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+

Welcome to Arrow Beach (1974)

directed by laurence harvey
brut productions

With all the makings of a cult classic, it’s a shame that this plodding soap opera can’t deliver the horror equivalent of, say, Reefer Madness. It does have a dippy drug subplot, though. This turgid melodrama also is in possession of outlandish, dated dialogue that probably felt just as forced and inauthentic then as now, along with a Californian Korean War vet with a British accent and an incestuous relationship, a runaway hippie chick, an Afro-sporting reporter for an underground newspaper called Young People’s Press, a steadfast law ‘n’ order sheriff and his deputies, an aging stripper and a death scene featuring a meat cleaver. Oh, and presumable cannibalism. Despite such an enviable list, this curio fails to keep one’s attention for long. One surmises it may have been intended to Make a Statement about Issues of the Day. The tearjerker ending is unexpected.

why did i watch this movie?

The artwork I first saw made it look a bit more lively. The (as it turns out, somewhat inaccurate) description wasn’t quite so fetching, but all right. Come to think of it, it listed the wrong year as well.

should you watch this movie?

Since I would guess that the major attraction would be how completely out of touch this production seems with its zeitgeist, and any residual retro appeal contained therein, I also must propose that you could find a much more entertaining example of same.

highlight and low point

The wondrous contents of the Air Force vet’s medicine cabinet add a touch of intrigue and the corny slang is amusing throughout, but the utter charade of the sheriff’s reelection stump speech and reception is ineluctable.  As hinted above, the pace is glacial.

rating from outer space: d+

Deadly Intruder (1985)

directed by john mccauley
channel one productions

By almost any reasonable measure, this straight-to-video extravaganza isn’t any good. And yet it manages to project a kooky kind of charm, possibly because some aspects of it are just so … off. Unlike some of the other bad films I’ve denigrated herein, the filmmakers involved in this venture seem to have known what they were doing, but just do not appear to have been very proficient. Take the editing: the cuts interspersing glimpses of the characters’ domestic lives with the mounting terror, etc., are so ham-handed it’s jarring. The dialogue, meanwhile, continually interjects minutiae into random conversations. And then there’s the music, which at a certain point reaches a kind of lunatic insistence that is sorta breathtaking. On top of all that, the SHOCKING twist almost could work, but for anyone who for some reason is paying careful attention, one line rings a few too many bells, even with the painstaking misdirection involved. Classic ending, too. Oh, and one extremely minor character disappears during the climax, never again to be glimpsed or mentioned.

why did i watch this movie?

I could not ignore the creative and descriptive title.

should you watch this movie?

Probably not on purpose, but it is a good way to contemplate the Platonic ideal of straight-to-video.

highlight and low point

I really don’t want to ruin the fun for anyone who might theoretically watch this, but the scene in which an assailant takes his victim on a picnic obviously is unparalleled in cinematic history. The blatantly obvious use of a body double in the nude bathing scene is also top-notch. An early scene in a “police station” that is a glorious example of why-bother set dressing features an extended, juvenile scatology gag.

rating from outer space: C+

Alone in the Dark (1982)

directed by jack sholder
masada productions/new line productions

Sometimes, I watch a movie and I just wonder how it ended up exactly the way it did. Take this flighty little number: It plays essentially like a PG-rated family comedy, but it also includes some vaguely gory killings, flashes of nudity, a mislocated but frightening hallucination, and, unexpectedly, the band Sic F*cks. And Jack Palance, and Martin Landau, gleefully overacting as two deranged asylum escapees. Fans of the original NBC-TV series The A-Team will be glad to see “Howlin’ Mad” Murdock as the patriarch of the family in peril, and general film aficionados possibly will enjoy Donald Pleasence’s turn as the loopy, stoned head of the psychiatric institution turned porous by a power outage. Amusingly, the family never actually seems to be in the dark, thanks to the marvels of movie lighting. (Hardly anyone’s alone at any point, either.) Overall, a strangely effervescent experience given the subject matter.

why did i watch this movie?

I don’t recall exactly, but it’s possible the star-studded cast had something to do with it. It was described as being a lot more suspenseful.

should you watch this movie?

If you enjoy the way movies were made in the 1980s, as it’s very of that time. Change a few elements and it could have been almost any type of flick from its era. The “club” scenes, as always, are a bonus.

highlight and low point

Palance and Landau are highly entertaining, as is Pleasence’s understated performance, and the Sic F*cks were a treat (which ceased to be a mystery once I saw Adny Shernoff’s name attached to theirs in the credits). Drawbacks are a lack of commitment to the scare trade and what could be construed as tokenism in some of the stock characters.

rating from outer space: B

Midnight (1982)

directed by john russo
independent-international pictures corp.

