Shadows of the Mind (1980)

directed by “bernard travis”
production concepts ltd.

How bad must a movie be to be disowned by a pseudonymous director whose only other non-pornographic credit of any note is the notorious Last House on Dead End Street? Should you need to know, you could find out by enduring this obscurity, which earns its nearly unwatchable status due to an amateur lead actress, sloppy production, risible technique, and omnipresent, blaring piano-and-flute soundtrack. Concerned that viewers may not pick up on what it may consider the subtleties of its plot – in a nutshell, the Electra complex – it telegraphs them, resorting at one point to blatantly depicting the manifest symbolism. (For additional emphasis, key dialogue is repeatedly applied to parallel situations.) One whole character is a meaningless red herring, perhaps more than one … which only leaves two characters besides the lead, and one of those seemingly wandered in from one of the director’s works “for mature audiences,” to no particular purpose. This film‘s pointless and atrocious, which is perhaps why the only version of it readily available in the ether is subtitled (poorly!) in Dutch.

why did i watch this movie?

Presumably due to its association with its lousy director, Roger Watkins, and his initial celluloid creation.

should you watch this movie?

To answer that affirmatively,  you’d best possess quite the appreciation for incompetence … unless you’re a masochist.

highlight and low point

The pivotal scene wherein one can see the boom mike for nigh on a minute is pretty special, while the lengthy sequence in a disused greenhouse fairly well encapsulates this haphazard cinematic attempt. The pitiful approximation of a burning body during the climax – superimposed flames with subjacent skeletal image – is an additional howler. Meanwhile, the credits boast “filmed on Location” … with no mention where.

rating from outer space: F

Friday the 13th Part VII − The New Blood (1988)

directed by JOHN CARL BUECHLER
friday four, inc./sean s. cunningham films/paramount pictures

It’s impressive to stand out for idiocy in a series whose main character’s backstory makes no sense whatsoever – if Jason’s so devoted to his mother, why’d he hide from her in the woods for 20 years? – and wherein he would later not only hijack a pleasure cruise but be found aboard a spaceship – having previously become immortal after being revivified by a couple of lightning strikes – but “The New Blood” manages to do just that, and not least because this chapter of the story introduces a young lady who has absolutely no control over her telekinesis right up to the point at which she can suddenly command it with pinpoint accuracy. Oh, and it takes place at Crystal Lake, where the accursed campgrounds have been upgraded into stately lakeside manses by some no-doubt visionary land speculator with a heart of pure graft. In addition, the murderous antagonist finds a  veritable Home Depot there on the lakeshore, as he has a seemingly unlimited supply of dangerous weapons at hand.

why did i watch this movie?

A yeomanlike review of “A New Beginning” by The Devil’s DVD Bin prompted my viewing the installments of this series I either hadn’t seen or couldn’t recall seeing.

should you watch this movie?

Scrutinizing five consecutive franchise flicks proposed an explanation for my uncertain recollection.

highlight and low point

Jason appears in multiple successive scenes with different woods tools; it had me yelling at the film as though I were watching it at a late-night festival screening with other yahoos. No attempt is made to justify the extremely dubious ending, and there’s little gore despite all the new weapons. Victims still die instantly upon being stabbed, at least.

rating from outer space: D[umb]

La novia ensangrentada aka The Blood Spattered Bride (1972)

escrita y dirigida por vicente aranda
morgana films

Part of the early-to-mid-’70s lesbian vampire movie mini-craze, this Spanish offering is actually a very stylish affair, even as it doesn’t skimp on some more questionable themes or visuals. One of many retellings of important Dracula precursor Carmilla, the tale follows a newlywed couple back to the groom’s palatial ancestral home, where strange occurrences soon are afoot. And at hand. Namely, the young bride begins having eerie, violent dreams that involve a mystery woman she has glimpsed more than once while awake. Her chauvinistic husband is dubious. A doctor who apparently doubles as a detective of sorts is downright dismissive. The caretakers’ strange little girl … is strange. An accomplished piece of art, despite its exploitative carnality.

why did i watch this movie?

It was in my queue for so long, I couldn’t possibly tell you, but at some point I was stockpiling turn-of-the-’70s vampire flicks, so …

should you watch this movie?

“You mean the two women were howling?”
“Mm-hm, like two cats in heat – that’s when I ran away. They sounded … like vampires.”

highlight and low point

Should you need proof of how mores have changed in male/female relationship dynamics since the early ’70s – or, perhaps, seek illustration of the difference between Spain and the USA in terms of attitudes toward such things – you’ll be delighted by how Susan’s new husband treats her. If you’re of a certain bent, you’ll also appreciate her eventual response. If you’re like me, you’ll love exchanges such as this:

“How many times does something have to be repeated before it ceases to be a coincidence?”

“Some cases, twice would be sufficient.”

Performances are very deliberate. Maribel Martín, in her inaugural star vehicle, delectably transforms a moue into a death stare, often.

rating from outer space: B+

Us (2019)

written, produced and directed by jordan peele
monkeypaw productions/perfect world pictures

First off, this film was not what I’d expected – which was basically another version of The Strangers and its ilk. It’s much weirder than that, however; Us is one strange flick. Unlike Peele’s first production, Get Out, this one kinda clutters the frame with signifier draped on allusion wrapped in metaphor, and it’s a bit of a muddle. (One could put almost any spin on what it “means” and find a way to support the claim.) It’s also too often funny to be as scary as it wants to be, though at multiple times it conveys a great unease vividly laced with desperation. Laden with references to a smattering of other movies, though, this picture is yet another example of that apparently inescapable factor of contemporary culture. Guess we just can’t not do that any more, even with so much original creative spark seemingly on hand. For me personally, not being much of a cinephile, yawn, whatever.

why did i watch this movie?

