Burnt Offerings (1976)

directed by dan curtis
p.e.a. films/dan curtis productions

Now, this is more like it! A tremendously realized mid-’70s fright flick that succeeds without any of the earmarks that would soon begin to plague the genre (slashing, masks, teenagers, etc.), this mainly psychological horror picture draws one in the old-fashioned way. Something’s obviously wrong, seemingly minor issues continuously get more worrisome, the situation keeps deteriorating … but nothing too specific can be identified. (You’ll probably get an inkling, of course.) Tiny hints here and there tiptoe toward the devastating conclusion, and it’s all handled impeccably. Well, truth be told, things get a little out of hand as that ending nears, including some of the performances, but that neither lessens the impact nor diminishes the achievement. The film does almost overstay its welcome; it’s a minor flaw, though exacerbated a bit as the climax nears, as it feels as though substantial cuts must have been made. Oliver Reed is his usual intense self throughout, so that’s a hoot, Karen Black handles a complicated role fairly well, and Bette Davis is excellent.

why did i watch this movie?

I have almost watched this one any number of times, so this time I just said all right already … and turns out it’s based on a novel by a fellow alumnus of the college from which I was graduated.

should you watch this movie?

As an exemplar of how to make an effectively frightening picture without a lot of foofaraw, it is commendable, if inexactly titled. It actually plays as though it’s from a few years earlier, even.

highlight and low point

While the stage is being set, so to speak, developments seem a bit dubious and a couple of minor characters chafe. Later, some of what transpires is almost underplayed, and depends on the audience’s perception and attention to do some of the heavy lifting. (Imagine!) During the culminating scene, a legitimately unexpected – nay, SHOCKING – event occurs.

rating from outer space: a–

The Boogens (1981)

directed by james l. conway
taft international pictures

Boy howdy, what a terrible name for a movie. That didn’t prevent me from enjoying, say, The Babadook, however, so I took the plunge and watched this classic ’80s silliness. You know the drill: two young couples, some questionable activity (in this case, reopening an old silver mine), funny dog, mysterious character creeping around, forgotten lore that possibly holds key information, and so forth. Oh, and – of course – a ridiculous creature. And lemmy tell ya, you’d have to walk a good mile to find a more ridiculous creature than the poorly named ridiculous creature that gives this movie its lousy title. (At one point, I believe I discerned that part of the creature was a vacuum cleaner hose.) One interesting thing about this flick, though, is that all of the thespians are fully invested, providing much better acting than the script probably warranted. Lightweight and enjoyable fare from early in the Reagan Era.

why did i watch this movie?

The cast list is headed by Rebecca Balding, who of course played “Carol David” on Soap, and since I watched that other movie she was in, I felt obliged.

should you watch this movie?

It would be a good fit for a themed horror nite or festival at some friendly neighborhood venue.

highlight and low point

The second female lead is played by “Sgt. Doreau” from Sledge Hammer! but to be completely honest, the funny dog (one of two Bichon Frises) has the best role in the film, and does a terrific job with it. The utterly fake mine interiors are also splendid. The hilarious terrifying title creature(s), however, cannot be topped. (Allegedly, only one was made; once it’s revealed, one surmises this is possibly because it was constructed of whatever was lying around and no additional materials were on hand.)

rating from outer space: B−

He TRIED to warn them

The Strangers: Prey at Night (2018)

directed by johannes roberts
rogue pictures/bloom/white comet films/the fyzz facility

As this oddly delayed sequel began – a decade after the first installment – I confess, I really, really wanted to bag on it; the onset is not promising and it appeared as though it would be a cliché-ridden parade of stock characters and situations. Credit where it’s due, however – this film delivers exactly what it’s supposed to deliver, and it does it well. Not overly saddled with any particular panache, and devoid of much in the way of creativity beyond the overall “Strangers” framework, it’s still adept at ratcheting up the tension and producing effectively understated frights. Wisely, the palette is opened up a bit from the original, as the characters are not confined to one specific place, and although some of what could be termed “character development” verges on slasher-film shtick, it remains essentially rooted in realism. It IS a bit meta, however, occasionally evoking the line productions of the post-Scream era, and perhaps a bit predictable when it morphs into a revenge picture for a while. All told, a few groans don’t detract much. No classic, but it will entertain you well enough.

why did i watch this movie?

