Death Ship (1980)

directed by alvin rakoff
bloodstar productions ltd./astral films limited

Confession time: It will in no way be possible for me to describe in mere words this incredible movie, and trust me, when I say “incredible,” I mean it. What we have here is one of the most completely batshit cinematic wonders ever concocted. Just about every time I was convinced nothing could top what I had just seen, well, you can probably guess where I’m going with this. How even to begin … Loath as I am to provide spoilers in these reviews (or indeed, as you may have noticed, much relevant information at all), let me relate to you this movie’s plot. A cruise ship is rammed by an unmanned Nazi vessel that pilots itself and is apparently sentient. It’s also bloodthirsty. No, really, the ship needs blood. We know this because after former cruise ship captain George Kennedy is taken over by the evil spirit of Death Ship, he informs his would-be successor Richard Crenna, when revealing his/its plans to kill said would-be successor and his family. (This is ¾ of the way through; almost everyone else who survived the initial calamitous event has already been bumped off by D. S.) Luckily for me, I was watching a version of this insanity that was helpfully subtitled, so as to highlight the ace dialogue, and treating me to captions such as [almighty crash], [explosion], and my personal favorite, [faint sounds of torture and suffering]. Although assuredly unintentional, this film is nonetheless a laugh riot.

why did i watch this movie?

DEATH. SHIP. Also, George Kennedy – guarantor of quality.

should you watch this movie?

Oh my, yes.

highlight and low point

Have I mentioned the stock footage? Or the children? Have a sampling of the drama:

“Where do you plan to sail her?”

“Eternity, Marshall. Eternity.”

rating from outer space: +/−

oh, no!

 

The Cadaver aka Sop (2006)

directed by dulyasit niyomgul
sahamongkol film

I have long wondered if one could fairly judge the quality of the acting in subtitled movies written and produced in a language not one’s own, or if the language gap and the distraction of reading the dialogue prevented accurate assessment of the performances. Well, after viewing this Thai production, I no longer wonder. No matter what the circumstances may be, it is plain Natthamonkarn Srinikornchot does not deliver good acting in the lead role. Her mien never changes much throughout the course of the picture; she seems to have only one emotional state and only one way to express it. As for the film anchored by her performance, it bears some striking similarities to The Cut – the Korean film sometimes also known as “Cadaver” – although it is by at least one measure not nearly as hard to grant credence. (On the other hand, both feature vengeful ghosts, so what am I even saying.) Both pictures also feature a coterie of young medical students, a tremulous lead female, a father figure on the faculty, and mysterious death. This one cost a lot less to make.

why did i watch this movie?

Having just watched and discussed a different Asian horror alternately called “Cadaver,” I couldn’t pass up the opportunity.

should you watch this movie?

Thailand is not often the setting for movies we see here.

highlight and low point

Pressed for an example, I’ll say the way the other characters react to Mai, the female protagonist, is pretty instructive, as they generally tolerate her at best. Some of the reasons become clearer over time, but otherwise no one seems too interested in her issues with the spirit world. The climax of this flick is inexplicably physically complicated.

rating from outer space: C

Blood Relations (1988)

directed by graeme campbell
sc entertainment

For the majority of its 90 minutes or so, this is more of a sex farce than a horror movie. Indeed, at times it reminded me of such bygone classics as Clue, as well as such bygone duds as the Sly Stallone vehicle Oscar. Numerous suspicious or threatening characters abound and … actually, all of the characters are suspicious, as it becomes increasingly more unclear who is trying to kill whom, or why. At long length, it does eventually swing into scary movie mode, but its overweening hucksterism is never superseded. It’s possible this film slipped through the cracks because it has a few moments that are too gory for what is essentially a noirish comedy of manners. As is often the case with such madcap romps, the story doesn’t wind up making a whole lot of sense, either.

why did i watch this movie?

