Kuntilanak aka The Chanting (2006)

directed by rizal mantovani
mvp pictures

Basically the equivalent of the wave of American teen-idol horror flicks from the ’90s – except that it would have garnered a PG-13 rating – this Indonesian production features a 17-year-old female lead playing opposite an MTV VJ/pop singer. It’s a fairly typical ghost story, this time based on Malay folklore, involving a female entity whose spirit lives in a tree (in the cemetery next to the boarding house, natch) and is summoned into this world by the intonation of durma, a form of traditional Javanese song poem. In this particular case, the Kuntilanak enters our realm via antique mirrors. An occasional barely seen twitch might startle you, and the first couple times the ghastly spirit enters (or exits, I guess) from the mirror are pretty effective, but in the end, this picture is middling at best. It spawned two sequels, because of course it did, and a 2018 reboot – all from the same director, which may be a new world record.

why did i watch this movie?

I came across this title while reading up on cultural influences in the other Indonesian films I’ve watched recently, and figured I may as well take in another one.

should you watch this movie?

Plenty of others are better.

highlight and low point

The fact that the conduit for the dangerous spirit becomes its summoner through no fault of her own is a nice touch, and subtle comical moments here and there (and some not so subtle) help keep things grounded. Little tension is involved in the resolution of what should be a major conflict, however, and the not altogether surprising ending doesn’t carry quite enough weight, either.

rating from outer space: c−

Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation (1997) aka The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1994)

directed by kim henkel
ultra muchos, inc./river city films, inc.

All right, so retconning this flick to be the sort-of “sequel” to the 1974 original makes sense. It’s at least half great: the first 45 minutes of this black horror comedy work well as a pastiche of the first go-round, with the added amusement of more modern horror motifs … which are basically updates of the original’s template anyway. Both unsettling and darkly humorous – much as the debut was meant to be, and Part 2 purported to have been – first-and-only-time director Henkel outdoes his former writing and production partner Tobe Hooper’s juvenile second chapter with a bit more sophistication. The latter half of the picture, meanwhile, spirals wildly out of control, plot-, production- and performance-wise. Becoming kind of a mashup of The Rocky Horror Picture Show and The X-Files, with a passel of other film references tossed in haphazardly, it retains a tinge of the on-edge emotion of the original. It lacks in the hazy, disturbed intensity, of course, and also for any slaughtering on behalf of whoever these people are and however they’re allegedly related to the clan this time around. Oh, and this time around, Leatherface is a cross-dressing (wo)manchild.

why did i watch this movie?

Gawd, I made it this far, I had to.

should you watch this movie?

C’mon, now.

highlight and low point

Once again, there isn’t any real reason “Leatherface” even needs to be in this movie, especially as he doesn’t do much of anything except throw an extended hissy fit. And he’s the only plausible link to the first film! (Well, okay, Bernie Lomax Grandpa’s at the table, too.) Strange continuity note: In Leatherface, the generic third installment, “Bubba” has an unexplained leg brace, and in this picture, Matthew McConaughey’s character has a remote-operated battery-powered lower appendage. Yep.

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.”

 

 

 

Mausoleum (1983)

directed by michael dugan
western international pictures

Wow, to say this is not what I was expecting from this movie might be the understatement of the year, at least in terms of this blog and its content. And while you’d think it would be hard for a horror flick to go wrong with demonic possession, this one manages to do so, repeatedly. No, it’s not without its charms – it’s so relentlessly absurd that it’s actually quite enjoyable, though presumably not as intentioned. Terminally silly, with a wafer-thin plot, Wikipedia claims this movie was granted a “special jury prize” by a Paris film festival, which as near as I can tell appears to be some completely fabricated bullshit. I will grant that the solution/cure for the demonic possession in this story is rather original.

Given the ludicrous FX and its overall tasteless nature, I could see this one being a “cult classic,” presuming anyone would ever want to watch it more than once.

why did i watch this movie?

Do I gotta say it again? I keep thinking there’s this clutch of films out there where characters gotta spend the night in a MAUSOLEUM or some such, and –

should you watch this movie?

You look like you could use a good laugh.

And don’t much value your time.

highlight and low point

An utter lack of shame and limitless pandering are more or less the selling points here, though if you can figure out how or why the MAUSOLEUM becomes critical to this picture in the first place, you’re doing more work than Roberts Barich and Madero did when they wrote it. My favorite detail in this production is that the wallpaper and curtains in the psychiatrist‘s office match – and they’re a galling beige plaid.

It’s quite an effect.

rating from outer space: C−

Mortuary (1983)

directed by howard avedis
hickmar productions, inc.

