Kuntilanak aka The Chanting (2006)

directed by rizal mantovani
mvp pictures

Basically the equivalent of the wave of American teen-idol horror flicks from the ’90s – except that it would have garnered a PG-13 rating – this Indonesian production features a 17-year-old female lead playing opposite an MTV VJ/pop singer. It’s a fairly typical ghost story, this time based on Malay folklore, involving a female entity whose spirit lives in a tree (in the cemetery next to the boarding house, natch) and is summoned into this world by the intonation of durma, a form of traditional Javanese song poem. In this particular case, the Kuntilanak enters our realm via antique mirrors. An occasional barely seen twitch might startle you, and the first couple times the ghastly spirit enters (or exits, I guess) from the mirror are pretty effective, but in the end, this picture is middling at best. It spawned two sequels, because of course it did, and a 2018 reboot – all from the same director, which may be a new world record.

why did i watch this movie?

I came across this title while reading up on cultural influences in the other Indonesian films I’ve watched recently, and figured I may as well take in another one.

should you watch this movie?

Plenty of others are better.

highlight and low point

The fact that the conduit for the dangerous spirit becomes its summoner through no fault of her own is a nice touch, and subtle comical moments here and there (and some not so subtle) help keep things grounded. Little tension is involved in the resolution of what should be a major conflict, however, and the not altogether surprising ending doesn’t carry quite enough weight, either.

rating from outer space: c−

Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation (1997) aka The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1994)

directed by kim henkel
ultra muchos, inc./river city films, inc.

All right, so retconning this flick to be the sort-of “sequel” to the 1974 original makes sense. It’s at least half great: the first 45 minutes of this black horror comedy work well as a pastiche of the first go-round, with the added amusement of more modern horror motifs … which are basically updates of the original’s template anyway. Both unsettling and darkly humorous – much as the debut was meant to be, and Part 2 purported to have been – first-and-only-time director Henkel outdoes his former writing and production partner Tobe Hooper’s juvenile second chapter with a bit more sophistication. The latter half of the picture, meanwhile, spirals wildly out of control, plot-, production- and performance-wise. Becoming kind of a mashup of The Rocky Horror Picture Show and The X-Files, with a passel of other film references tossed in haphazardly, it retains a tinge of the on-edge emotion of the original. It lacks in the hazy, disturbed intensity, of course, and also for any slaughtering on behalf of whoever these people are and however they’re allegedly related to the clan this time around. Oh, and this time around, Leatherface is a cross-dressing (wo)manchild.

why did i watch this movie?

Gawd, I made it this far, I had to.

should you watch this movie?

C’mon, now.

highlight and low point

Once again, there isn’t any real reason “Leatherface” even needs to be in this movie, especially as he doesn’t do much of anything except throw an extended hissy fit. And he’s the only plausible link to the first film! (Well, okay, Bernie Lomax Grandpa’s at the table, too.) Strange continuity note: In Leatherface, the generic third installment, “Bubba” has an unexplained leg brace, and in this picture, Matthew McConaughey’s character has a remote-operated battery-powered lower appendage. Yep.

rating from outer space: B

Don’t Go in the House (1979)

directed by joseph ellison
turbine films

Well now, THIS is an unpleasant little flick. I mean, nothing in this picture is going to make a viewer feel very good, unless that viewer has got some serious issues. A few things may make the viewer laugh, sure, but this is a movie that is based around psychological problems brought about by severe child abuse, which it is suggested is itself a manifestation of psychological and/or emotional disability, and which itself is manifested in cruel, ugly, sadistic, misogynistic murder. (If you doubt that description, it involves a special room clad in stainless steel.) Oh, and extreme social dysfunction is added in just for kicks. On the upside, it’s got a disco theme underlying everything, and hallucinated ambulant corpses. Effectively dismal, better than I expected, and a reminder of how much I generally seem to enjoy films from this hopeless and beaten-down time period.

why did i watch this movie?

As a viewer with some serious issues, this is my kind of picture.

should you watch this movie?

If you’re any kind of fan of exploitation flicks, grindhouse features, movies from the late seventies, or psychological problems, absolutely. This is one of the sorts of cinematic spectacles being aped stylistically by contemporary productions such as The House of the Devil or, I dunno, We Are Still Here, maybe.

highlight and low point

Personally, I enjoyed the mostly fruitless efforts co-worker Bobby makes to try to befriend the murderous lunatic, as I thought Donny the murderous lunatic’s social awkwardness was portrayed brilliantly. In fact, I generally enjoyed Bobby’s presence throughout the proceedings, though I remain baffled by the fact that when he believes Donny is in danger, he fetches local parson Father Gerrity and not, you know, the police.

rating from outer space: a−

Bonus track: “Boogie Lightning.”

