The Werewolf and the Yeti aka La maldición de la bestia aka Night of the Howling Beast aka Horror of the Werewolf aka The Curse of the Beast (1975)

directed by m. i. bonns
profilmes, s. a.

I learned something important from this movie, which could one day save my life: Chaining a werewolf to a tree won’t control it. In addition, I was reminded of something completely different, which is that movies that have dubbed English dialogue can be a lot of fun. This Spanish offering is so undoubtedly below the level of even a B picture that it’s fairly incredible it’s from as late as ’75; you’d be forgiven for thinking it a decade older than that. Set largely in “Tibet,” it can’t even attempt to disguise the fact that most of the picture is filmed outdoors in Spain. The casting, meanwhile, does proud by that of John Wayne as Genghis Khan in The Conqueror.

“Tibet”

Whenever he’s onscreen, the werewolf sports a mod outfit he shares with his human self, which no one seems to notice for far too long. The werewolf is also fond of pro wrestling leaps and suplexes and carries and such. Despite at least one of its many monikers, this extravaganza features no yeti until it has fewer than seven minutes left to run. 

why did i watch this movie?

I couldn’t not watch something known as “Night of the Howling Beast,” especially after a brief glance at its particulars.

should you watch this movie?

Really, you owe it to yourself to appreciate this fine, fine feature.

highlight and low point

Expert: “I would say it’s an anthropoid biped, of a powerful structure and characteristics of a man … but at the same time, the thumb doesn’t form a grip with the other fingers as it does with a simian.”

Colleague: “It also has long, heavy claws – which makes me think of some enormous canine.”

Bonus Travelogue: “Here in Tibet are hidden mysteries and secrets, enigmas most profound and indescribable.”

rating from outer space: C−

an enigma most profound and indescribable

Maniac (1980)

directed by william lustig
magnum motion pictures INc.

Can I call this a disappointment if I watched it thinking it would be a scuzzy, nothing exploitation slasher with paper-thin intent and slapdash execution, but instead discovered a well-crafted picture of surprising depth and real pathos made with a skillful hand? Don’t answer that, it’s a rhetorical question. But despite a number of moments that could have turned this flick into a groaner, the poignant portrayal of the title character proves redemptive. Obviously inspired by the Son of Sam killings, with a handful of details provided by other notorious murder sprees, this film’s account of title psychopath Frank’s travails leavens its less credible portions with an intermittent awareness of his humanity. (How self-aware Frank is, however, remains an open question.) Lead actor and co-writer Joe Spinell’s creation is disturbingly credible, and in context, the more fantastic notions are not hindered by their implausibility.

why did i watch this movie?

I’ll reiterate: give the picture a title as blatant and evocative as “Maniac,” and I’ll think about giving it a whirl.

should you watch this movie?

So, you are aware that I like this type of film from this general era, so when I say yes, you probably know how to weight that advice.

highlight and low point

Are you, by any chance, familiar with the cover art for the Big Black EP that came packaged in the “body bag,” Headache? (Careful with that link, Eugene.) Yeah, well, there’s a scene in this movie that is extremely reminiscent of that delightful image, courtesy of makeup guru Tom Savini. One slight drawback is the dubious relationship that forms the core of the plot. Another is that the main character evoked for me Lester Bangs crossed with Lew Zealand.

Lew

Lester

Rating from outer space: A−

Note: Maniac received the remake treatment in 2012. Update to follow …

 

 

Prey aka Alien Prey (1977)

directed by norman j. warren
tymar film productions limited

I’ll admit it, I enjoy it a little too much – trotting out the jejune sally that “the REAL horror here is blah blah blah” and so forth – but dig it, man, that foolishness is perfectly suitable for this bonkers English presentation. Oh, don’t get me wrong, this film is for the most part shoddy and boring, but holy cats does it contain some absolutely bizarre goings-on. For one thing, it’s only around 84 minutes long, but it manages to contain a four-minute-plus lesbian scene that is frankly a lot more explicit than I would’ve supposed. For another thing, at a certain point – for no discernible reason – everything goes slo-mo as the soundtrack suddenly becomes extremely psychedelic and discordant. And no kidding, even though the story concerns a space alien who’s on Earth scouting for new “protein sources” (“spoiler”!), heavens to Murgatroyd but that isn’t the REAL horror here. I watched the climactic action of this picture jaws literally agape.

why did i watch this movie?