I enjoyed the first one, as well as Them (Ils), the French film that prefigured it, so what the hell, I reckoned.

should you watch this movie?

It’s more or less a traditional slasher-type picture, so it depends on your tastes.

highlight and low point

The moment when one of the teenagers confronts one of the Strangers who is Preying at Night and asks the “WHY are you DOING this” question amused me no end, and other related moments were also pretty good. The family that is Preyed upon at Night by the Strangers is actively annoying much of the time, and I did not particularly enjoy the screenwriting relating to said family.

rating from outer space: C+

A Quiet Place (2018)

directed by john krasinski
platinum dunes/sunday night

This picture boasts one innovative idea, which I anticipated watching unfold. Unfortunately, it didn’t bear quite enough fruit – either the producers didn’t have the nerve to take their conceit far enough or they modulated it a bit in the pursuit of mass consumption. The concept, of course, is a whole lotta silence, the reason being the premise that Earth has been invaded and decimated by aliens that hunt by sound. That’s a pretty great proposition, even with some of the questions it raises, but the filmmakers encounter issues with its execution. Now, I mean the following seriously, given that this is a movie dealing with deadly alien invaders that hunt by sound alone: far too many logical inconsistencies present themselves, disabling any suspension of disbelief. I mean, virtually from the opening scene, I was incredulous. That’s kind of a serious problem. A peculiarly reactionary sociology  in the family structure has been noted elsewhere; it becomes perhaps even more curious when one considers that the director/co-writer and his wife are the lead actors.

why did i watch this movie?

The notion of a horror film based on a dearth of sound and largely lacking in dialogue intrigued me.

should you watch this movie?

Possibly, if you are in dire need of a fix for your craving for yet another derivation of H.R. Giger’s Alien archetype.

highlight and low point

Ironically enough, though overall kudos must be granted for having an original thought in a genre often lacking in such, as hinted above the intruders are Giger’s “Alien,” AGAIN. But don’t limit yourself to the creatures when searching for absurdities in this one. Among my personal favorites are the large signs the patriarch has set up in his workshop that conveniently provide the viewing audience with crucial information, and which cannot possibly serve any real purpose for him or his family.

rating from outer space: C−

Pod (2015)

directed by mickey keating
Alexander groupe/high window films/illium pictures

The second feature from director Keating following 2013’s Ritual, this science-fiction hybrid feels like a more fully realized affair. Though it seems to borrow heavily from various sources, it’s as homage rather than imitation – albeit as noted, the ultimate effect is somewhat to resemble The X-Files. Getting all the way to that point, however, is more than half the fun here, as the story’s slow buildup focuses on some familial dynamics, and only in exploiting the well-meaning dismissiveness exhibited toward one sibling by his brother and sister are the realities of their situation revealed. One thing this watcher found exemplary – which other reviewers seem to think a major drawback – is the novel approach taken to fleshing out the details behind the discoveries: None. No explanation is given, no tidy synopsis offered; it’s up to the audience. Personally, I thought this gambit worked perfectly, given the subject matter. The denouement unspools in stages, some of which are surprising (not SHOCKING) and some of which are business as usual. (The makers of Antibirth must have been taking notes, however.)

why did i watch this movie?

I thought 2013’s Ritual was interesting enough an attempt to investigate the director’s successive offerings.

should you watch this movie?

