Fright (1971)

directed by peter collinson
fantale films ltd.

This title might seem a misnomer, as this mild-mannered British production does not provide its audience much in the way of chills or thrills. For characters in the movie, I suppose the moniker may be more apt, but many of the emotions on display are too restrained for such easy classification. Some anger is displayed, sure, and the young lass played by Susan George spends much of her screen time FREAKING OUT – her mewling, whimpering, sobbing, puling and so forth obscuring her Saxon patois till it’s all but incomprehensible at times – but all this really accomplishes is to annoy the living hell out of certain viewers, such as this one. This film actually is more or less a rumination on various mental states, and does not convey the sensation one reasonably might expect. It does, however, contain a few oddities. The police are depicted as almost comically inutile, seemingly by design, and a thought-provoking sequence involves one of them getting “the gun” out of its secure locked storage. Cultural differences! In addition, one of the characters is a toddler who seems sedated throughout much of his screen time.  Overall, the picture feels rather disjointed and haphazard.

why did i watch this movie?

I was scouring lists of pix I’d considered and could remember nothing about this one. I looked it up and thought, oh why not, 1971.

should you watch this movie?

Unless you want to catch an eyeful of some early ’70s ladies’ fashions, there’s no real reason to do that.

highlight and low point

The outmoded attitudes towards any variety of ideas or concepts, including but not limited to mental illness and a woman’s capability and/or agency, provide some food for thought. The ending is spectacularly unsupportable.

rating from outer space: d+

Blood Relations (1988)

directed by graeme campbell
sc entertainment

For the majority of its 90 minutes or so, this is more of a sex farce than a horror movie. Indeed, at times it reminded me of such bygone classics as Clue, as well as such bygone duds as the Sly Stallone vehicle Oscar. Numerous suspicious or threatening characters abound and … actually, all of the characters are suspicious, as it becomes increasingly more unclear who is trying to kill whom, or why. At long length, it does eventually swing into scary movie mode, but its overweening hucksterism is never superseded. It’s possible this film slipped through the cracks because it has a few moments that are too gory for what is essentially a noirish comedy of manners. As is often the case with such madcap romps, the story doesn’t wind up making a whole lot of sense, either.

why did i watch this movie?

I was under the misguided impression that it was a horror movie, with a larger cast of characters and a little more action amid the intrigue. I did have my doubts.

should you watch this movie?

Although normally I wouldn’t factor in such a consideration, I would say that this kind of film has seen its day, and revisiting it isn’t very edifying. It plays almost like a parody of a Universal picture, with a Vincent Price vibe. This could have been intentional, I suppose.

highlight and low point

The proper atmosphere is concocted and maintained throughout and the performers chew their scenery with aplomb. Unfortunately, the script lets them down, meandering redundantly to the SHOCKING conclusion, which cannot properly succeed in a setting wherein nobody is to be trusted and no one is likable.

rating from outer space: c-

Next of Kin (1982)

directed by tony williams
filmco limited/sis/the film house

Here’s a rarity for this list: a good movie. Actually good, that is, not “good for a horror movie,” not “good” (scare quotes) – a film that’s well-written, well-acted, well-directed … how the hell did this happen? I feel cheated. Not quite the supernatural assault suggested by the promotional artwork, this Australian feature is a rather more subtle affair centering around strange goings-on in the retirement home the main character has inherited following her mother’s death. These eldritch occurrences seem to have been foreshadowed by similar happenings related in her mother’s diary decades earlier. Are things not what they seem? How DO things seem? WHO can one trust, et cetera. This picture appears never to have had a domestic theatrical release, and the fine lead actress appears never to have had a further career. An understated, somewhat ethereal affair, its scares and the tension it creates are earned by never overplaying its hand and always retaining some rooting in reality. As I said, it’s a good one.

why did i watch this movie?

I actually passed on checking this one out several times, as the cover art and the vague synopsis seemed to portend more of a demonic, FX-laden tale than interested me. Obviously, this resistance crumbled.

should you watch this movie?

It’s not going to scare you out of your wits or anything, but it carries itself with and merits considerably more gravitas than your typical horror.

highlight and low point

The attention to qualities often underserved or overlooked in horror cinema, niceties such as plot, character development, writing and direction, elevates this drama over many of its fellow travelers. A fairly significant clue to the outcome is given away during the opening moments, and the accents occasionally make dialogue a bit difficult for American ears. (Mine, anyway.)

rating from outer space: a-

Alice, Sweet Alice aka Communion aka Holy Terror (1976)

directed by alfred sole
harristown funding/allied artists

This is a weird one, the kind of movie they really don’t make anymore. Kind of an American giallo, it also pays homage in a way to Don’t Look Back by Nicolas Roeg, complete with the signature rain slicker. (I have never seen Don’t Look Back, but am well aware of its tropes.) A familial study in more than one way – WHAT is her sister’s problem? WHERE is daddy? – the fun really begins when Brooke Shields is murdered during her First Holy Communion (oh, all right, the character she plays is). So what’s up with that priest, anyway? The SHOCKING reveal in this one mostly works, especially because at least one important ambiguity remains unexplained; also, some of the criminal acts in the film seem to arise mainly from malevolence or ill nature, not particularly to further serve the plot. There’s even a John Waters aspect to parts of this feature. Creepy and effective.

why did i watch this movie?