This is the film Mr. Warren made right after the widely acclaimed cerebral exercise Satan’s Slave.

should you watch this movie?

I don’t think I really have an answer for that question. You’re on your own.

highlight and low point

The makeup and/or “FX” are, uh, minimally invasive, shall we say.

But seriously, one thing I did find laudable about this very strange flick is that it contains all of six actors. This film’s shortcomings are not a result of its minimal casting or financing, though the latter probably doesn’t help. ’Tis a pity they never made the sequel.  ’Tis also a pity some critics have identified all sorts of subtextual sociological signifiers that were almost certainly tangential to this preposterous undertaking. Sure, sure, I get it, “microaggressions,” I hear ya. [Backs away]

rating from outer space: C−

that’s a switchblade, would you believe

Rocktober Blood (1984)

directed by Beverly sebastian
sebastian international pictures

Featured in this astounding straight-to-video accomplishment: Blatant lip-synching, awesomely generic hard rock, a mustachioed dude in a ZZ Top “Eliminator” raglan sleeve shirt, a guy in a gorilla mask breakdancing, a station named “MVTV,” chicks doing aerobics very intensely, multiple Jacuzzi scenes and one regular bathtub scene, a villain that’s a budget Mike Reno of Loverboy, a song (and character) called “Rainbow Eyes.” NOT featured: logic or reason, professional actors, any attempt whatsoever to present a plausible scenario, any original ideas. It does, however, answer the question of what Eddie and the Cruisers would have been like as a barrel-bottom slasher flick. Somebody was asking that question, right?

why did i watch this movie?

1984. “Rocktober Blood.” The claim that it was also known as “Rockill” (true, in Belgium). And THEN I find out its working title was “Trick or Treat”! Really, though, it may have been fate: Over the opening shot of recording studio gear, the first words spoken in this picture are, “‘K, Billy, time to rock and roll – here we go.”

should you watch this movie?

If you are currently a teenager living in the early-to-mid-1980s, you will love it.

highlight and low point

The real nadir – besides the banal reveal, that is – is that the above clip omits the movie’s inspirational one-handed hammer-on guitar intro.

rating from outer space: C−

the aerobics scene has the Let There Be Rock film poster

 

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.”

 

 

 

Mausoleum (1983)

directed by michael dugan
western international pictures

Wow, to say this is not what I was expecting from this movie might be the understatement of the year, at least in terms of this blog and its content. And while you’d think it would be hard for a horror flick to go wrong with demonic possession, this one manages to do so, repeatedly. No, it’s not without its charms – it’s so relentlessly absurd that it’s actually quite enjoyable, though presumably not as intentioned. Terminally silly, with a wafer-thin plot, Wikipedia claims this movie was granted a “special jury prize” by a Paris film festival, which as near as I can tell appears to be some completely fabricated bullshit. I will grant that the solution/cure for the demonic possession in this story is rather original.

Given the ludicrous FX and its overall tasteless nature, I could see this one being a “cult classic,” presuming anyone would ever want to watch it more than once.

why did i watch this movie?

Do I gotta say it again? I keep thinking there’s this clutch of films out there where characters gotta spend the night in a MAUSOLEUM or some such, and –

should you watch this movie?

You look like you could use a good laugh.

And don’t much value your time.

highlight and low point

An utter lack of shame and limitless pandering are more or less the selling points here, though if you can figure out how or why the MAUSOLEUM becomes critical to this picture in the first place, you’re doing more work than Roberts Barich and Madero did when they wrote it. My favorite detail in this production is that the wallpaper and curtains in the psychiatrist‘s office match – and they’re a galling beige plaid.

