gothic melodrama

Rumah Dara aka Macabre aka Darah (2009)

/ billy peppers / Leave a comment
directed by the mo brothers
gorylah pictures/merah productions/guerilla visual movement/nation pictures/mediacorp raintree pictures

Good Lord. If you want blood, you’ve got it with this insane Indonesian production. I barely even know where to begin talking about this gonzoid picture, other than to say I’ve got a new entry on my list of favorites. The setup isn’t anything special – a group of friends gives a stranger a ride home, and she invites them in so her mother can thank them – but the direction is. Unrelenting, intense and horrific and bleak and sadistic, it only begins to let in a little air after it reaches a sort of tipping point later in the proceedings and inevitably skews toward the blackly humorous – likely because little other option existed. Be forewarned, however, that before that happens it’s little but a trip through a special hell, with something to appall just about everyone. A masterpiece of the sick and twisted little corner of the film world it inhabits, this one’s gonna stick around the old memory banks for a while.

why did i watch this movie?

When I was reading up on Kuntilanak, I noticed this title, as Julie Estelle stars in both.

should you watch this movie?

I enthusiastically encourage everyone to watch this movie immediately. You will, however, need a strong stomach and an unhealthy appetite for, yes, the macabre.

highlight and low point

Shareefa Daanish and Arifin Putra are ridiculously evil as Dara and Adam, respectively, but picking my favorite aspects of this flick would entail a really long list. So I guess I’ll just say PROJECT: IMMORTAL SNAKE and leave it at that, unless you’d like me to laud the superlative chainsaw usage. The biggest drawback I can think of offhand is that I found myself wondering when I last saw such an excessively blood-soaked celluloid marvel. Dead Alive, maybe.

rating from outer space: a

House on Haunted Hill (1959)

/ billy peppers / Leave a comment
directed by william castle
william castle productions

The second horror feature from prolific B-movie factor-turned-producer Wm. Castle, this flick may well serve as the template for Scooby-Doo’s many eerie mysteries. It’s also a clear precursor of Clue. Not only is at least one line lifted nearly verbatim nearly 30 years later in that farce, the House in question harbors secret passages, guns and ropes, people who have “never met,” the whole nine yards. Vincent Price may not be quite as over-the-top as Tim Curry, but nobody else acts as poorly as Lee Ving, either, so call that a wash. Anyway, this film concerns a group of people who have to survive the night in a HAUNTED HOUSE for some sort of payoff, a now-familiar setup. Released the same year as the publication of the Shirley Jackson story “The Haunting of Hill House,” House on Haunted Hill predated The Haunting – which was based on the story – by four years, which isn’t confusing at all. Truth be told, this picture was a lot better than I expected it to be, even with its red … herrings and some impossibly goofy scenarios and characters. It holds a few legitimate frights, too, and more than enough implausible moments to satisfy anybody.

looks a bit different than in the poster, this house

why did i watch this movie?

I was informed I had to make up for the Vincent Price gap in my viewing, and I’ve been intrigued by Castle’s huckstering since reading S. King’s Danse Macabre in, like, 1983. PLUS, it’s a song by the Didjits from their worst album.

should you watch this movie?

At 75 minutes, it won’t take up much of your time – and you can watch the whole shebang on its Wikipedia page.

highlight and low point

The basement of the house contains an easily accessible pit filled with acid – perfect for dissolving bodies – which seems farfetched.

rating from outer space: b−

The Wolf Man (1941)

/ billy peppers / Leave a comment
directed by George waggner
universal pictures company inc.

Not only is this movie not frightening in the least, this reviewer has no idea how or why it has been lauded through the decades as even a competent endeavor, much less an estimable one. Did I say “not frightening”? It’s completely ridiculous, helped in no way by the laughable attempt at dramatics presented by Lon Chaney, Jr. Let me emphasize the generational suffix; this is not the lauded “Man of a Thousand Faces,” it’s his son, who benefits from this picture’s dime-store makeup disguising his general inability to act naturally. Also not helping: the entire film is very obviously shot on the studio lot. Additionally, it’s dismaying to be treated to no shots of Larry Talbot’s transformations. (Those scenes take place in the various sequels.) A “B” picture through and through, presented such that even the underlying existential crisis isn’t at all provocative.

why did i watch this movie?