I was under the misguided impression that it was a horror movie, with a larger cast of characters and a little more action amid the intrigue. I did have my doubts.

should you watch this movie?

Although normally I wouldn’t factor in such a consideration, I would say that this kind of film has seen its day, and revisiting it isn’t very edifying. It plays almost like a parody of a Universal picture, with a Vincent Price vibe. This could have been intentional, I suppose.

highlight and low point

The proper atmosphere is concocted and maintained throughout and the performers chew their scenery with aplomb. Unfortunately, the script lets them down, meandering redundantly to the SHOCKING conclusion, which cannot properly succeed in a setting wherein nobody is to be trusted and no one is likable.

rating from outer space: c-

Acolytes (2008)

directed by jon hewitt
stewart & wall entertainment

The story of three Troubled Teens – well, two of ’em, at least – who become enmeshed in a blackmail-and-murder triangle of sorts, this accomplished Australian venture turns progressively darker as it proceeds … and it starts off with a jarring, unpleasant scene. Every bit of the story seems to provide more psychological drama, which propels the narrative. The viewer is lured in further and further as the truths are revealed only bit by bit, and with a certain amount of misdirection, to boot. One of the SHOCKING twists in this one – there are several – actually is shocking, and another comes as a fairly big surprise as well. Unexpectedly good, this film succeeds largely through its portrayals of the teenagers; their complicated relationships with each other feel as though they are rendered accurately. The multifarious bait-and-switch maneuvers deftly executed by this production carry the day, however.

why did i watch this movie?

For a change of pace, I decided to go with a film laden with plaudits.

should you watch this movie?

This one’s pretty good, and it’s got an unorthodox slant. I don’t think you’d be disappointed.

highlight and low point

Pretty much every time I thought I knew where this picture was headed, it surprised me, and that’s not something I find myself experiencing a whole lot while watching all these horror flicks. One scene didn’t work at all for me because I found it implausible, and all of the action takes place in the span of just five days, which also seems a bit of a stretch at times.

rating from outer space: a-

Cold Ground (2017)

directed by fabien delage
fright house pictures

Despite being a “found footage” tale of a largely unknown or unseen threat producing psychological torment in a five-person crew in heavily forested mountains – and with passages that directly reminded this scribe of scenes from both 2014’s Backcountry and the excellent Bob Goldthwait-helmed Bigfoot adventure Willow Creek from 2013 – this French film is often rather effective, especially as the plight of the principal female protagonist spirals out of control. The fact that no attempt is made to tie up any of the loose ends of the exposition is also a plus, aiding as it does the documentary conceit. Even the fact that the main antagonist is somewhat less impressive than presented, even underwhelming, is forgivable – until it begins to seem a bit silly. Eventually one concludes he or she has seen all this before. Which is a bit of a shame, because this is a skillfully made movie. It just doesn’t quite deliver on its promise.

why did i watch this movie?

Its press campaign had just the right enigmatic touch to overcome my initial doubts about its format. Plus it’s French.

should you watch this movie?

Look, I’ve never seen The Blair Witch Project, but the comparison is evident, along with the above-mentioned productions this one calls to mind. How burnt out you may be on “found footage” flicks could be a determining factor.

highlight and low point

Filming took place in actual heavily forested mountains in actual deep cold, and I always appreciate that kind of dedication. But it did keep bugging me that one or more of the characters didn’t have her hat snugged down tight enough for such purportedly prolonged exposure to such conditions.

rating from outer space: c+

Reykjavik Whale Watching Massacre (2009)

directed by júlíus kemp
The icelandic filmcompany/solar films

Also known, in the United Kingdom at least, as Harpoon: Reykjavik Whale Watching Massacre – probably to distinguish it from all the other movies titled “Harpoon” or because “Reykjavik Whale Watching Massacre” wasn’t a descriptive enough title for a movie about a massacre that takes place during a whale-watching expedition in the waters around Iceland – RWWM is a odd little slice of bad tidings. It’s also funny, after a fashion; the term used could be “black humor” were it not quite so ill-mannered or misanthropic. Actually, one of the most interesting things about this exercise in callous, gratuitous cruelty is how the alleged humor is played – very offhandedly, for the most part. By this I mean there’s no setup and no reaction to any of the moments of presumable mirth; they’re just a part of the mélange. It’s quite an approach, and adds an appealing touch of cinéma vérité to a picture that probably doesn’t warrant it. Not as much of a feel-good film as one might expect from the uplifting title.

why did i watch this movie?