I’m going to reference it again, so let’s just go ahead with a shout-out to Hanna-Barbera: They knew what they were doing when they produced Scooby-Doo, Where Are You? You see, when viewing productions such as this somewhat lethargic attempt at a murder mystery, tropes commonplace to those cartoons continually arise. Here, dashes of occult nonsense and some bitchin’ early ’80s Southern Cal touches are added to the template. A scare or two possibly may be found somewhere in this tale of (ominous pause) madness, but you’ll most likely be too busy laughing at some of the affectations – or more probably starting to doze off as the plot chugs along repetitiously. It could have worked, I suppose, but there just isn’t a whole lot to work with, to its detriment. Oh – hackneyed freeze-frame “surprise” at the ending. Woo-hoo.

why did i watch this movie?

As I’ve mentioned before, I have this fixation on trying to find movies featuring people who have to spend the night in tombs, sepulchres, crypts and so forth. This is NOT such a movie, as I may have entirely imagined the category, but I couldn’t pass on it anyway.

should you watch this movie?

It does not feature anyone trying to spend the night at any sort of gravesite.

It’s also not very interesting.

highlight and low point

Early in the proceedings, the two leads go to a roller rink (check the year of release) with the enticing name of “Skating Plus.” FUN FACT: A “Skating Plus” currently operates in Ventura, but has only been open since 1984 so it cannot be the same venue. Speaking of the early ’80s, it’s never a good sign when the end credits of a movie give “1981” as its provenance though it didn’t see release until March of ’83.

rating from outer space: D+

proper tool storage

Pengabdi Setan aka Satan’s Slave (1980)

directed by sisworo gautama putra
rapi films

Isn’t it always rewarding to come across a production in which one literally can see the wires attached to objects in special FX shots? And shouldn’t more remakes or reboots or whatever you want to call them be handled like last year’s version of this Indonesian chestnut? Yes, they’re very similar, even containing some directly parallel scenes, but the overall story – and to some degree the theme – differs noticeably. I must concede that the newer version is more frightening, partly due to some assuredly unintentional camp here in the original. (Renditions of lurching undead are suitable for an elementary school talent show, for instance.) Still, it’s inarguably eldritch, and although a certain disregard for logical sequencing prevails, as a ghost yarn it’s effective and interesting. Less conspiratorial than the retelling, but with more apparent Muslim evangelism.

why did i watch this movie?

For purposes of comparison.

should you watch this movie?

I would say so, but as it has yet to see release for the English-language market, discrepancies between various encodings and media players may befuddle the subtitles.

highlight and low point

Great moments abound herein, to the extent that I considered making this review nothing but a screengrab essay of sorts. The main ghost, Mawarti, is more than disturbing enough, and the nefarious nature of Darminah, the diabolical agent of a housekeeper, is delightfully broadly drawn. Oh, and the soundtrack is terrific, blending elements of musique concrète with the principles of free jazz at times; along with the sounds of haunting and weather events and so forth, it’s a treat. Continuity is sometimes an issue: for instance, when the undead boyfriend Herman first reappears, he has fangs, but in his later return he does not, although at that point he begins to act vampiric. As alluded, the FX can be facile.

rating from outer space: B

Halloween (2018)

DIRECTED BY DAVID GORDON GREEN
BLUMHOUSE PRODUCTIONS/MIRAMAX/TRANCAS INTERNATIONAL FILMS/ROUGH HOUSE PICTURES/UNIVERSAL

Okay, look, I don’t particularly care that they’ve rejiggered the canon so this is the “sequel” to the 1978 original; it may as well be considered the true successor to Rob Zombie’s 2007 reboot for as much cachet as that accords it. “Michael Myers” or no, it could be any Blumhouse production – and I say that as a person who generally feels the Blumhouse horror stamp implies a certain level of competence and quality control. Now, don’t get me wrong; the picture works. Tension is admirably built, at times prickly and palpable, and Myers is certainly intimidating (although verging a tad too much toward Voorhees, in my opinion). I enjoyed it, but as happens all too often, a day later after (too) much contemplation, too much seems too generic, or too forced, to be too satisfying. Worthy of the handle – considering what’s been trundled under the “Halloween” banner through the decades – but ultimately not worthwhile.

WHY DID I WATCH THIS MOVIE?

Maybe I sought “closure.”

SHOULD YOU WATCH THIS MOVIE?

You can make it a game! Watch the original, then this one, and then watch this one after watching the Zombie version. Which works better? Or you could compare this one to Halloween H20: Twenty Years Later! Remember that one! It was supposedly a direct sequel to Halloween II !

HIGHLIGHT AND LOW POINT

In one scene, a teen babysitter idly views one of the greatest films ever made:

(If you cannot identify that film, what’s your problem, anyway?)

The ending is bosh, and not to encroach on the NOW PLAYING, but the setup enabling that ending really detracted from the overall experience, being unnervingly similar to themes in other films I’ve recently watched. (And which were recently made.)