 

 

 

Mortuary (1983)

directed by howard avedis
hickmar productions, inc.

I’m going to reference it again, so let’s just go ahead with a shout-out to Hanna-Barbera: They knew what they were doing when they produced Scooby-Doo, Where Are You? You see, when viewing productions such as this somewhat lethargic attempt at a murder mystery, tropes commonplace to those cartoons continually arise. Here, dashes of occult nonsense and some bitchin’ early ’80s Southern Cal touches are added to the template. A scare or two possibly may be found somewhere in this tale of (ominous pause) madness, but you’ll most likely be too busy laughing at some of the affectations – or more probably starting to doze off as the plot chugs along repetitiously. It could have worked, I suppose, but there just isn’t a whole lot to work with, to its detriment. Oh – hackneyed freeze-frame “surprise” at the ending. Woo-hoo.

why did i watch this movie?

As I’ve mentioned before, I have this fixation on trying to find movies featuring people who have to spend the night in tombs, sepulchres, crypts and so forth. This is NOT such a movie, as I may have entirely imagined the category, but I couldn’t pass on it anyway.

should you watch this movie?

It does not feature anyone trying to spend the night at any sort of gravesite.

It’s also not very interesting.

highlight and low point

Early in the proceedings, the two leads go to a roller rink (check the year of release) with the enticing name of “Skating Plus.” FUN FACT: A “Skating Plus” currently operates in Ventura, but has only been open since 1984 so it cannot be the same venue. Speaking of the early ’80s, it’s never a good sign when the end credits of a movie give “1981” as its provenance though it didn’t see release until March of ’83.

rating from outer space: D+

proper tool storage

Let Us Prey (2014)

DIRECTED BY BRIAN o’MALLEY
fantastic films/makar productions/greenhouse media investments/mr. significant films/creative scotland/bord scannÁn na hÉireann (irish film board)

No, Marsha, I did NOT expect that I would be watching a morality play when I dialed up this Scottish/Irish co-production set mainly in a single location, that being a police station or whatever the hell they call it in their peculiar dialect over on the Auld Sod, distinctions further muddled by their brogue so that occasional lines of dialogue flew right past these bewildered and dB-damaged American ears. A morality play this is, however, about the souls of the guilty being claimed by You Know, in this case with the able yet hitherto unsuspecting assistance of a human female, played by The Woman herself, Pollyanna McIntosh. Prey starts out weird and goes completely off the deep end, along the way calling to mind such other amusements as Ash vs. Evil Dead; Willem Dafoe as Sgt. Elias in Platoon crossed with Bobby Peru in Wild at Heart; The Canal (another Irish horror of the same vintage); and maybe an Australian or Kiwi film or two. If I can find any real complaint with this occasionally heavy-handed entertainment, it’s often a little too theatrical. The “morality play” identification is apt in multiple senses.

WHY did i watch this movie?

I found it while looking for something else and thought it sounded interesting, especially as I rather enjoyed the aforementioned Irish picture.

should you watch this movie?

If you do, see how many other films it conjures up for you, and we’ll compare.

highlight and low point

Escalating audaciously, the deliberately paced reveals of the various skeletons stashed in the characters’ closets match nicely with each’s slowly dawning realization of his or her predicament. One negative is the above-noted lack of verisimilitude; the action never surpasses masquerade.

rating from outer space: b−

Curtains (1983)

DIRECTED BY “JONATHAN STRYKER”
SIMCOM/JENSEN FARLEY PICTURES, INC./CURTAINS PRODUCTIONS, INC.