You know, I’m not entirely certain. I had come across the name several times while reading horror film histories, I know that. (“Alice, Sweet Alice,” that is, neither of the other two.)

should you watch this movie?

It’s a bit dated, to be sure, and I wouldn’t necessarily put it at the top of the “To See” list, but it is worth viewing.

highlight and low point

The varied acting performances on display are all well-accomplished, although more than one character occasionally seems too broadly drawn. The Roman Catholic focus may also throw some.

rating from outer space: B

Nightmare In Blood (1978)

directed by john stanley
xeromega

Purportedly a “horror comedy,” this offering could’ve used more of either, or both. Readymade for the bygone era of the “prize movie” – or Elvira, Mistress of the Night – Nightmare mostly plays it low-key, and is made with enough panache to avoid becoming fodder for MST3K types (or RiffTrax, if we wanna be up-to-date). The major problem it has is it doesn’t offer enough scares OR laughs for either aspect to become clear; it is also held back by its limited scope. The premise – famous vampire actor is marquee guest at horror convention, and actual vampire – probably works better if expanded beyond a focus on the same small set of characters. It may have been more effective in its own era, albeit merely with cult appeal – and turns out the writer/director, John Stanley, hosted a late-nite television program called Creature Features for eight years. Well, whaddya know.

why did i watch this movie?

Another unfamiliar title, its premise held promise … though I was unaware of its aim.

should you watch this movie?

If you have fond memories of watching B-movie scares on late-nite TV, or classic horrors during lazy weekend afternoon showcases, yes, by all means. I’d also be interested in hearing how it works or doesn’t when the intentions are clear beforehand.

highlight and low point

Some of the characters and scenarios are pretty amusing – the owner of the comics shop and the talkshow debate about whether horror movies are pernicious, for two examples – but too often the line between deft hommage and inept bungling is unclear. Much could well pass for unintentional humor. Is this a terrible movie, I found myself wondering, or a knowingly winking one?

rating from outer space: c+

The Redeemer: Son of Satan aka Class Reunion Massacre (1978)

directed by constantine s. gochis
enterprise pictures limited

If you try, you can find the claim that this chunk of tripe was a precursor to the slasher craze or some such nonsense. What it IS is a convoluted bit of inanity that doesn’t make much sense and doesn’t really bother to try.

  1. There’s no “class reunion” as such, and it would be a stretch to call what occurs a “massacre”
  2. I don’t recall “Satan” being involved in any way
  3. Whatever “redeeming” may be in the offing is rendered somewhat inconsequential by the fact that what is happening is incomprehensible

The action comprises mainly contrived murders of characters that are sometimes difficult to identify, their relation to the story arc uncertain. Mix in a flashback here and there, intercut with a doomsday preacher, and so on and so on. Oh, and do NOT forget the supernatural (diabolical?) element. Precursor to the rise of the Slasher, or imitation giallo – your call!

why did i watch this movie?

I was expecting a class reunion massacre, perhaps with a twisted psychotic and some ’70s flair. Plus, I had never heard of it and it had an alluring title.

should you watch this movie?

If you are interested in tracing the process by which too many concepts can be combined into a movie that is both dull and silly, then I suppose so, yes.

Highlight and low point

The second or third murder (the first or second pertaining to the “reunion”) is thrillingly absurd in method or manner of death; the fact that I was not sure which character was being killed was a bonus. The last of the pertinent murders is almost equally absurd, but the identity of the character suffering it is not in question.

rating from outer space: D

Unhinged (1982)

produced and directed by don gronquist
megastar films

Ya know, I could swear I saw a capsule review of this one that claimed it was at LEAST as good as Halloween, a true forgotten classic of the genre and … yeah, no. Not really. Kinda dating itself in that not a whole lot of action takes place – killings or anything else – Unhinged is mostly an atmospheric study of some creepy people in an old house in the middle of nowhere, where three young women wind up secluded after a suspicious auto accident. (At least, I gather it was to be perceived as suspicious, in the fine cinematic tradition, but I couldn’t actually tell what caused it.) The SHOCKING TWIST ending in this one is not all that shocking, and neither is it all that plausible, even for a movie of this sort. This information probably should not come as any sort of surprise to you.

why did i watch this movie?

In what may become a noticeable pattern, I was quite taken by the title, and further investigation – reviews such as the one mentioned above, a few still shots – made it sound a lot more interesting than it proved to be.

should you watch this movie?

It is most likely that you could find a better use of your time, even if only to check out a better movie of this ilk.

highlight and low point

It’s always fun when a picture apparently forgets a character along the way, and it is likewise often aggravating when one seems to hint at an intricate web of hidden secrets when there may, in fact, be no such thing. Could be I’m reading too much into minor points that only exist to flesh out the running time.

rating from outer space: c+