RATING FROM OUTER SPACE: C

Spasms aka Death Bite (1983)

DIRECTED BY WILLIAM FRUET
CINEQUITY CORPORATION/CANADIAN FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
serpent’s theme composed & performed by tangerine dream

For those unfamiliar with the Oliver Reed performance model, particularly in a lurid monster-shouter such as this, picture a brawny, English roughneck version of Wm. Shatner … who happens to be out of his goddamn mind. Reed brings such an intense and palpably amok sense of hyperreality to affairs of the silver screen that I daresay it can buoy even the flimsiest of vessels. (I understand some folks feel much the same about Nicolas Cage.) So pairing that factor with this story about a giant friggin’ serpent that may be a servant of Hell sounds truly special. Unfortunately, this mediocre B-movie can’t deliver on that promise, mainly because as ludicrous as things get, the production team never really casts off the ropes. They also rush through the falling action here, shrugging aside some fanciful notions, haphazardly tossing in unexplained phenomena, and entirely dispensing with an actual conclusion. The supposedly monstrous serpent is good for a laugh when finally shown in its full … glory.

WHY DID I WATCH THIS MOVIE?

I would have watched it regardless, given its astounding nomenclature, but with O. Reed heading the cast there was no question.

SHOUlD YOU WATCH THIS MOVIE?

If you wish to see killings happening, in B&W, through the vision of a man with a telepathic link to a giant snake (instead of, say, that of Laura Mars), sure. As noted, however, this film does not live up to its potential. The credit “Based on the novel by Michael Maryk & Brent Monahan” certainly must lend one some hope, though. 

HIGHLIGHT AND LOW POINT

(To the police chief) “I woulda thought you’d seen everything by now.”

(The chief) “Hm. Monsters from Hell is something new.”

RATING FROM OUTER SPACE: C−

Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III (1990)

directed by jeff burr
nicolas entertainment/new line cinema

In which we find the patient suffering from sequelitis, the disease by which little vestige of the original creation still survives, save for symbols and signifiers … such as the titular bogeyman. Strangely (and unfortunately), this installment’s eponym – known this time around as “Junior” (eyeroll) – takes his characterization from the ill-advised second chapter rather than the archetypal original. Since the chainsaw itself barely plays any real role here, aside from an asinine novelty visual, one wonders why they just didn’t make this flick its own generic vehicle rather than further degrade the “franchise.” Other issues abound, of course, not the least of which concerns the edits the film had to make to garner an “R” rating. A slasher movie that doesn’t actually show any gore – hell, only one character is killed in the first hour – is a curious thing, no? And where in the hell is this backward backwoods family getting a new house and all these new relatives, anyway? The genre equivalent of Mike Love’s “Beach Boys” performing postgame concerts in baseball stadiums for decades on end.

why did i watch this movie?

This time, it’s The Devil’s DVD Bin‘s fault.

should you watch this movie?

Nah, just watch this instead:

highlight and low point

As just one example of how downscale this production is, one of the characters/family members only has one hand … except that he’s clearly got two hands, ya dig, one of them is just, like, inside his sleeve, holding the prosthetic. The highlight, as hinted above, is clearly the rippin’ metal soundtrack, a must for all discerning (i.e. lousy) ’80s slasher flicks. My fave credit is for the band “Hurricane,” featuring the younger brothers of two of the guys in Quiet Riot’s, uh, classic lineup.

rating from outer space: D

F aka The Expelled (2010)

directed by johannes roberts
black robe/capital markets film finance

Only about 75 minutes long, this British production is basically Scream meets The Strangers, minus any meta sensibility or any tinge of humor (or humour, if you will). It does feature the very British touch of having one or more of its characters muttering and whispering his or her dialogue so that it’s virtually impossible to hear, especially if you’re watching it with doors and windows open in a neighborhood like mine. (And a sense of hearing like mine.) Also featured: very little detail. We aren’t told much about motivation, relationships, hierarchies. We do get some brief insights from which inferences may be drawn, but are essentially dropped into the middle of someone else’s story without being given a lot of background. What transpires is effectively unsettling, however – in any number of ways – and the ending is pretty intense. The story REALLY needed some new ideas of its own, though.

why did i watch this movie?

The director helmed The Strangers: Prey at Night, which I’d seen recently, so I thought hey, let’s see what else this guy did.

should you watch this movie?

You have received the caveats. Make of them what you will.

highlight and low point

This film is really well done, especially for a production that obviously didn’t cost a whole lot, so the biggest problem it has remains its lack of originality. Except, again, for the ending, which considers a facet of the human condition not often addressed in these types of pictures. The extremely judicious nature of precisely what is shown and when is exceptional.

rating from outer space: c+