The Pyx - 1973

 Did Tubi increase how many ads there are on the app or is it just me??

Also known as The Moon, and The Hooker Cult Murders.

If you want a 70s feeling movie, what do you put on?  Some of those 70s standards could very well be defined by this movie, and you're hearing that from a guy who watched an entire 70s boxset!  (Then I got distracted thinking about the 70s boxset and then I ended up on eBay putting the Pure Terror Mill Creek boxset into my cart.  This is my life ladies and gents)

The Pyx is a weird, slow, dramatic film which reminded me heavily of some of the slower dramas on the 70s boxset way back when I reviewed that thing. The Pyx stars Karen Black as a heroin addicted sorta prostitute I think in a talky investigation story of a dead woman.  On paper it sounds straight forward, in execution, it's completely unpredictable.  

Mainly this is due to the intensity to which it follows Karen Black and imbues her with empathy and pathos, and that's bolstered by her incredible acting.  Then it's also the weird songs she sings in the film which lend an ethereal, surreal quality to an otherwise pretty straightforward flick.  It almost feels Lynchian in its weird two diametrically opposed vibes which somehow inhabit the same film.

Something in the creepy segments of this film are extremely affecting.  This has a severe creepiness aspect to it that feels undersung in the great lists of influential 70s movies.  Bizarre distorted voices sing as characters smile with disturbed evil, drugs kick in and the camera distorts around shadows and cryptic imagery.  It's a very well done movie in that way.  

This movie reminded me of Rosemary's Baby where it is a slow build and a ramping up story that goes further than you would think and sorta comes out of nowhere with what it depicts in the latter bit.  This is for sure not talked about enough, and I enjoyed it quite a bit.  4 stars.

Howling IV: The Original Nightmare - 1988

 In my old reviews I mentioned that I watched Howling 4 and didn’t review it. Then I finished up that series (almost). I will now finish it in my string of movie series completion projects. 

I did remember this for the most part. A couple is renting a cabin in the woods of a small town. The woman begins hearing howling and seeing creepy shit. No one else sees it and in the meantime her husband is seduced by an evil shopkeep. It all builds to werewolves at the tail end. 

There’s not a ton to say. It’s your average unreliable narrator, is she crazy or is it real thing where we as the audience know it’s real so we’re really just waiting for 65ish minutes for things to build for the end 20 minutes of showdown. There’s also a missing nun and a creepy bell thrown in to add set dressing. 

The nudity is tiny, they skip the transformation scene for the werewolf, and it’s really clear this is a C level budget reduced horror sequel. Except for one incredible body melt sequence there’s barely a special effect in this thing. The ending is cool and takes this to a slightly better than middle of the road 2.5 stars. 

Mirror/Mirror - 1990

 The first movie is stylized as Mirror/Mirror. I wonder if they dropped it just cause that’s one more level of dumb complication. 

It all started here, with Karen Black and William Sanderson in this 90s thriller. We begin with a woman killing her twin sister, cut to the present and Black and daughter Megan are moving into the house where it happened. They begin to have creepy things happening when they find the mirror in their home, and Megan senses great power in it and keeps it in her room. Cue the wishing power to begin where she can ask the mirror for things and it’ll deliver. 

Once the power of the mirror kicks in this movie has some awesome moments. There’s a pretty brutal kill in a shower (with nudity) and there’s a cool monster of some sort inside the mirror as well that will do the Megan’s bidding. 

There’s a lot of good in here, and fun, and one understands why this got sequels.  The vagueness of what’s going on leaves lot to be explored, and the power, drug, addiction angle is of course widely understood.  Character choices make sense in a flick like this, and so there’s a basic level of empathy. 

Mirror Mirror is a fun little transition movie from the 80s to the 90s and it’s got a fun enough couple things going on. Overall, maybe a little slow and or dialogue heavy, could have used more effects.  But I do like that they don't explain anything. 3.5 stars.

Mirror Mirror 2: Raven Dance - 1994

 I miss the word “retard”. It got canceled and when I see old movies with it I’m reminded of my youth when it was like the third most common insult. 

Mirror Mirror 2 either follows or establishes lore in the opening of a woman wishing for a punk band to learn a lesson when they call her brother a retard. A freak accident kills the entire band and she’s struck blind, now she is slowly regaining her sight and is drawn to the mirror. 

Roddy McDowell stars as the doctor in charge at this bizarre religious hospital I guess, and they’re all telling the main character she can’t dance. Mark Ruffalo is also in this, as a different character from part 3…? He’s kind a manifestation of the mirror or maybe a demon or maybe both. 

This movie starts well and really slows down. There’s kinda no threat in the film, and the main plot is just building the interest in the mirror while everyone else questions the mirror. That’s honestly an hour or more of the movie. Just that. In dialogue. Boring. 

The end jams it all in, but this is not evenly paced. I’ll give it a 3ish for the slightly above average moments.

