geographic isolation

Don’t Look in the Basement aka The Forgotten (1973)

/ billy peppers / Leave a comment
produced and directed by s. f. brownrigg
camera 2 productions/century studios

A slowly creeping, thoroughly Seventies sense of the dramatic infuses this tale of mysterious goings-on in a shabby private sanitarium, and although that setup veritably screams “overacting,” the mostly unknown thespians gathered here generally do a pretty good job portraying their variously afflicted characters. Of course, as the action gains momentum, masks begin to slip, until eventually psychoses are on full florid display. Even if one is unaware of the secrets that eventually will be revealed, after just beyond the halfway point the production doesn’t even bother to feign much interest in keeping mum, and from there it’s more or less a matter of seeing how things will be resolved. An unexpected finale may raise some eyebrows, and the final scene is much more poignant than any of the proceedings may have led one to expect.

why did i watch this movie?

It’s a “classic,” is it not? Well, in any case, I’d been hearing about it for as long as I can remember, as it’s one of my brother’s faves.

should you watch this movie?

Didn’t I just say it’s a “classic”? Really, it suggests the transition between a more old-fashioned sense of the horror film and the newer aesthetic to come.

highlight and low point

The first half or so of this picture mainly concentrates on the doings of several of the patients at the hospital, as well as newly arrived Nurse Charlotte’s attempts to get her bearings, and doesn’t suggest a whole lot of structure … although this proves to be purposive, of course. That it overcomes its dubious opening scenes and builds up enough momentum to be affecting is no small feat. Which characters are being referenced is sometimes difficult to decipher.

rating from outer space: B+

Shriek of the Mutilated (1974)

/ billy peppers / Leave a comment
directed by mike findlay
An ed adlum and mike findlay production

Glacially paced, predictable, and of little apparent budget, this feckless outing flaunts its amateur nature consistently throughout its 84 minutes. Ham-fisted edits! Complete disregard for continuity! (Events often appear to take place simultaneously in daylight and at nighttime.) Unconvincing “acting”! Also: what amounts to this film’s signature flair, a catch-as-catch-can wardrobe department. Many reviewers have remarked on the absurd depiction of the flick’s “yeti,” but nowhere near enough attention has been paid to the “Indian” getup sported by the actor allegedly portraying such an individual. It’s also not very difficult to see where all the “action” is heading from very early on, and even the trappings of the wild ‘n’ wacky ’70s that are sort-of hinted at don’t receive enough attention to serve any fascination lo these many years. Ordinarily, this kind of self-financed production would make one wonder how it could have been anyone’s best idea, but as Findlay was primarily a sexploitation provocateur, it’s mostly just surprising it wasn’t more lurid.

why did i watch this movie?

This was another fetching title prompted by Duane Bradley’s Schlock Treatment ebook.

should you watch this movie?

I’d like to think of something pithy to say here, but this picture is just tiresome.

highlight and low point

“This could never be of any use to Tom anymore.”

The acting is pretty dreadful throughout, and the fatuous notions of the secret society presented at the piece’s conclusion don’t make a whole lot of sense. Come to think of it, the major foreshadowing in the script doesn’t make much sense once all is said and done, either. The scenes that randomly switch from daylight to dark are pretty great, and the opening shot is of my alma mater.

rating from outer space: D−

Uninvited (1988)

/ billy peppers / Leave a comment
“Written, produced, & directed by Greydon clark”
copyright © greydon clark productions, inc.
heritage entertainment

About three-quarters of the way through this inestimable SF/horror hybrid it begins to seem it was forced into its final form via a harried editing process, because scenes come and go abruptly and transitions cease to matter. It’s also around this time that one begins to notice certain amusing facets of the production, such as the repetitious establishing shots and the obvious discrepancies between the dimensions of the yacht we are to understand the characters are aboard and those of the ship we actually see them aboard. And of course, there are the many, many, many images of the cat. The terrifying, deadly, seemingly ordinary tabby cat. Now, budgetary constraints obviously played some role in this tomfoolery, but that can’t explain everything. Whatever the reasons, this hokey straight-to-video picture could have been a whole lot more satisfying. It just never goes quite far enough in any particular direction – much like the malfunctioning vessel that becomes a virtual … DEATH SHIP.

why did i watch this movie?

