Blood Feast (1963)

DIRECTED BY HERSCHELL GORDON LEWIS
BOX OFFICE SPECTACULARS, INC.

Here is where we should begin our disquisition on the ephemeral nature of what constitutes art vis-à-vis garbage, and engage in deep contemplation on the revealed substance and its relation to the Ideal, and how mere imitation or re-creation can only hope to further distance us from the knowledge of this state of perfection. We should, but we won’t, because gore impresario, auteur loon and marketing maven Herschell Gordon Lewis would probably laugh and point at us. His frankly ridiculous tale of catering a Society party with an “authentic Egyptian Feast” as a hopeful means of reviving the goddess Ishtar via cannibalism features some impossibly wooden acting, hilariously half-assed set dressing, excessively expository dialogue, indubitably fake blood, transparently ersatz makeup and FX, rudimentary cinematography, et cetera et cetera et cetera et cetera. (And in the midst of life we are in debt, et cetera.) Blows the doors off the insipid remake I panned a few weeks back, ably demonstrating the difference between a “bad” movie and the truly wretched.

WHY DID I WATCH THIS MOVIE?

Well, I watched the other one, didn’t I. You know, years back, I toiled at a mail-order company, the offbeat small-business-owner of which enjoyed visiting Lewis’s marketing website. He also enjoyed pointing out Lewis’s track record of proven “pull.”

SHOULD YOU WATCH THIS MOVIE?

It’s barely over an hour long!

HIGHLIGHT AND LOW POINT

It’s barely over an hou – yeah, just joshing, sorry. Scott H. Hall and Mal Arnold, as “police captain” and “Fuad Ramses,” respectively, suffice for shorthand. Hall is so terrible a thespian he shoulda been a “star” for Ed Wood, Jr., and Arnold is an expressionistic delight – the reductio ad absurdum of the Method. (And the sine qua non of any effort like this one.)

RATING FROM OUTER SPACE: B

Blood Feast (2016)

directed by marcel walz
gundo entertainment

This lousy endeavor became an endurance test of sorts, as I could hardly wait for it to finish taking up my valuable time with its lousy acting, unnatural dialogue, odd tempo and beginner’s camerawork. This insipid remake of the 1963 Herschell Gordon Lewis offering is proof positive that just because you have a camera and a script, it doesn’t mean you should make a movie. Possibly, parts of this “effort” were supposed to be funny, but I didn’t notice until it was almost over because nobody that appears in it can deliver a line. An odd lack of incidental music doesn’t help. And for a flick about a taboo subject like cannibalism, it’s really tame in its approach to gore and downright moralistic with its nudity. I began watching this by mistake; the bigger mistake was not stopping. Makes 1987’s Blood Diner – inspired by the same source material – look like a real movie. (Well, sorta.)

why did i watch this movie?

The synopsis was irresistibly farcical; I shoulda realized its progeniture. Maybe I could start paying attention to film releases.

should you watch this movie?

No. It’s awful.

highlight and low point

The highlight of this disaster came during the opening credits: “Sadie Katz as Ishtar.” Everything about this picture just seems a little off. The dialogue sounds as though the cast members are seeing it for the first time and never rehearsed together, the pacing is too sluggish, and not one actor is even reasonably convincing. The photography is laughable, the set design halfhearted and the color iffy. It is allegedly a professional production.

rating from outer space: d−

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986)

directed by tobe hooper
cannon films/golan-globus productions

Hey, a new competitor for worst movie on this site! For some reason turning one of the best and most impactful horror movies ever made into an extended bout of broadly drawn “humor,” aggravating characterizations, little plot and no point, TCM2 is a chore to endure. Insulting in its carelessness, this flick only could have been more of a cartoon had The Mystery Machine appeared. (Much of the action takes place in an abandoned amusement park, for crying out loud. Where were the Harlem Globetrotters and Phyllis Diller?) Leatherface – sorry, “Bubba” – is reminiscent of Fred Gwynne as Herman Munster, which is not a compliment, much as Bill Moseley’s horrible character seems to have presaged alleged funnyman Jim Carrey’s equally irritating “Fire Marshall Bill.” (And in actuality was a template for Michael Keaton’s Betelgeuse.) Meanwhile, Dennis Hopper spends the first half of the film not even pretending he gives half a damn and the second half hamming it up wildly. Mr. Hooper allegedly wanted to compensate for the audience’s not recognizing the black humor in the original, but this extremely stupid and classless farce raises the question whether his first attempt was just a happy accident. Also commits the sequel’s sin of reductionism while simultaneously destroying continuity – a hapless combination. And the FX suck, too. Excruciating and disgraceful.

why did i watch this movie?

I recently had heard and read positive mentions of it, for which those responsible should have to forfeit their eyesight.

should you watch this movie?