The Wolf Man is number eight in Johnny Ramone’s top 10.

should you watch this movie?

When we were small children, my older brother and I played with this ancient “Monster” Old Maid set

Milton Bradley, 1964

and I always gravitated toward the Wolf Man card.

(This one)

(Not this one)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you feel similar nostalgic twinges, I wonder. Maybe you’re a budding film historian. Or a Ramones fan.

highlight and low point

The sets are admittedly impressive. Indeed, it’s hard for me to conceive of how much work and preparation went into this two-month shoot, especially when the script itself is so slipshod. For a running time of barely an hour and 10 minutes, certain lines of dialogue are repeated an astonishing number of times. Endearing touches include some of the el cheapo effects and sly, sardonic details bordering on the self-referential, such as this one:

(click to enlarge)

rating from outer space: D+

Seizure aka Queen of Evil (1974)

/ billy peppers / Leave a comment
directed by oliver stone
cine films inc./euro-american pictures/intercontinental leisure industries ltd./queen of evil ltd. partnership

This audacious piece of humbuggery is the directorial debut of one Oliver Stone, who you may remember from such critically acclaimed films as Salvador and Platoon, or from creating proto-memes in the ’80s with Wall Street, or for his radical-chic flashback Born on the Fourth of July, or from such widely derided slop as The Doors, or from putting you to sleep with Heaven & Earth, or for his meta provocateur turn in Natural Born Killers, or for the overcooked pastiche of U Turn, and so on and so on and SO on, and no, I haven’t bothered with one of his interpretations or obsessions in a long time. Well, get this – right from the jump Ollie wanted you to know all about the creative process. This is actual dialogue:

Author: You really believe in God.
Distinguished friend: I believe in myself, Edmund. Therefore, I have faith … in Him.

Anyway, the Queen of Evil – Kali, it’s theorized – shows up at the writer’s house while he’s having a party, with her henchmen Jackal and Spider, the latter of which is played by Hervé Villechaize, and none of whom may exist. OR DO THEY. Chaos, intrigue, etc., ensues. The picture concludes with a threefold twist ending. Maybe fourfold, who can tell.

why did i watch this movie?

I had no idea such phantasmagoria was Mr. Stone’s entry into the world of directing.

should you watch this movie?

It’s ludicrous enough.

highlight and low point

The Queen of Evil is portrayed with a deliciously arch sangfroid and Stone’s latencies amuse, but you can’t top Villechaize being credited with the still photography for this production in addition to his onscreen role. Also hard to top: how very silly this all is.

rating from outer space: C+

Possum (2018)

/ billy peppers / Leave a comment
directed by matthew holness
The FYZZ Facility/british film institute

About as bleak and humorless a film as you’d prefer to imagine, this trudge through the disordered mind of a miserable and tormented middle-aged Britisher will definitely affect you. I’m not much of an abstract thinker and I don’t do too well with symbolism unless it’s really obvious, but even if you’re similarly ill-inclined, that shouldn’t get in the way of your following what this picture is on about. Now, I occasionally bemoan productions in these pages for not being “scary,” which of course does a disservice to a great many movies made in differing horror styles, being far too reductive a criterion. This is a good old-fashioned horror, in that what’s so bothersome about it all comes from within – and I don’t mean viscera. It’s all inside this guy’s head, as it will be in yours. The flicks from the UK I’ve seen all seemingly have that heavily psychological bent, and it works just about every time.

why did i watch this movie?

It, uh, sounded good: “a disgraced children’s puppeteer is forced to confront the secrets,” etc. I like the tendencies in British films of this ilk, where it’s always gloomy.

should you watch this movie?