Get Out was not only terrific, but thought-provoking, a rare combination. So although the early media campaign for this one didn’t make it appear to be anything out of the ordinary, I figured I’d be viewing it at some point.

should you watch this movie?

The running time is a very long ≈ two hours. The ending particularly drags.

highlight and low point

Despite its being a little unwieldy and bearing a few untidy loose ends, there’s a lot to like here. The initial appearance of the doppelgängers is both amusing and frightening, which isn’t the easiest trick to pull off, and a sudden revelation that there’s a lot more to the story than has theretofore been presented is powerful yet understated.

rating from outer space: B+

Lovely Molly (2011)

written, directed, and edited by eduardo sanchez
haxan films/amber entertainment

Man, you just can’t please some people. After finishing this highly disturbing picture, I decided to survey its popular acclaim, only to find that it doesn’t have much. And while I can definitely accept that rhetorical devices at play here – the videotaping, the “paranormal activity” and whatnot – might provoke a sense of ennui in some viewers, the vast majority of this film plays as a character study of a woman seemingly losing her mind, potentially becoming a danger to herself and others. That the climax suggests (and, to my mind, somewhat abruptly) a rather different explanation doesn’t much detract from the tense atmosphere created and explored throughout. For the resolution, I might’ve preferred something a bit less Shyamalanesque, because the nature of the characters’ unravelings had been intense and unsettling, but I’ll admit I disregarded plentiful cues.

why did i watch this movie?

Sometimes, I just idly browse through synopses of horror flicks and randomly winnow down a passel of choices until I select a few titles that sound interesting.

should you watch this movie?

You know what, I liked it. Now, keep in mind I’ve neither seen “Blair Witch” nor Paranormal Activity, so maybe that helped. Your tolerance level for “found footage” presented as though real-time documentation may be of import.

highlight and low point

Credit must be given for a distressing scene of person-to-person violence that was truly shocking, and not for the squeamish – hackles-raising stuff. Gretchen Lodge’s performance of the title role is splendid, and pretty fearless to boot. The murky backstory helps rather than hinders, but the most important clue is literally buried and one may well attach no importance whatsoever to it. (The working title was “The Possession,” hint hint.)

rating from outer space: B+

The Hills Run Red (2009)

directed by dave parker
Warner premiere/dark castle home entertainment/fever dreams llc/ludovico technique

Maybe I’ve seen a few too many of these damn things, but a premise that seemed alluring as this story grew legs – obsessive fan seeks mythical lost slasher film – garnered much tarnish once a few too many knowing references were manifest. Having recovered from its initial fascination with a patently obligatory sleaze factor, this film established a promising story arc only to undermine it with too much that was too familiar. And though it seemed Hills wanted to be playing in the same self-referential league as other “postmodern” fright flicks, I began to get the uneasy feeling that it wasn’t all that clever. Enough glints of inventiveness peek through to keep the goings-on mostly interesting, and the rote gruesome tortures on display aren’t overdone or brandished as proof of, I dunno, transgressive merit or something. But maybe my initial impression was correct and there just isn’t a whole lot of nuance left to wring out of this particular genre, especially if one isn’t willing to get past giving a backwoods killer a spooky mask. ‘Tis a pity, as the sadistic-creep-preys-on-hapless-unfortunates paradigm has always been a personal preference.

why did i watch this movie?

Hills was one of the small handful of pictures Schlock Treatment recommended as actually worthwhile.

should you watch this movie?

Fun fact: Several video games and Leatherface rank among the other accomplishments of this film’s writers.

highlight and low point

Ultimately – unfortunately – I think this production is more of a ripoff than a mashup, but as I’ve hinted before, most horror pix suffer if one goes ahead and thinks about them. This flick had a chance to be really special. Unlike its protagonists, though, it chose to play it safe.

rating from outer space: C+

The Terror Within (1989)

directed by thierry notz
CONCORDE

The kind of picture wherein a lot of the action takes place inside massive “air vents,” this absolutely marvelous archetypal B movie was produced by none other than Roger Corman, and it gloriously suggests any number of ’50s and ’60s drive-in wonders. From the minimal casting to the plastic-fantastic sets, this SF horror pic pulls out all the stops. You got your overly obvious dialogue, you got your laughable rubber creature suit, you got your broadly drawn characters, you got your … dog. The tale of mankind’s last few (?) survivors after an unspecified disaster, besieged by mutants apparently spawned by … well, never mind making any sense of that, why bother. Terrific fun, couldn’t ask for anything more.

why did i watch this movie?

This has to have been a result of looking for more George Kennedy vehicles, I’d imagine. You may have noticed I’m a big fan of those. (Someday, you’ll understand.)

should you watch this movie?

Not if you dislike having a good time.

highlight and low point

Virtually everything about the set design is simply magnificent. The research station or whatever it is has a staff of six, yet the elevators are boldly designated with signage. They’re monitoring life outside and doing complicated experiments inside, yet when they need to reproduce sound, they have to resort to using a reel-to-reel recorder. They have banks of complicated computer equipment, but their video feed and lights constantly malfunction. And they’ve got a bitchin’ logo for some reason. Also, this is the only SF horror pic I can think of that might inspire abortion debates, as it’s the only one I can think of offhand that features a self-induced rejection of an alien-hybrid fetus. (Trust me, that’s not a spoiler.)

rating from outer space: “B” (of course)