This delight’s got a little bit of everything. It’s got a weird Satanist family cult, it’s got a teenage runaway from Troubles At Home, it’s got Lawrence Tierney, it’s got a road-trip film contained within it, it’s of a visual quality usually associated with home movies from the dawn of time, and it’s got a fabulous theme song that is completely out of place in its grim milieu and sounds as though it’s from the wrong decade besides. Midnight is also strangely paced and edited, and could be a Christian message movie in disguise. Let’s see, what else … travel montages, black characters that seem as misplaced as the title song, a blatant ripoff of Psycho, and an extremely abrupt and unlikely ending involving rescue, redemption and revenge. Oh, and more of the rebarbative laughter à la the goons from Death Weekend. All told, an entertaining exploitation picture – and based on a novel! Which I cannot WAIT to read. The auteur was a colleague of George Romero.

why did i watch this movie?

The allure of a low-budget flick involving running afoul of the law and Satanists was too great to ignore.

should you watch this movie?

This is an exemplary achievement in its genre, so if a mishmash of simulacra – both horror and otherwise – filmed quasi-guerrilla-style over a weekend with minimal postproduction is your bag …

highlight and low point

The chorus of “Midnight,” allegedly by “Quintessence”:

You’re on your own, you’re all alone, you can’t go home … a-ny-more You’re on your own, you’re all alone and midnight’s at your door

The “backwoods” angle is trite.

rating from outer space: C+

it is easy to identify a Satanist

Offspring (2009)

directed by andrew van den houten
modernciné

Like, wow, man. Like, I hadn’t even planned on watching this movie, but as I was about to start viewing The Woman, which I had contemplated doing for quite some time, I suddenly discovered it’s a sequel to this one, of which I had previously been unaware. And! Yikes. Allow me to take a moment here to offer an aside: Offspring novelist (and screenwriter) “Jack Ketchum” is a very, very effective purveyor of terribly unsettling material, and is in fact the author of the rare novel I did not finish because I found it too emotionally disruptive (The Girl Next Door). Nothing that occurs in this film is all that unprecedented in our filmic experience, but it is profoundly disturbing nonetheless. Ideals such as “fairness” and “justice” have no place in Ketchumland, and sometimes the action provokes a sense of outrage. It may, in some minds, border on the obscene. Anyway, this movie is about a clan of cannibals living a prehistoric tribal existence and preying on unsuspecting suburbanites. It also harbors a subplot of extreme marital discord and disharmony. Abandon all hope.

why did i watch this movie?

Turns out I had no choice, if I wanted to view The Woman properly.

should you watch this movie?

I usually enjoy material that lends itself to an inquiry into what it means to be human, and how that meaning may be modulated. That probably sounds like a good time to you as well.

highlight and low point

The audacity of the premise and execution of same doesn’t have many parallels. Here and there the envelope-pushing seems as though it could be merely for its own sake and probably unnecessary … but I must reiterate that it’s from the pen of Jack Ketchum.

rating from outer space: B+

Killer’s Delight aka The Sport Killer aka The Dark Ride (1978)

directed by jeremy hoenack
hoenack productions

Tracking a serial killer who seems to be an amalgam of Ted Bundy and one of the Hillside Stranglers, a tough, no-nonsense cop consults a psychologist, who concocts a profile he shares with a cop buddy from a different jurisdiction. Meanwhile, trouble at home. And all these hitchhiking young girls keep turning up dead. Then some cat-and-mouse. A dangerous gambit. Finally, tough decisions; rough justice. More of a police procedural than a horror flick and largely lacking graphic detail – albeit with a scene involving nudity that seems spliced in from a different movie – it’s kind of hard to tell what was the target venue and/or audience for this one. It plays like a made-for-TV movie for the most part. The obligatory Gruff Police Captain sports some interesting haberdashery.

why did i watch this movie?

This title turned up when I was searching for some other assuredly worthwhile cinematic experience, and it appeared more of a sleazy exploitation-type cheapie than it turned out to be.

should you watch this movie?

I guess if you can’t find reruns of “Baretta” or “Kojak” or similar.

highlight and low point

The glorious essence of the 1970s is the most engaging feature of this presentation, and should not be discounted. Fashion, lifestyles, automobiles, mores … so much to enjoy. How The Sport Killer – who is not referred to as such at any time – suddenly finds himself vulnerable is deus ex machina par excellence.

rating from outer space: c-