If you can relate to the journey to the end of the night, surely.

highlight and low point

As this film has minimal personnel, the acting had better be good, and it is. Sean Harris is frankly magnificent as Philip, his mental anguish playing itself out not only on his wretched visage but in his increasingly constrained carriage and the abnormal movements of his limbs. The skillful deployment of the film’s major prop, which is displayed on the poster, is also a major asset. At times I found some of the circular action a bit nettlesome, if cavil I must.  Oh, and the sound design is excellent.

rating from outer space: a−

Freaks (1932)

/ billy peppers / Leave a comment
directed by tod browning
Metro-goldwyn-mayer

Disjointed as hell due to excessive editing undertaken in a doomed effort to make a disturbing revenge picture even somewhat palatable to a viewing public it never found, this disastrous flop remains one of Hollywood’s most ill-advised creations – for any number of reasons, not limited to how it may make its audience feel. One can only imagine how appalling the excised material must have been, and marvel as to the effect it could have added to a production that remains troubling after nearly a century. The decision to cast real circus sideshow performers was perhaps an inevitability, but the majority of them aren’t film actors and can’t much pretend to be. Saddest, though, is probably the loss of the chance to really experience the capacity for a full range of emotional responses from these morbidly maligned people, as only glimpses remain. As it is, 60-odd minutes doesn’t give anything of real resonance a real chance to coalesce, and what we’re left with often plays like a soap opera interspersed with sitcom skits. How this one ever got the green light remains a question to ponder.

why did i watch this movie?

It’s number nine on Johnny Ramone’s list, which shouldn’t be much of a surprise as it was a huge influence on his band. They identified, but that story’s been told elsewhere. (Marky’s Punk Rock Blitzkrieg might tell it best.)

should you watch this movie?

If the original print existed, I might say yes. But it doesn’t.

highlight and low point

The scene that most inspired the Ramones – the “One of us! One of us!” wedding dinner – remains a powerful and chilling experience. Those that seem to exist for comic relief at the expense of one or more of the title freaks are unfortunate.

rating from outer space: {   }

Psycho (1960)

/ billy peppers / Leave a comment
directed by alfred hitchcock
shamley productions

I’m sure it’s been noted before, but the attention to detail in this movie astounded me, such as the scene wherein Arbogast is looking for clues to Marion’s disappearance in the Bates Motel’s office parlor – where Norman is displaying his stuffed birds – and the bookshelf behind him holds a full set of books entitled The Art of Taxidermy. So it’s a bit surprising, I guess, that certain other important factors seem so transparent, or even dishonest. Of course, that’s nitpicking, and anyone who doesn’t think this is a high-quality cinematic achievement … probably doesn’t care for noir films or suspense, or pulp fiction. Hitchcock himself must have thought he had a goldmine here, however, as he went ahead and made it despite Paramount’s objections and refusal to budget it appropriately. That worked out all right.

why did i watch this movie?

Noted horror film aficionado and memorabilia collector Johnny Ramone designated Psycho no. 10 in his personal Top 10 in the appendices to his posthumous autobiography Commando. Since the Ramones rank in my personal Rock Band Top 10, and I am a fan of these dumb films anyway, it seemed only right and natural to compare and contrast.

should you watch this movie?

Haven’t you seen it?

highlight and low point

I’ll pick two scenes to exemplify these extremes. The first is the scene where Arbogast is cagily picking his way through Norman’s story that no one’s been to the motel for a while. Anthony Perkins does a tremendous job stumbling over his lies and attempts to dissemble. The other is the terrible, terrible penultimate scene in which the psychiatrist explains the whole thing … and explains it, and explains it, and EXPLAINS it, sucking out a little more of the film’s mystique with every florid sentence. What. A. Drag.

Rating from outer space: B+

kids: don’t do drugs
(click to enlarge)

Atração Satânica aka Satanic Attraction (1989)

/ billy peppers / Leave a comment
directed by fauzi mansur
j. davila enterprises

This picture straight from the Brazilian scrapheap is almost completely incoherent. With less than 15 minutes left, the chief of police exclaims – and not for the first time – “but none of this makes any sense!” He is correct. “Satanic Attraction” rivals Maya with its puzzles about who some characters are and what exactly their role is. (Unlike that headscratcher, however, this one isn’t any fun.) Is that a police boat? Why is the heavily pregnant Reporter always wearing a bikini top? Wait, did they just forget that character’s identity? Who is that guy, and what in the hell is he doing here? Possibly the drollest element of this nonsense is its radio-show narration, part of the convoluted sense of SOCIETAL TERROR and OFFICIAL OUTRAGE that you won’t buy for even a minute. But most amusing is that this picture was filmed in Portuguese in Brazil, and the version I watched was dubbed in English but subtitled in … Portuguese. Which doesn’t appear to agree directly with the dubbed dialogue. Which per the usual doesn’t equal the “drama.”

why did i watch this movie?