With the understanding that it’s not going to blow the doors off with originality, it’s a good time, replete with suspense, enough frights, and plenty to nettle the squeamish.

highlight and low point

The moments when it dawns on the brother-and-sister tandem that their other brother wasn’t dissembling, delusional or dipsomaniacal are perhaps a tad de rigueur for this type of picture, but it’s a carefully controlled exposition and the payoff is welcome. The ending feels a bit shopworn.

rating from outer space: B−

Evil Dead (2013)

directed by fede Álvarez
filmdistrict/ghost house pictures

Now that Ash vs Evil Dead has run its course, let’s discuss this reboot of the source material, made with the imprimatur of its creative team. (Produced by its principals, in fact.) The new angle taken here is to remove the humor and slapstick elements from “Dead By Dawn” and revert more to the creeping, unsettling nature of the original, ramping up the tension and gore to heretofore unseen levels. Also, the demon and resultant possessions are different this time around, and the characters’ motivations and interactions hew closer to convention as well. Sure, some of these (and other) changes made to the story structure may be questionable – if not predictable – but from the gripping opening sequence onward, first-time director Álvarez keeps one on the edge of his or her seat. An auspicious debut.

why did i watch this movie?

I am an unabashed fan of most everything Evil Dead, and Bruce Campbell assured the fanbase it was a worthy addition to the canon.

should you watch this movie?

Were you to approach this film from the perspective that it’s merely another horror option – irrespective of the fact that it’s THE “Evil Dead,” that is – I believe you would find it satisfying.

highlight and low point

I thoroughly enjoyed the fact that the basement of the cabin seems to be much, much larger than would be warranted, and of course the fact that the Naturom Demonto is for some reason sitting down there, on a table. I did not particularly enjoy the ending, although I admit this is perhaps unreasonable given my support of most of the frankly dubious occurrences throughout the many iterations of this saga. In addition, I found a scene where an animal is killed to be unnecessarily cruel, but I always do. (Yes, I realize horror is kind of built on unpleasantries.)

rating from outer space: b

L’occhio nel Labirinto (1972)

directed by Mario caiano
transeuropa film/tv13 filmproduktion/filmages

First off, this picture has the most swingin’ soundtrack you’re likely to hear for some time, vast amounts of fusion-era Miles Davis electrobop courtesy of composer Roberto Nicolosi. It also has pretty great examples of breathless, stentorian dubbing for the dialogue. (The title translates as “Eye in the Labyrinth,” if you’re wondering, but the version I watched didn’t bother with all that.) And I spent the early portion of the movie deciding to describe the heroine as “sylphlike,” before discovering at length that she’s not the heroine. Ergo, as is usual for a giallo, nothing much is coherent for most of this flick. Unusually for this type of film, however, eventually everything is explained, and even makes some sort of sense – at least in terms of the story being presented, that is, not in any identifiable reality. Unfortunately, it mostly translates into a mundane mystery. On occasion, it appears as though the cameraman (Giorgio Aureli? Maurizio Maggi?) loses control of his equipment.

why did i watch this movie?

I … really don’t know, but my speculation is that I was transfixed by the baffling cognomen, a promising sign for a production of this type.

should you watch this movie?

Only if you’re really hung up on early ’70s Italian trash cinema and its cultural signifiers.

highlight and low point

At a certain point, once the killer has been outed, we’re treated to a re-creation of a key murder, which is suffused with the most obviously overdubbed sound effects you could ever hope to hear, tremendous gristly sounds of butchery, louder than anything else in the film. This is repeated, more minimally, at the expected conclusion.

rating from outer space: c−

previously issued as Atmosfera (Fontana, 1973)

Children Shouldn’t Play With Dead Things (1972)

directed by benjamin clark
brandywine/motionarts

For almost two-thirds of this (very) independent picture’s running time, I couldn’t stand the damn thing, mainly because the main character is completely insufferable, dampening whatever alleged “humor” I was supposed to be getting from the subpar scriptwriting. Besides which, nothing much happens during this hour, and I was getting pretty tired of looking at the hideous, dated togs sported by some of the clowns in the cast. At long last, however, the dead finally rise from their graves – this cannot possibly count as a “spoiler” – and mostly redeem things … but not for the reasons you may suppose. No, what really turned my opinion of this movie is the sound design, because as the corpses claw their way out of the earth (with suspicious ease) and start to stalk their way around the garishly designed and oddly luminescent cemetery and grounds – the film looks much the way colorized “classics” do, the effect at times almost fauvist – the soundtrack begins BLARING all sorts of unexpected, unrelenting sonic surprises. Was that a cow? I wondered. Is that a foghorn? Is this an Edgard Varèse composition? Man alive (hahaha), is it terrific. The silent final scene is great as well.

why did i watch this movie?

