F aka The Expelled (2010)

directed by johannes roberts
black robe/capital markets film finance

Only about 75 minutes long, this British production is basically Scream meets The Strangers, minus any meta sensibility or any tinge of humor (or humour, if you will). It does feature the very British touch of having one or more of its characters muttering and whispering his or her dialogue so that it’s virtually impossible to hear, especially if you’re watching it with doors and windows open in a neighborhood like mine. (And a sense of hearing like mine.) Also featured: very little detail. We aren’t told much about motivation, relationships, hierarchies. We do get some brief insights from which inferences may be drawn, but are essentially dropped into the middle of someone else’s story without being given a lot of background. What transpires is effectively unsettling, however – in any number of ways – and the ending is pretty intense. The story REALLY needed some new ideas of its own, though.

why did i watch this movie?

The director helmed The Strangers: Prey at Night, which I’d seen recently, so I thought hey, let’s see what else this guy did.

should you watch this movie?

You have received the caveats. Make of them what you will.

highlight and low point

This film is really well done, especially for a production that obviously didn’t cost a whole lot, so the biggest problem it has remains its lack of originality. Except, again, for the ending, which considers a facet of the human condition not often addressed in these types of pictures. The extremely judicious nature of precisely what is shown and when is exceptional.

rating from outer space: c+

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−

Blood Feast (2016)

directed by marcel walz
gundo entertainment

This lousy endeavor became an endurance test of sorts, as I could hardly wait for it to finish taking up my valuable time with its lousy acting, unnatural dialogue, odd tempo and beginner’s camerawork. This insipid remake of the 1963 Herschell Gordon Lewis offering is proof positive that just because you have a camera and a script, it doesn’t mean you should make a movie. Possibly, parts of this “effort” were supposed to be funny, but I didn’t notice until it was almost over because nobody that appears in it can deliver a line. An odd lack of incidental music doesn’t help. And for a flick about a taboo subject like cannibalism, it’s really tame in its approach to gore and downright moralistic with its nudity. I began watching this by mistake; the bigger mistake was not stopping. Makes 1987’s Blood Diner – inspired by the same source material – look like a real movie. (Well, sorta.)

why did i watch this movie?

The synopsis was irresistibly farcical; I shoulda realized its progeniture. Maybe I could start paying attention to film releases.

should you watch this movie?

No. It’s awful.

highlight and low point

The highlight of this disaster came during the opening credits: “Sadie Katz as Ishtar.” Everything about this picture just seems a little off. The dialogue sounds as though the cast members are seeing it for the first time and never rehearsed together, the pacing is too sluggish, and not one actor is even reasonably convincing. The photography is laughable, the set design halfhearted and the color iffy. It is allegedly a professional production.

rating from outer space: d−

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−

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986)

directed by tobe hooper
cannon films/golan-globus productions

Hey, a new competitor for worst movie on this site! For some reason turning one of the best and most impactful horror movies ever made into an extended bout of broadly drawn “humor,” aggravating characterizations, little plot and no point, TCM2 is a chore to endure. Insulting in its carelessness, this flick only could have been more of a cartoon had The Mystery Machine appeared. (Much of the action takes place in an abandoned amusement park, for crying out loud. Where were the Harlem Globetrotters and Phyllis Diller?) Leatherface – sorry, “Bubba” – is reminiscent of Fred Gwynne as Herman Munster, which is not a compliment, much as Bill Moseley’s horrible character seems to have presaged alleged funnyman Jim Carrey’s equally irritating “Fire Marshall Bill.” (And in actuality was a template for Michael Keaton’s Betelgeuse.) Meanwhile, Dennis Hopper spends the first half of the film not even pretending he gives half a damn and the second half hamming it up wildly. Mr. Hooper allegedly wanted to compensate for the audience’s not recognizing the black humor in the original, but this extremely stupid and classless farce raises the question whether his first attempt was just a happy accident. Also commits the sequel’s sin of reductionism while simultaneously destroying continuity – a hapless combination. And the FX suck, too. Excruciating and disgraceful.

why did i watch this movie?

I recently had heard and read positive mentions of it, for which those responsible should have to forfeit their eyesight.

should you watch this movie?