Without Warning was interesting enough, but I don’t think it led me here. There’s always the George Kennedy connection.

should you watch this movie?

I’d like to say it’s good for laffs, but its unintentional humor can’t overcome the sense of tedium.

highlight and low point

The overacted yet undersold deaths are priceless – as are the pics of the toy boat representing the seafaring watercraft – but I cannot overemphasize how many scenes in this film feature an ordinary cat doing ordinary cat things. Now, I happen to love the furry little demons the human race unwisely invited to share their homes, but such cinematography is incongruous with the desire to create an atmosphere of ill portent.

rating from outer space: D+

Island of the Fishmen aka L’isola degli uomini pesce (1979)

/ billy peppers / Leave a comment
directed by sergio martino
dania film/medusa cinematografica

This contemplative, philosophical inquiry into the underpinnings of theories of evolution and the turmoil that can result when ruling classes oppose their implications ultimately wrests from its labors a few hard-won victories for what is best labeled “truth.” Hahaha, no – this is an Italian Island of Dr. Moreau crossed with an adventure serial, featuring some FX we’d later see improved by Raiders of the Lost Ark. (Coincidentally, it also features the pursuit of treasure from an ancient land.) Also featured is a voodoo cult, for some reason that either wasn’t provided or to which I wasn’t paying enough attention. Overall, it was a labor to get through this contrivance, but at times it almost approaches B-movie apotheosis. All it lacks is anything interesting or titillating or engaging or exciting!

why did i watch this movie?

I really don’t remember, so let’s presume it was the ridiculous title and Italian origin.

should you watch this movie?

Not unless you have to, which I’d wager is unlikely.

(Note: L’isola was also released for U.S. consumption under the titles “Something Waits in the Dark” and “Screamers,” both of which were altered to some considerable degree.)

highlight and low point

The stock volcano footage is gratifying, as are the obvious miniatures used for various shots such as that immediately above. Other FX are worthy of derision at best – but the “fishmen” themselves aren’t half bad. As is customary, the dubbed dialogue provides many great moments, such as this revelatory soliloquy:

Now I remember! He’s the geneticist who was condemned for his experiments … transplanting animal organs into human beings.

Oh, yeah, him. The above reminiscence leads to the equally appealing accusation, “You’re not a scientist! You’re a madman, an insane criminal!”  Gripe, gripe.

Rating from outer space: c−

3 From Hell (2019)

/ billy peppers / Leave a comment
written and directed by rob zombie
spookshow international/capital arts entertainment

In the rock ‘n’ roll world, bands sometimes hit a home run with their first release because it’s the culmination of everything they’ve spent their lives working toward, all their passion and labor and inspiration and insanity and their most finely honed materal in one definitive document. Then they’ve got, like, eight months to follow it up, and that’s where the magic often ends. That didn’t happen with Rob Zombie’s music career; it took White Zombie years to claw their way out of the NYC underground and hit it big in the early ’90s with La Sexorcisto: Devil Music Volume One, and he still enjoys a musical following. The template does describe his directorial career, however. House of 1000 Corpses, if not exactly original, seemed to presage the existence of a new horror auteur … but the bloom has faded from that rose. This sequel to the underwhelming Corpses sequel The Devil’s Rejects is a Tarantino-lite quasi-comedic misstep that more than ever showcases little save its writer’s underdeveloped vocabulary and lack of interesting ideas.

why did i watch this movie?

I greatly enjoyed Corpses, and liked Rejects the first time.

should you watch this movie?

