mostly a small-town slice-of-life crime thriller until its misleading, byzantine conclusion. Apparently issued on DVD without restoration, it looks terrible, and I was amused to find out its washed-out palette was allegedly purposeful. Aldo Ray as the sheriff is believable in his role, but anything else that’s noteworthy here merely relates to the presentation of a time and a way of life that are both long gone. Its weary, lived-in 1970s feeling kept it interesting for longer than was probably warranted. By the time the goings-on start getting sorted out, they get tangled up again, and you will have lost your patience by this point, particularly with the main character. She’s being stalked! Or maybe she isn’t. The local Casanova is a rapist, perhaps worse! Or IS he. “Better not book him just yet, we got the killer cornered down at the sawmill,” one character telephones. But what of the local parson, the uncle, the goat? The ending, like much of the rest, is a muddle.

why did i watch this movie?

Well, it should have been entertaining.

should you watch this movie?

If you are fascinated by forgotten stars of yesteryear, the requisite also-rans and the never-weres, you may appreciate it.

highlight and low point

This feature flaunts a flashback format that is supposed to give its audience some insight into what is happening – presumably, anyway – but said flashbacks are too fragmented to supply much information. Furthermore, what little can be gleaned from them is more or less shunted aside by what is shown more directly, so nothing is gained. An amusing scene in the local watering hole serves little purpose in the story structure and stands out for that reason alone.

rating from outer space: C−

Eyes of Laura Mars (1978)

directed by irvin kershner
columbia pictures

When it comes to mysteries, I’m the quintessential mark. It’s that character! No, that one! Wait, it’s probably her! Every time. How bad is it? I kept waffling about the probable identity of the killer whose dastardly exploits are viewed through Laura’s Eyes, even though this movie is 40 years old and I’ve read about it multiple times. Anyway, this production – written by John Carpenter for his first major film credit – knowingly manipulates its audience with suspenseful close-ups of René Auberjonois, our old pal Brad Dourif, the late Raúl Juliá, and other, less famous actors. Nonetheless, even a major misdirection in the late going doesn’t deter one from deducing the SHOCKING ending, especially as it’s telegraphed shortly beforehand. More “thriller” than “horror,” but it IS chock full o’ murders, death, and images thereof. The maudlin “Prisoner (Love Theme from Eyes of Laura Mars)” blares over the end credits, Barbra Streisand holding nothing back.

why did i watch this movie?

As noted, I was familiar with this picture from various compendia, and also MAD Magazine, so I figured I should finally see it, especially as I was interested in comparing it to Jennifer Jason Leigh’s 1981 debut, Eyes of a Stranger.

should you watch this movie?

Are you a John Carpenter completist? Really interested in what movie Kershner helmed right before The Empire Strikes Back? Brad Dourif?

highlight and low point

I suppose that the then-topical examination of the impact on society of violence in the arts – as exemplified here by Helmut Newton’s photography posing as Laura’s – is kind of interesting in regard to contemporary culture, and a look at New York’s glamour scene during a transitional period for the city before the vast changes of the ’80s will always fascinate me. The dialogue between Tommy Lee Jones and Faye Dunaway during their big love scene is absolutely laughable.

rating from outer space: c−

© 1979 E.C. Publications, Inc.