Nobody should watch this movie. This movie should never have been made.

highlight and low point

Highlight: it eventually, mercifully, ends. If you ignore its sequel or two and the three titles following the 2003 reboot.

Rating from outer space: F

you don’t say

Eyes of Laura Mars (1978)

directed by irvin kershner
columbia pictures

When it comes to mysteries, I’m the quintessential mark. It’s that character! No, that one! Wait, it’s probably her! Every time. How bad is it? I kept waffling about the probable identity of the killer whose dastardly exploits are viewed through Laura’s Eyes, even though this movie is 40 years old and I’ve read about it multiple times. Anyway, this production – written by John Carpenter for his first major film credit – knowingly manipulates its audience with suspenseful close-ups of René Auberjonois, our old pal Brad Dourif, the late Raúl Juliá, and other, less famous actors. Nonetheless, even a major misdirection in the late going doesn’t deter one from deducing the SHOCKING ending, especially as it’s telegraphed shortly beforehand. More “thriller” than “horror,” but it IS chock full o’ murders, death, and images thereof. The maudlin “Prisoner (Love Theme from Eyes of Laura Mars)” blares over the end credits, Barbra Streisand holding nothing back.

why did i watch this movie?

As noted, I was familiar with this picture from various compendia, and also MAD Magazine, so I figured I should finally see it, especially as I was interested in comparing it to Jennifer Jason Leigh’s 1981 debut, Eyes of a Stranger.

should you watch this movie?

Are you a John Carpenter completist? Really interested in what movie Kershner helmed right before The Empire Strikes Back? Brad Dourif?

highlight and low point

I suppose that the then-topical examination of the impact on society of violence in the arts – as exemplified here by Helmut Newton’s photography posing as Laura’s – is kind of interesting in regard to contemporary culture, and a look at New York’s glamour scene during a transitional period for the city before the vast changes of the ’80s will always fascinate me. The dialogue between Tommy Lee Jones and Faye Dunaway during their big love scene is absolutely laughable.

rating from outer space: c−

© 1979 E.C. Publications, Inc.

Wildling (2018)

directed by fritz bÖhm
maven pictures/film i vÄst/filmgate films

This goofy little B-movie is a good example of what kinds of films this site’s proprietor often prefers. (Why is a different subject.) By rights, it SHOULD be hampered by various difficulties, not the least of which is its ridiculous story, and among which are occasionally lax production values, unconvincing acting and the overall feeling that it’s a made-for-TV affair. Nonetheless, it mostly succeeds, even if it doesn’t quite fulfill any variety of promises suggested when it shifts into the present tense. Coincidences and improbabilities propel the plot, highlighted by the irrepressible Brad Dourif emoting another weirdo and basically causing all the trouble. I didn’t even mention the stirring title anthem that you will probably immediately identify, as I did, as being written and performed by Linda Perry. So what, exactly, works here then, one may well be wondering. Call it pathos; within the outlandish framework resides the tale of a girl searching for family.

why did i watch this movie?

The plot concerns a young girl kept locked in her room ostensibly for her own protection … AND WOULD YOU BELIEVE –

should you watch this movie?

You know, it can be hard to differentiate these days what type of film one is watching, what with VOD being its own estimable category or genre. I mean, it’s not really the equivalent of a movie being “straight to video” BITD. That being said, when you’re in the mood for a streaming original or whatever, you may as well opt for this one.

highlight and low point

The part of the story that concerns the girl’s journey into normal society is interesting and handled differently than one may expect, but after a certain transformative point it becomes kind of mawkish, and then the budget makeup and/or FX department(s) take/s over. The film often feels oddly restrained throughout, and somewhat surreal. And I’ve mentioned Brad Dourif.