Back when I first heard of this movie, my reaction was along the lines of “my, that’s an unusually blunt and descriptive title.” My curiosity, it was piqued.

should you watch this movie?

It’s not the most creative endeavor, but it flaunts impressive gall at times. If you do decide to see it, maybe you can clue me in about the part I failed to understand.

highlight and low point

The first couple moments of violence are unexpected and stunning, one being particularly eye-opening, and the film has a deft touch for scattering little particulars here and there. Allegations of racism, sexism and what-have-you could be mounted.

rating from outer space: B+

Happy Hell Night (1992)

directed by brian owens
pavlina ltd.

The main thing I noticed in this peculiar low-budget pic is that almost all of the actors portraying college students are way too old; along with that factor comes the clumsy nature of the dialogue, somewhat common to B-movies trying to portray “realistic” campus life. Also evident is the off-brand quality of this production. Though a reasonable facsimile of a film a major studio may have made, the differences are definitely noticeable in set design and wardrobe, to name but a few departments. (Several of the performers also appear to be cut-rate imitations of Name Actors.) The coherence of the story – which is otherwise off-the-shelf tomfoolery – is similarly lacking, perhaps because it seems to be missing details that might have shed some light on various characters’ motivations. It is entirely possible I am putting too much thought into my analysis of this tale about some kinda demonic ritual pact. Oh, and the SHOCKING ending isn’t, of course.

why did i watch this movie?

It certainly looked lurid enough, but I was expecting it to be gorier, or scarier, and a little more fully realized.

should you watch this movie?

The version I watched began with what came across as a retro-style trailer for itself, and if you can locate that promotional clip, your viewing need go no further.

highlight and low point

The producers either were unconcerned about the shoddiness permeating various parts of their creation, or unwilling to shell out for any upgrades, and the results are at times remarkable. A reasonably terrifying movie could have been assembled from the raw material here, but it … wasn’t. A few too many shortcomings.

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+

Maya (1989)

directed by marcello avellone
reteitalia/trio film

Hahahahaha. Only tangentially a horror movie, this beaut is a “thriller” of the sort Cannon Films churned out for so many years, except without the finer qualities for which that studio was so widely admired. Set in “Mexico” (filmed largely in Venezuela), this cheerfully idiotic film is concerned with some sorta Entity of the ancient Mayan culture that … okay, the thing is, people are dying because – there’s this guy, see, he’s a, he’s a … archeologist? Anthropologist? Or is that the other guy, no, wait, that guy’s a folklore expert and a mystic, never mind. Anyway, the dead guy’s daughter comes down to, uh, okay, she … Let’s take stock: There’s the dead guy’s daughter, the gringo gambling man, his jealous local ex, the bar owner, unreliable locals, the planned ritual sacrifice of a village child – I’m probably forgetting some pertinent details – and finally, glowing eyes. Man, watch out for those glowing eyes. No, Doctor, I have no idea.

why did i watch this movie?

I read a few descriptions of it that described it as deliriously incoherent fun – pretty accurately, as it turns out.

should you watch this movie?

Do you miss the sorts of classics you’d find at random in days of yore by scanning “premium” cable movie channels in the wee hours?

highlight and low point

On top of everything else this fable has to offer, it’s overdubbed for the English-speaking market, which only adds drama to the meaningful dialogue. The portrayal of the locals is in keeping with its era and origin.

rating from outer space: C