It’s rather insipid.

highlight and low point

A moment or two in this picture works all right, but that’s about it. The setup is pretty dumb, the dialogue is godawful, it’s imitative, and it tiredly rehashes some stylistic elements from the last film, only stretched beyond parodic. Oh, and adds a new family member to provide the crucial deliverance. This chapter should’ve followed Tiny, last seen shortly before the ending of Rejects, and Dr. Satan, who’s still presumably out there somewhere, too.

rating from outer space: D−

These clowns liked it, apparently.
Photo from imdb (Tasia Wells)

Darlin’ (2019)

/ billy peppers / Leave a comment
written & directed by pollyanna mcintosh
hood river entertainment

Oh, man, THIS is why sequels have such a bad reputation. Wilfully destroying the disturbing mythos and gripping power of Offspring and The Woman (not to mention Off Season, the Jack Ketchum novel that started the series), Darlin’ is a dispiritingly transparent and simplistic reexamination of some of the same themes as Lucky McKee‘s “Woman,” only without much of anything to recommend it in any way. Oddly, it was created and helmed by Pollyanna McIntosh, who one would presume to have more of an investment in extending the character’s draw. Poorly conceived, unconvincingly executed, predictable, and incongruously sentimental, I am really at a loss as to why on earth this movie was produced.

why did i watch this movie?

I‘m a sucker. for some reason thought a follow-up to The Woman would be a fascinating study of the ongoing attempts of primitive cannibals to survive in modern society, plus who hasn’t pondered how former members of that society might adapt to devolution in the aftermath of all they’d experienced?

should you watch this movie?

It does not address any of the above concerns.

highlight and low point

The word that springs to mind for this film’s treatment of religious institutions and the priesthood is “facile.” It’s maddeningly stereotypical, and the main target is two-dimensional and untrustworthy from his first moments onscreen. Also, the only sympathetic male character is gay, just in case you were somehow missing the incisive social commentary. Such lack of nuance really detracts from whatever the hell the point is supposed to be. Furthermore, the structure of the film very closely parallels that of The Woman, only with an extremely dubious subtheme of awakening or self-reliance or self-preservation or some such. Ridiculous.

rating from outer space: d−

Nightmare aka Nightmare(s) in a Damaged Brain (1981)

/ billy peppers / Leave a comment
written and directed by romano scavolini
goldmine productions inc.

Despite some questionable casting choices and unconvincing acting in several minor roles, this curiosity is actually a serious study of derangement and childhood trauma, murderous impulses and psychosis, a story of a mental patient who escapes and heads south. Grisly and graphic, it features a helluva shock early on and never settles much into complacency. Unfortunately, the saga drags a bit as it proceeds, especially when it focuses on the obnoxious children of a dysfunctional family. (Mom is little better.) The ending is unnecessarily confusing, especially as it shouldn’t be, due to an inexplicable – and uncharacteristic – refusal to let the camera linger.

why did i watch this movie?

Notorious in its day, it fit a bunch of my usual touchstones.

should you watch this movie?

“You lose a dangerously psychotic patient from a secret experimental drug program, and all you can say is ‘I’m sorry’? … Paul, you believed in these drugs and – you rebuilt this man and you did put him back out on the street, but now –he’s out there killing people, and we can’t have that.”

highlight and low point

The insanely over-the-top initial murder scene has to top this list, but many other aspects of this production might jostle for position. Baird Stafford’s portrayal of the disturbed lead is unsettling, one particular murder is disconcertingly realistic, and the director doesn’t scrimp on now-amusing portrayals of computer analysis OR graphic shots of female pudenda. (Times Square peep shows.) The lines quoted above are spoken by a character played by the producer, so perhaps unsurprisingly, the production paradox rules here: one might think this film would have been better were it more professionally accomplished, but any such consideration probably would have denatured it too much.

rating from outer space: B−

La notte che Evelyn uscì dalla Tomba aka The night Evelyn came out of the grave (1971)

/ billy peppers / Leave a comment
directed by emilio p. miraglia
phoenix cinematografica roma s.p.a.

I don’t know about you, but with a title like this one, I found myself expecting a shoddily filmed 76-minute exploitation picture about vengeful undead … so in a sense I was sorely disappointed by this lavish Italian epic of misdirection and aristocratic shenanigans. I was NOT disappointed, however, by the fact that this film delights in trying to live up to the finest tradition of the giallo (the literal translation of which is “doesn’t make a lick of sense”*). But I WAS disappointed that everything resolves itself in a fairly straightforward manner. Of course, at least one major loose end isn’t even addressed, so that redeems matters somewhat. As for Evelyn and her grave, don’t even ask about that. Trust me.