Nobody should watch this movie. This movie should never have been made.

highlight and low point

Highlight: it eventually, mercifully, ends. If you ignore its sequel or two and the three titles following the 2003 reboot.

Rating from outer space: F

you don’t say

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+

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

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

May (2002)

directed by lucky mckee
2 loop films

Now here we have a bona fide black comedy. This is a dark, dark picture, but it is laced throughout with unmistakable pathos, and the escalation of terrible miseries suffered by the eponymous character produces a kind of shell-shocked humor. Certainly, very little in this movie is funny per se, but it lurches enough toward the absurd to make it matter. It would be hard to definitively describe this as a horror film, but in all honesty, I’m not sure what else it could be called, either, given the internally logical extreme it eventually reaches. Carried not only by its madcap premise – May has trouble making friends, let’s say – but by the outstanding title performance from Angela Bettis, it’s an engaging accomplishment. Which is not to say it’s for everyone. In fact, a sequence or two in the latter half had me watching from between my fingers, and I seek out movies like this on purpose. But it manages to tug at the heartstrings in between blows to the head, and even the hokey (and ultimately predictable) final scene couldn’t besmirch it too much. I can see why this was a critical success.

why did i watch this movie?

I really, really liked McKee’s The Woman, and as mentioned just above, this flick got good press and sounded like my kinda thing.

should you watch this movie?

I would describe it as an emotional investment, but with that advisory, yeah, I recommend it.

highlight and low point

Several of the roles are performed impeccably, particularly May’s, and the more overtly funny moments are pretty damn good. (One of which is also among the sadder moments.) After the long, careful buildup, the decline and fall happens a little too quickly, but it’s easy enough to accept given the circumstances.

rating from outer space: a-

The Woman (2011)

directed by lucky mckee
modernciné

Okay. Well. The sequel to the previously discussed paragon of benevolence and good feelings Offspring, this lighthearted jest manages to outdo its predecessor in casting aspersions on the boundaries of human behavior. And that’s accomplished long before the revolting gore brightens things up. Starting its bleak portrayal of life in human society limning a few quirks and oddities, gradually revealing more depravity layer by layer and eventually producing complete incredulity, this movie is a skillful demonstration of how to achieve perfection in the art of shining a light on things your audience probably would have felt better never, ever seeing. A true sickie, horrible in almost every way by textbook definition.

why did i watch this movie?

I had been reading admiring takes of the strong responses this film provoked since shortly after its release.

should you watch this movie?

This celluloid entertainment is rife with distasteful orientations, taboo topics and inhumane actions. It is fairly  unflinching in its depictions, and occasionally seems as if it may be attempting to inject inappropriate touches of humor.

highlight and low point

Given what happens during the course of events in this picture, I am reluctant to endorse anything too enthusiastically lest I invite uncomfortable questions about my attitudes or opinions, but I will say I was impressed how the filmmakers handled their biggest obstacle – which is more or less the central focus, the captivity of the titular character in an outbuilding on a family’s rural estate. (Hint: this is how they lead us to a series of slowly dawning revelations.) The ending is a bit too pat, but after everything else that’s happened, it makes little difference. In a way, it even may underscore a certain sense of helplessness.

rating from outer space: a

Offspring (2009)

directed by andrew van den houten
modernciné

Like, wow, man. Like, I hadn’t even planned on watching this movie, but as I was about to start viewing The Woman, which I had contemplated doing for quite some time, I suddenly discovered it’s a sequel to this one, of which I had previously been unaware. And! Yikes. Allow me to take a moment here to offer an aside: Offspring novelist (and screenwriter) “Jack Ketchum” is a very, very effective purveyor of terribly unsettling material, and is in fact the author of the rare novel I did not finish because I found it too emotionally disruptive (The Girl Next Door). Nothing that occurs in this film is all that unprecedented in our filmic experience, but it is profoundly disturbing nonetheless. Ideals such as “fairness” and “justice” have no place in Ketchumland, and sometimes the action provokes a sense of outrage. It may, in some minds, border on the obscene. Anyway, this movie is about a clan of cannibals living a prehistoric tribal existence and preying on unsuspecting suburbanites. It also harbors a subplot of extreme marital discord and disharmony. Abandon all hope.

why did i watch this movie?

Turns out I had no choice, if I wanted to view The Woman properly.

should you watch this movie?

I usually enjoy material that lends itself to an inquiry into what it means to be human, and how that meaning may be modulated. That probably sounds like a good time to you as well.

highlight and low point

The audacity of the premise and execution of same doesn’t have many parallels. Here and there the envelope-pushing seems as though it could be merely for its own sake and probably unnecessary … but I must reiterate that it’s from the pen of Jack Ketchum.

rating from outer space: B+

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+