Well, I WANTED to watch a different Brazilian picture, Shock, but apparently no subtitles for that one exist. This hot mess was suggested as a fill-in, and rightly so.

should you watch this movie?

I know there’s a lot of fans of bad, bad movies out there … maybe you’re one of them.

highlight and low point

The “police work” in this film is really something. This may be excusable, as the victims’ bodies are never anywhere to be found – though somehow the victims are still identified as such. One such casualty, who naturally is taking a bubble bath, fails to realize that a razor blade has been embedded in her bar of soap.

rating from outer space: D

 

The Nun (2018)

/ billy peppers / Leave a comment
directed by corin hardy
atomic monster/the safran company/new line cinema

Have you ever had to shoot a burning demon nun? Yeah, me neither. I know, I know, “the unexamined life” and all that, but I’m all right with missing out on that experience. Now, I rarely get overexcited about seeing some new scary movie or another, even though I obviously devote a lot of my time to watching the damn things and then divulging the experience here, but I found the promos for this one very compelling – and that was before I realized it was related to The Conjuring. So how critical would I be, I wondered. Well, I can tell you this flick is not perfect. At times, it pushes the boundaries of acceptable hocus-pocus, even as the script concerns a malevolent spirit inhabiting a Romanian cloister and the novitiate who must do battle with said evil entity. The subtleties are nearly sublime, however, and the masterful underplaying of some key frights is a definite plus. Unfortunately, at a certain point things go overboard, as if the writers felt compelled to add every last malefice they could imagine. Probably they could’ve saved some for the sequel. A lot of very strong imagery is propounded here, and pretty impressive levels of blasphemy, too.

 

why did i watch this movie?

I enjoyed both The Conjuring and The Conjuring 2, so much so that I also saw Annabelle. Plus, demon nun.

should you watch this movie?

Honestly? It’s not essential. It is a good time, though.

highlight and low point

This won’t sound promising, but the opening sequence was tremendous; other than that, a few of the more ominous scenes involving the residents of the abbey were the best this film had to offer.

 

 

 

The overkill mentioned above threatens at times to turn the proceedings into an action film.

rating from outer space: C+

Satan’s Slave aka Evil Heritage (1976)

/ billy peppers / Leave a comment
directed by norman j. warren
crown international pictures/monumental pictures limited

Oh, Satan’s Slave, where have you been all my life? Sure, I’ve recently watched a movie with that very title, as well as one dubbed “Satan’s Slaves,” but as I accidentally stumbled into the oft-overlooked category of British exploitation horror, I finally found the REAL DEAL. All right, actually, for about the first hour this burlesque is akin to a rambling and mundane country-house tragicomedy of (ill) manners, spruced up here and there with wildly graphic, explicit inserts of sex and murder, and murderous sex, and sexual murder – allegedly for profitable rerelease in the Asian market, which I am unsure ever actually occurred. (Similary, Crown Int’l Pix ostensibly was responsible for this film’s domestic theatrical run, with the secondary title, though the version I watched retained the original handle.) Such chicanery lends itself to rather glaring differences in film stock, exposure and so forth in some of the edits. At one point, too, the action appears to advance ahead of our understanding for a few moments, as though we’ve missed something. But hoo boy, once Frances the secretary reveals the sinister plot, it gets real good real fast. The SHOCKING twists that comprise the ending follow one another in rapid succession and all the tawdry, lusty mania comes to fruition as the diabolical cult approaches its goal. Highly recommended!

why did i watch this movie?

We have now learned that if it’s titled “Satan’s Slave,” your man Peppers is interested.

should you watch this movie?

(click to enlarge)

Why WOULDN’T you.

highlight and low point

Yeah, OK, this is a dour and unlovely flick, I’ll grant you that, and I reckon some of the more gratuitous and arguably extraneous scenes are worthy of scorn and/or derision, but it’s the little things, you know?

rating from outer space: B