rating from outer space: C+

Dead of Night aka Deathdream (1974)

directed by bob clark
Quadrant films/impact films

The first thing I noticed about this movie, the sophomore effort from Bob Clark following Children Shouldn’t Play With Dead Things, is how vastly improved in every aspect of filmmaking it is in comparison to that initial offering. Script, lighting, camerawork, acting, pacing, makeup effects – everything is better. It’s as though Clark and head writer Alan Ormsby made a serious study of their inaugural production in order to make a more professional showing with their next film. Whatever the explanation – the budget was almost 400% larger, nearly $240,000! – it worked, because altogether this little horror picture is nearly excellent. The emotional impact of the small-town boy returning from a foreign war and the many repercussions of his impaired condition – to describe it as benignly as possible – are powerfully depicted, and the creeping sense that something is very wrong is deftly developed. Inspired by the W. W. Jacobs story “The Monkey’s Paw,” this saga sure seems to have been bastardized within S. King’s 1983 novel Pet Sematary in the tale of Timmy Baterman. (PERHAPS coincidentally, late in this flick, the action veers into a graveyard identified on its iron gates by a sign bearing the misspelling “Cemetary.”)

why did i watch this movie?

As mentioned when I reviewed Children, I had previously seen Clark’s third opus, Black Christmas, and I wanted to complete the trifecta.

should you watch this movie?

Yeah, I think any fairly serious horror fan probably should.

highlight and low point

Appraisals of the thespians amply cover both extremes. As the returning soldier “Andy,” Richard Backus does an overly intense Anthony Perkins impersonation, and as his mother, Lynn Carlin is often grating. John Marley as the father is absolutely perfect, however, and the various smaller roles are also done to a turn.

rating from outer space: A−

The Silent Scream (1979)

directed by denny harris
denny harris inc. of california

Set in a boarding house, this film is a pretty decent example of the derive-the-killer’s-identity plotline, the basic premise of which was repeated a few years later by Unhinged, to name at least one imitator. Whereas many such films may cause one to roll his or her eyes at the revelation of the killer and how he or she relates to whomever else, the backstory eventually provided herein – though convoluted, to be sure – is at the least internally consistent. With only a few actual scares and not much onscreen killing to be had – plus some fairly obviously fake blood – this flick makes do largely with the strengths (or weaknesses) of its characters. Not enough time is given for the development of a certain psychosis that shows at the conclusion, but overall it’s an estimable effort … which apparently was a miracle of extensive post-production, as the original was deemed unreleasable. Perhaps that’s why the director remains an unknown, with no other credits to his name.

why did i watch this movie?

The lead actress played “Carol David” on Soap, one of the greatest shows in the entire history of television, and I noticed her name in the cast list.

should you watch this movie?

I feel as though I’ve said this sort of thing before, but if you’re in the mood for a throwback horror experience, it’ll ably fit the bill. It also seems to be pretty obscure, if that interests you.

highlight and low point

Some of the characters are either broadly drawn or transparently disposable, and a few minor impossibilities may nag at you. The climax is admirably suspenseful and relatively novel.

rating from outer space: B+

The Prowler (1981)

directed by joseph zito
graduation films

This not terribly creative small-budget independent slasher-type horror feature is compromised by a few serious issues. One is that it is highly reminiscent of My Bloody Valentine, which wouldn’t be so bad except that it came out nine months later than that flick. The other, which is probably more severe, is that its reveal of the mystery killer isn’t acceptable, being not only illogical but improbable. While I acknowledge that one may not always be able to deduce the slayer’s correct identity in these types of pictures, it’s gotta make SOME kind of sense to support the conceit. And this one just doesn’t. Granted, the conclusion doesn’t even bother to explain anything in the aftermath – which is admirable to some degree – but after dwelling on it for about four seconds, I realized that a number of other details also don’t add up to anything. (One in particular makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.) A false-shock ending is thrown in for additional kicks. I will concede that the song title “Disco Blood” (“Original Rock Music Composed and Performed by NOWHERE FAST”) is A-1.

why did i watch this movie?

This one must have wound up on my list based on the reputation of its director’s prior production, Bloodrage, which I haven’t screened yet.

should you watch this movie?

You know, a plethora of slasher flicks were made in the 1980s.

highlight and low point

The phony “newsreel” footage that opens the proceedings, setting up the alleged connection to WWII that purportedly ties subsequent events to blah blah blah … see, right there is the problem. A link to past events is supposed to exist and fuel the action, but in actuality does neither. “Nowhere Fast,” faceless meat-and-potatoes rockers, do the “graduation dance” proud.

rating from outer space: D+