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

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-

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+

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+