I was going to cue up Deathdream, but then I read it was this director’s second horror feature … and it turns out I’ve seen his third film, Black Christmas. So, uh, due diligence.

should you watch this movie?

Naturally, you want to follow the through-line of “Book of the Dead” bushwah. Or study the evolution of corpse paint.

highlight and low point

The repartee is sophomoric at best, and I cannot stress enough how repellent I found the lead role, but this invective hurled in his direction is wonderful:

It IS happening! Don’t sit there whining,
you sickening pervert!

rating from outer space: c+

Aberration (1997)

directed by tim boxell
grundy films/victor film company

A tale of Nature Gone Horribly Wrong, this likable B-movie set in America but filmed in New Zealand proudly blares its very ’90s soundtrack whenever possible. But after dispensing with its Meet Cute (well, sort of; it involves both a dead engine and a dead pet), this chipper horror comedy rather quickly started reminding me of the legendary cult favorite Tremors. Then a completely unexpected detour occurs, and although it’s short and ultimately slight, the film never seems to regain its bearings. From that point onward, the action escalates, things keep exploding, and the characters, finding themselves in one impossible situation after another, seem to devolve as the creatures they’re battling keep rapidly adapting. Maybe that’s supposed to be a parallel. Or a paradox. Whatever it is, it becomes difficult to tell what the producers wished to achieve. Unless it was to remind one of Tremors. It ends abruptly.

why did i watch this movie?

This may sound familiar, but I couldn’t tell from the description whether I’d already seen it. Or maybe I was conflating the title with that of Unnatural.

should you watch this movie?

In some ways, this film far exceeds its potential, but on the other hand it also fails to meet it. Ultimately, it’s just not quite enough.

highlight and low point

They did a good job with using the creatures effectively, not overexposing them, although I’m fairly certain they used the exact same shots more than once. Splatter and gore also is handled deftly. The humor doesn’t always connect, however, and the hints of romance feel forced if not incongruous. At the same time, you expect more of any or all of these factors. Something went wrong in their calculus.

rating from outer space: c

The Horrible House on the Hill aka Devil Times Five aka Peopletoys (1974)

directed by sean macgregor
barrister productions incorporated

When setting out to watch this ’70s obscurity, I had no idea the sort of sleazefest I’d be enjoying. In one especially enlightening sequence, a bored and oversexed housewife emulates Of Mice and Men with the mentally challenged handyman, after which she is confronted by her daughter-in-law – the current paramour of an ex-conquest – and a breasts-exposing catfight ensues. The daughter-in-law subsequently goes to bed with the disputed boyfriend. Meanwhile, the other adult female on the premises is drinking heavily and badgering her shlump of a husband, played by Sorrell Booke. As this is happening, five deranged children who have survived a bus accident break into the secluded lodge-style home in which all of the above are weekending, and beat to death their pursuant erstwhile handler – in slow motion. This movie becomes quite unsettling as it unspools … but its creepiest component lies behind the scenes. Mid-seventies flash in the pan Leif Garrett plays one of the murderous kids (“Charlie”), as does his younger sister Dawn Lyn (“Moe”), and their mother (Carolyn Stellar) plays the sexpot, “Lovely,” who eventually is killed off, topless in the bath, by Moe. Hollywood family values – now that’s chilling.

why did i watch this movie?

With its focus on preteen sociopaths, it sounded pretty intriguing, and the multiplicity of names helped. (It’s also known as Tantrum/s.)

should you watch this movie?

Hey, it’s freely available courtesy of the Internet Archive.

highlight and low point

Before it hits its stride, Peopletoys seems as though it’s going to be as regrettable as that moniker, but once the obviously strange children are introduced to the mix, it gets a lot better. The killings are not very convincing and the blood is extremely fake, but the level of invention is pretty good. The kids seem strangely impervious to cold, though.

rating from outer space: B