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

Pengabdi Setan aka Satan’s Slaves (2017)

directed by joko anwar
rapi films/cj entertainment

So close, so very close … Man, this Indonesian remake-of-sorts could have been the stuff of legend, a terrifying spectacle difficult to withstand, but it just can’t pull it off, leaving us with a rather standard malevolent-spirits Asian spookfest. That’s a shame, because all of the necessary elements are on hand:

  • Threatened family? Check.
  • Seemingly vengeful spectres? Check.
  • Shady characters? Of course.
  • Satanist mumbo-jumbo? Yeah, look at the title.
  • Coincidental coincidences? Misdirection? A house that directly abuts a cemetery? Strong Muslim leanings?

Okay, maybe that last one isn’t part of the usual checklist, and an American version would probably substitute some Christian BS, but yes, it’s all there and then some. Despite that, it really never manages to terrify, possibly as a result of the fact that one can generally predict when it’s about to make the attempt. Not a bad film, mind you, but were this, oh, I don’t know, baseball, it would be a fat pitch down the middle fouled straight back instead of clouted over the fence. My, what could have been.

why did i watch this movie?

The synopsis: “After dying from a strange illness that she suffered for 3 years, a mother returns home to pick up her children.” Uh, yeah, I’m in.

should you watch this movie?

For right now, I’m going to say no, you can do better for this type of thing. But allow me to watch the 1980 original and get back to you.

highlight and low point

The family’s interactions – particularly the children’s – are pretty truthful, and contain a fantastic switcheroo that I can’t reveal more of without spoiling the fun. In addition, the roles of the Ustād and his son contribute a great deal in a relatively brief time. Ultimately, however, there’s no real payoff here, and the big reveals are no big deal.

rating from outer space: C

Mercury (2018)

directed by karthik subbaraj
pen studios/stone bench films

A frankly bizarre eco-horror experiment, this Indian film contains no dialogue; characters communicate with grunts, howls and ululations, with broad gestures and what is apparently some form of sign language that I do not recognize (and which does not seem as though it could be very effective). On occasion, this choice of the filmmaker’s does interfere with one’s enjoyment of his picture, but it’s not as much of a problem as one may surmise. It remains odd and somewhat off-putting, however. WHY there’s no dialogue is implied by some setup shots: the five main characters are graduates of a special school for people with unspecified disabilities, though in this case they’re deaf-mutes. Now, wouldn’t you just know it, some tomfoolery goes horribly wrong and they must face the consequences. Which in this case are supernatural. And then there’s an extremely ironic twist. To be completely honest, this effort’s not exactly coherent, but its hallucinatory elements and creative craftsmanship combine to produce quite an effect. Slight tension arises here and there, not much in the way of fright.

why did i watch this movie?

This one only got a shot because it was a foreign production and described itself as “silent” – NOT meaning that it had no sound. (It has plenty of that.) Having just watched a subtitled film, it seemed reasonable.

should you watch this movie?

It’s definitely different.

highlight and low point

These aspects are likely more aligned in this instance than is usual; it may be difficult to judge without involving one’s opinion of the unique presentation. This goes beyond the lack of dialogue; the picture is highly stylized in many ways. Even for a movie based largely on unearthly events, though, a few things herein don’t really add up.

rating from outer space: B+

blood was raining like water

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–

Bloody Birthday (1981)

directed by ed hunt
judica productions

Looking for some movies to watch during the MLB All-Star break, I came across this title and, as I read the synopsis and noted the release date, was flabbergasted that I’d never before even heard of the picture. Then I watched it, and the reason soon became apparent: it’s not very good. And though I’ve seen mild claims that it may have attained cult status, I don’t think I believe that revisionism, as the goings-on here can’t sustain enough appeal of any sort to induce such an outcome. Not that it isn’t entirely without merit, mind you; a murderous trio of preteens is compelling, especially as the three seem to be of perverse inclinations besides just their predilection for killing. Too much goes undeveloped, however, especially the ostensible motif of an astrological underpinning to the youths’ malevolence. The acting on display is not highly polished, either. All in all, this one comes across a little too much like a genre exploitation cheapie.

why did i watch this movie?