It’s quite an effect.

rating from outer space: C−

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

Visiting Hours (1982)

directed by jean claude lord
filmplan international/canadian film development corporation

Okay, I imagined this one was gonna be pretty lame, and in fact, I had put off watching it for the past couple years. It kept almost making the cut, but then I’d figure it was gonna be too tame and too much like a soap opera. Instead, it was actually a pretty taut affair, and despite some overly predictable developments, a rewarding choice. (It probably didn’t hurt that none of the other flicks I watched around the same time were much good.) Michael Ironside’s malevolent antihero is an implacable force, ably balancing out the fact that Wm. Shatner kept reminding me of so-called U. S. “president” Don T., through no fault of his own. (Shatner’s, that is.) A few genuinely surprising scenes during the climactic action were a welcome sight. I also found the subject matter, of a female media personality’s taking a stand opposing violence against women and triggering a backlash from a vigilante nutcase, to be very relevant in the current political climate.

why did i watch this movie?

The real question is what took me so long.

should you watch this movie?

It’s a quality choice for a random late-nite viewing when there’s nothing else “on.”

highlight and low point

My choice would probably be one and the same, to be honest: during one scene, the villain, Colt Hawker (!), sports a garment that appears to be leather-look vinyl or something similar. It looks godawful uncomfortable, and is quite apt for the scene, which involves a vicious misogynistic assault. It also precisely contextualizes the film. On a more personal note, I got a kick out of the fact that by coincidence, Lenore Zann plays minor roles in both this and Happy Birthday to Me, as I watched them during the same stretch.

rating from outer space: B

an AMC Gremlin, i believe

Haunts (1976)

directed by herb freed
american general pictures/entertainment services international

An oddity, this number is mostly a small-town slice-of-life crime thriller until its misleading, byzantine conclusion. Apparently issued on DVD without restoration, it looks terrible, and I was amused to find out its washed-out palette was allegedly purposeful. Aldo Ray as the sheriff is believable in his role, but anything else that’s noteworthy here merely relates to the presentation of a time and a way of life that are both long gone. Its weary, lived-in 1970s feeling kept it interesting for longer than was probably warranted. By the time the goings-on start getting sorted out, they get tangled up again, and you will have lost your patience by this point, particularly with the main character. She’s being stalked! Or maybe she isn’t. The local Casanova is a rapist, perhaps worse! Or IS he. “Better not book him just yet, we got the killer cornered down at the sawmill,” one character telephones. But what of the local parson, the uncle, the goat? The ending, like much of the rest, is a muddle.

why did i watch this movie?

Well, it should have been entertaining.

should you watch this movie?

If you are fascinated by forgotten stars of yesteryear, the requisite also-rans and the never-weres, you may appreciate it.

highlight and low point

This feature flaunts a flashback format that is supposed to give its audience some insight into what is happening – presumably, anyway – but said flashbacks are too fragmented to supply much information. Furthermore, what little can be gleaned from them is more or less shunted aside by what is shown more directly, so nothing is gained. An amusing scene in the local watering hole serves little purpose in the story structure and stands out for that reason alone.

rating from outer space: C−

Happy Birthday to Me (1981)

directed by j. lee thompson
the canadian film development corporation/famous players ltd.

Rather preposterously set in a “high school” (none of the major student roles is played by anyone under 18, or particularly close), this picture presents an extremely convoluted resolution to an otherwise straightforward, standard horror movie. Sure, as you watch, you know you’re being set up for the SHOCKING ending – hell, the filmmakers tease you with various false reveals along the way – but even so, once all the layers are peeled away, you feel a little incredulous. Skeptical, even. I mean, it all seems like WAY too much trouble for a touch of retribution. The red herrings from the production team combine with similar trickery from the characters themselves to create a film that overall is a bit too intricate. It’s also a bit too long. And in spite of all that, to pull off the ruse, they still had to cheat.

why did i watch this movie?

I felt as though I had a general notion of this flick’s plot and setting, but this turned out not to be the case. Maybe I was thinking of April Fool’s Day? Wait, maybe that’s not much different.

should you watch this movie?

After a certain point, revealing that these ’80s flicks have a quintessential Eighties nature to them isn’t really enough, is it.

highlight and low point

I won’t say the ending is a letdown, exactly, but it’s so, so contrived that it does come as a disappointment, especially given how long it takes to get there and all the different options it discards as it develops.  Nothing in the film notably presents itself as an asset, either.

rating from outer space: c−