*untrue

why did i watch this movie?

 I was perusing a website from which I download music, and someone posted this extravaganza’s soundtrack. I had to know more, what with the name and all.

should you watch this movie?

Though mildly diverting, it really doesn’t deliver the goods, as it never commits itself enough to do so. Hey, that’s a mild pun, as the storyline concerns the main character’s mental condition!

highlight and low point

Okay, seriously, a really good movie could have been constructed out of this muddle. Unfortunately, that’s not the movie they made. For instance, one or more characters is revealed not to be what he or she seems to be – but these revelations are irrelevant to anything that subsequently occurs. And once all the confabulations are sorted, it’s not unlike any standard episode of any crime or detective drama. Erika Blanc‘s role isn’t substantial enough, although her character’s disreputability compensates somewhat.

rating from outer space: c−

you keep this by your pool, too, right?

Without Warning (1980)

/ billy peppers / Leave a comment
directed by greydon clark
a greydon clark production/heritage enterprises

The kind of movie that plays as though it was made for TV, this tale of inscrutable attack by unknown airborne sources is likable enough, though it can’t offer very much in terms of thrillng, fast-paced action. Really, this is the sort of eerie offering that would suffer greatly with the advent of the slasher craze. It also suffers greatly from some narrative confusion, although I will be honest and tell you that doesn’t matter much in the grand scheme of things. (You’ll catch on.) As is often the case in films of this ilk, much of the tension and action is generated by the interactions between the townfolk and the kids with the crazy story and the few strange locals who might be inclined to listen and might just know something, and so forth.

why did i watch this movie?

I can’t tell you it wasn’t because the title didn’t make me not think of this number.

should you watch this movie?

Highly redolent of its era, it also seemingly harks back to SF films of the ’50s. It did not have much of a budget. I do not seem to be answering the question.

highlight and low point

Though his character eventually wears out his welcome, Martin Landau invests his PTSD-laden “Sarge” with much conviction, and as “Sandy” and “Greg,” two actors who wouldn’t find much work past 1982 (“Tarah Nutter” and “Christopher S. Nelson,” respectively) do a reasonably convincing job. This is also future NYPD Blue/CSI: Miami star David Caruso’s first credited role, albeit a disposable one. Some of the creatures deployed are more amusing than frightening, though they do lead to the wondrous exclamation, “It’s eating the windshield!”

windshield, being eaten


rating from outer space: C+

Blood and Lace (1971)

/ billy peppers / Leave a comment
directed by philip gilbert
contemporary filmakers/carlin company productions

Had I seen this one before? That’s not a rhetorical device damning this picture for predictability or anything; I kept having a strange sense of déjà vu at different times as I watched it. Boy, this is one sleazy flick – especially given that there’s only one scene of semi-nudity (a purported teenager’s back). What you have here is the tale of a very questionable orphanage, governed by a woman in cahoots with both the local caseworker and her dead husband (well, sorta), ably assisted by a drunken goon played by the guy who would later be known as Seinfeld’s Uncle Leo, dispatching supposedly runaway teens but pocketing their state funds anyway thanks to an overused walk-in freezer in the basement. But then the new girl upsets the applecart, only for it eventually to be discovered that nothing is as it seems! Except for all the things that are exactly as they seem, of course, and perhaps one or more revelations that you may anticipate.

why did i watch this movie?

I have contemplated watching this movie multiple times before, and I cannot tell you why exactly I went ahead with it this time.

should you watch this movie?

While I don’t think one could call this a “classic,” even among the ranks of drive-in throwaways, it’s got a lot going for it.

highlight and low point

Just about every character in this drama is disreputable in one way or another, which makes for a pretty good time. Overall, the story is fairly plausible, even if in an Erskine Caldwell kind of way. The leads – Vic Tayback, Gloria Grahame, Melody Patterson, the aforementioned Len Lesser – are all appropriately sordid. The “blood” is unmistakably red paint.

rating from outer space: b+