As related above, I just kind of found it and wondered why I hadn’t known it existed, and thought it sounded encouraging.

should you watch this movie?

Unless it’s because you uncovered it in a time capsule, that’s probably not a worthwhile endeavor.

highlight and low point

The bedroom of the character Beverly, who is played by alleged musical comedienne-to-be Julie Brown, features posters of Blondie, Ted Nugent AND Van Halen (and … Roger Daltrey?), and is also the location of the most blatantly extraneous nudity in this spectacle. Oh, and Beverly’s murderous sister Debbie is portrayed by the same little girl as the one Jake claims he wants to buy while sabotaging Mr. Fabulous’s high-paying maître d’ gig at the Chez Paul in The Blues Brothers. One or more of the murders doesn’t seem at all feasible.

rating from outer space: D+

Hereditary (2018)

directed by ari aster
palmstar media

Another first-time feature director, Aster turns in an assured, forceful debut with this atmospheric creepshow. The pace is measured and the plot unfolds slowly, along the way doling out seemingly offhand tidbits that to this viewer were frankly hilarious at times. (It is hard to say whether any humor was intended.) The story keeps one’s attention, though for the first half or so that is often a byproduct of the fact that it is difficult to suss out precisely what is afoot. Once the second half gets going, it’s more compulsive. A set piece here or there dips into the tried-and-true, flirting with trite, but such engagement mainly serves to reinforce a vague feeling of nostalgia – although it is also true that on occasion a nagging sense of déjà vu may prevail. Never too viscerally frightening, what the proceedings suggest will linger long enough to give one a pretty good case of the heebie-jeebies … as long as certain plot points aren’t given too much thought, of course. Often redolent of a David Lynch film.

why did i watch this movie?

My brother asked me if I’d seen it, so I decided I oughta.

should you watch this movie?

While I’m not sure I agree with the raft of assessments that seem to behold this picture as an utterly terrifying modern horror classic, it’s definitely above-average.

highlight and low point

As has been observed in multiple locations, Toni Collette in the lead role is spectacularly mental, hinted at by affectations and mannerisms and illustrated by torrential revelatory outpourings. These welters of information give the film its dramatic propulsion. Gabriel Byrne, on the other hand, is a cipher as her husband, possibly to prefigure certain thematic elements but playing more as an underacted, nonessential role. The aha moment is underwhelming, having been somewhat telegraphed and bearing the tinge of the overly familiar.

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

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)

directed by j. a. bayona
universal pictures

When was the last time you saw a really dumb Hollywood spectacle? I mean D-U-M-B like Armageddon (renegades fly into space to save the Earth by landing on an asteroid and blowing it up), the 1991 Point Break (Keanu plays FBI agent Johnny Utah infiltrating a gang of bank-robbing Zen surfers), Over the Top (long-haul trucker Sly wins his son’s custody by arm wrestling) … and this one, as should be obvious from this introduction. But how does it rank in the Jurassic hierarchy, you want to know. Well, hmm, let’s see:

  1. The original, obviously.
  2. J-World (2015), which was a pretty honorable reboot of the franchise, even with the podracers gyrospheres and the invention of yet another new dinosaur.
  3. — 5. You decide! The Lost World (1997) was a dispiriting cash-in, a prototypical sequel with superfluous kids and giant invisible dinosaurs; JPIII (2001) was only barely related, an actioner that could’ve been adapted to any series; and there’s this one … which you will probably not be too surprised to hear features yet another new dinosaur created by Science and a whole lotta subplots and setups liberally borrowed from other stupid action flicks.