Actually directed by Alan Smithee cinematographer Richard Ciupka, this portentous Canadian romp isn’t dull, as it contains enough quirks to amuse viewers while they’re wondering who’s doing all the killing. It is a bit more restrained – or sedate, both being apropos with the mental health subcontext – than one may anticipate when perusing the plotline: six female actors (or two actors, a comedian, a musician or perhaps model, a dancer and an … ice skater) are summoned to a remote, sprawling manor to audition for a plum role at the behest of a paternalistic, prurient director named – could you believe – Jonathan Stryker, smugly played by John Vernon as an overblown, imperious caricature. Exactly why this desirable role is up for grabs is more or less the driving force behind the inscrutable developments, the explanation of which dovetails nicely with the poignant conclusion. More of an old-fashioned drawing room mystery than a contemporary ’80s slasher, even if it retains many stylistic elements of the latter. All told, it presents (to me, anyway) an etymological quandary: Screwball, or “oddball”?

WHY DID I WATCH THIS MOVIE?

Wow, have I watched a lotta Canuck films lately.

SHOULD YOU WATCH THIS MOVIE?

Somewhat uneven and a bit of a farce (by design, that is, not through ineptitude per se), it would most likely be a change of pace.

HIGHLIGHT AND LOW POINT

The blasé manner with which one of the characters presents her misdeeds is fetching, and the discontinuous structure is noteworthy, as it randomly presents what appear to be two solo performance scenes, but I wasn’t kidding about the ending … and there’s the downside. Troubled throughout its production, the core of a really splendid achievement instead lies strewn about the remnants of its shell.

RATING FROM OUTER SPACE: B−

 

Halloween (2018)

DIRECTED BY DAVID GORDON GREEN
BLUMHOUSE PRODUCTIONS/MIRAMAX/TRANCAS INTERNATIONAL FILMS/ROUGH HOUSE PICTURES/UNIVERSAL

Okay, look, I don’t particularly care that they’ve rejiggered the canon so this is the “sequel” to the 1978 original; it may as well be considered the true successor to Rob Zombie’s 2007 reboot for as much cachet as that accords it. “Michael Myers” or no, it could be any Blumhouse production – and I say that as a person who generally feels the Blumhouse horror stamp implies a certain level of competence and quality control. Now, don’t get me wrong; the picture works. Tension is admirably built, at times prickly and palpable, and Myers is certainly intimidating (although verging a tad too much toward Voorhees, in my opinion). I enjoyed it, but as happens all too often, a day later after (too) much contemplation, too much seems too generic, or too forced, to be too satisfying. Worthy of the handle – considering what’s been trundled under the “Halloween” banner through the decades – but ultimately not worthwhile.

WHY DID I WATCH THIS MOVIE?

Maybe I sought “closure.”

SHOULD YOU WATCH THIS MOVIE?

You can make it a game! Watch the original, then this one, and then watch this one after watching the Zombie version. Which works better? Or you could compare this one to Halloween H20: Twenty Years Later! Remember that one! It was supposedly a direct sequel to Halloween II !

HIGHLIGHT AND LOW POINT

In one scene, a teen babysitter idly views one of the greatest films ever made:

(If you cannot identify that film, what’s your problem, anyway?)

The ending is bosh, and not to encroach on the NOW PLAYING, but the setup enabling that ending really detracted from the overall experience, being unnervingly similar to themes in other films I’ve recently watched. (And which were recently made.)

RATING FROM OUTER SPACE: C

Evilspeak (1981)

directed by eric weston
leisure investment company/coronet film corporation

The rare film with Clint Howard in the lead role, this ridiculous affair resurrects Satan in the guise of “[Father] Estaban” via the use of an Apple III, which in all honestly is fairly prescient, given everything that’s transpired since the rise of the personal computer. (I do not know whether medieval texts have also been involved, as they are in this movie.) Set in a military academy, which oddly enough appears to be affiliated with a religious order, and in orientation not unlike contemporary teen romps such as Meatballs or Porky’s (or Sleepaway Camp, for that matter), this picture is way more entertaining and enjoyable than should have been possible. A major factor in this phenomenon may be Howard’s general ineptitude. Also inept: the terrible editing during the second half of this picture.

why did i watch this movie?

A movie made right around the time that home computing and video game systems were becoming a big deal, using that cultural moment to evoke SATAN, was too inviting to ignore.

should you watch this movie?

It’s utterly ludicrous, so of course you should.

highlight and low point

As an alumnus of a private school for boys, I thought the characterization of Howard’s character Coopersmith’s bullying was spot-on, as throughout the entirety of the action he’s referred to as “Cooperdick.” Too, the incredible computer grafx were quite the visual treat. The cop-out ending was perfectly indicative of its era, as was the absolutely unnecessary nude shower scene featuring the buxom secretary.

rating from outer space: B

now you know

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