Yes, it’s true: This picture about cloning and genetically engineering dinosaurs and [REDACTED] doesn’t have an original bone in its body. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist.) Don’t despair, however, because JW: F’in’ Kidding still could be redeemed. If the planned 2021 sequel follows up properly, it could be tremendous – like 28 Days Later, only with dinosaurs! Hell, someone remade Point Break.

why did i watch this movie?

My local MLB team had a day off.

should you watch this movie?

Don’t you have anything better to do?

highlight and low point

The baroque pomposity of the score during a particular “climactic” scene really illuminates the claptrap on display, and the [REDACTED] offers a tantalizing hope for the future of this ridiculous franchise.

rating from outer space: D
Note: Some details omitted because film currently is in theaters

Cementerio del Terror (1985)

directed by rubén galindo jr.
dynamic films inc./producciones torrente s.a.

So, when you and your pals have tricked your girlfriends into accompanying you to a spooky abandoned house on All Hallow’s Eve – and boy are they MAD, having expected a “jet set party” – naturally, what you next propose is to bring a dead person back to life. Oh, sure, they’re doubtful, until you reasonably explain that the first step is to acquire a dead body from the morgue, at which point you all pile into the car. Does a downpour stop you from performing the ritual, i.e. reading from “the black book”? Of course it doesn’t. But once you’ve successfully revived Devlon – Devlon! – HE sure stops you, i.e. kills you. Up until this point in this generic Mexican flick, it’s reasonably entertaining, but once its focus switches to a group of children stranded in the graveyard, it becomes reminiscent of any random Scooby-Doo episode – then turns into the most blatant ripoff of the “Thriller” video imaginable, albeit with a much smaller budget. So blatant one of the kids sports a jacket with M. Jackson’s famous visage painted on the back. (Also spotted: “Pepsi Free.”)

why did i watch this movie?

Though attracted helplessly by the witless title, I’m not sure, as the undead generally are not my preference.

should you watch this movie?

Unfortunately, it doesn’t deliver much more than a few guffaws, and not nearly enough to justify itself.

highlight and low point

The nonunion equivalents of what are maybe supposed to be recognizable rock songs are pretty interesting, and I sure wasn’t expecting the scene in which the “professor” steals the police chief’s car in order to track down “Devlon.” You probably have a friend who creates better zombie makeup than this film’s FX department.

rating from outer space: D+

it is easy to access the morgue

Demonoid aka Demonoid: Messenger of Death (1981)

directed by alfredo zacharías
zach motion pictures inc./panorama films

Some – okay, most – reviewers are going to tell you this movie is terrible, but I must point out that Macabra: La mano del diablo and its similars just may be the raison d’être of this website (not to mention a significant contributing factor to its proprietor’s joie de vivre). Following a prefatory flashback scene, the story proper begins in an old mine complete with self-propelled skulls and tremulous native workers. Then it’s off to Vegas, baby! Before consulting a priest, of course, which naturally involves the police. Yes, the devil’s (left) hand has many functions, which does not prepare us for when it has been lopped off the arm of the cop whose arm it has commandeered, grabs his gun and shoots a nurse in an extremely tight and low-cut uniform. “The Hand will kill again!” intones our female lead. Can THE HAND be stopped? Will THE HAND be destroyed? Could I not stop giggling while enjoying this presentation? A must-see.

why did i watch this movie?

I discovered this gem via its poster when I was scouring some website or another for vintage horror ephemera. It looked … incredible.

should you watch this movie?

Aside from its obscurity and the possible difficulty of securing a good quality version, you have no excuse for not viewing this masterpiece.

highlight and low point

It’s been posited that certain things just cannot be made scary on the big (or small) screen, and that, say, a disembodied crawling hand may be one of these things, but watching what is clearly a rubber hand being thrown, dropped or otherwise propelled from or to various locations is a gratifying experience nonetheless. I cannot say any more lest I vitiate any of this picture’s manifold delights.

rating from outer space: B+