Mirror Mirror 4: Reflections - 2000

 Mirror Mirror luckily ends before CGI would’ve surely ruined the franchise ala Witchcraft. Well done!

An old Irish lassie singing a song uncovers the mirror in storage and unleashes the vague and evil force within. This is the kind of thing only in movies. She plays with this mirror the way a kid would, posing and dancing and singing in front of it. 

This movie drops the constant nudity in favor of a slightly more linear plot… very slightly mind you. Billy Drago comes back as a homeless man and the ditzy chick he talks to says “I think that most people who are homeless are lazy”. This is about where the writing in this series is. 

It might help if I’d heard a real explanation and maybe there is one in the first Mirror Mirror, which I will watch next. 

This feels more fun and linear that Mirror Mirror 3.  Doesn’t make sense plot wise much… but fun. 3 stars 

Mirror Mirror 3: The Voyeur - 1995

Alright so Mirror Mirror 3 stars with Billy Drago having a sex dream and I’m instantaneously transported back to the good Witchcraft films. How about I watch all 4 of these? 

Why not. Why not a similar budgeted lurid hazy LA series? Fuck it man. Because Mirror Mirror is certainly not anyone’s known about series either, and I’ll tell ya it’s a roll of the die as to why this has 3 other movies in the same way Witchcraft has 16 of them. 

These really are flicks that feel almost like you have to sit there considering; did they see something I didn’t? When they green lit a sequel to this late night sleazefest flick chock full of nudity and bad actors in awful costumes blandly delivering basic bad dialogue. Why did they look at this and say… yes, more of this!

Produced in part by star Billy Drago, this also has a very young Mark Ruffalo in it. Billy Drago uncovers a cool blue mirror that brings back the woman from the sex dream, who I guess is his dead wife or something. Cue the 3rd sex scene in 30 minutes. Don’t worry… you’re only 10 minutes from the next one. 6 minutes after that there’s another.

This is low brow entertainment. Not horror, not even thriller, it’s kinda a genre less fluff thing that has mild stakes that don’t matter and no central villain…nothing really sticks out except the cast and the nipples on the multiple topless women that are shown in the flick. 

The reason this isn’t fun really though, is that it’s completely poorly executed. There’s multiple flashbacks to irrelevant things that have nothing to do with the movie.  There’s no lore, no bumbling detectives or demonic presence to fight.  Things just happen and you have no idea why or what even happened. And in that way it’s a 90 minute movie that feels long and boring, despite the breasts. There’s not even really a dead body until 75 minutes in.

Rest in peace Billy Drago. 2 stars. 

The Caller - 1987

 The whole thing with 2 character dialogue based movies… you need a good if not great script. 

Malcolm McDowell shows up at an isolated house one day and calls for a tow except he’s hiding something and the woman in the house is hiding something. Or are they? And who are they? And what is everything else?

I dunno dude. Twist twist twist could be the alternate title. Is he a killer, is she, did one character do this or did the other one make it look like they did… 

What actually happens in the movie is anyone’s guess. They start tracking “points” and it reminds me of one of those movies where you expect the whole thing to be some elaborate game they’re playing, except that would be better because at it is this makes less sense. 

The insanity of the ending slightly elevates the movie, but ultimately too much time in a flimsy cat and mouse where one is the cat the other the mouse, they switch roles, rinse and repeat.

I mildly applaud the attempt. About 2 stars of applause. 

Born of Fire - 1987

 The Astrologist and this film put me into a headspace as I watched, one where I began to wonder what is the weirdest movie I've ever seen?

This is a highly subjective question, and one which also needs to take into account all of the different definitions of "weird" and what we might consider "weirder" as a pyramid - is a film without actors weirder than a film with animal actors?  Is a film with no plot weirder than one with a highly confusing and nonlinear plot?  

Obviously I am going to talk here of my own personal interpretation of weird and also the allure of weird.  So first that last point.  I think a movie like Born of Fire, The Astrologist and one movie I reviewed The Shout keep coming back to me because they look good - they show true craftsmanship behind the camera, behind the acting, behind the stylization of the flick, whilst being utterly incomprehensible as well.  A movie like Ray Dennis Steckler's The Hollywood Strangler is not only narratively thin but also production value is zilch - it looks like what it is, whereas the other aforementioned films look good.

In a way, the real qualities the other films have make them more unsettling then, it is the familiarity and trust we place in the basic system of film which allows us to truly key into the psychopathic weirdness of Born of Fire.  It's not grainy handheld shots with visible boom mics which make us keenly aware of the amateur quality and thus prepare us for the idea that this may not be conventional.  It looks conventional, even professional, thus the weirdness is more disarming.  It is the same reason David Lynch, Alejandro Jodorowsky, Gaspar Noe shock us.  There is clearly a trained and knowledgeable eye behind the camera, so why are they showing us such bizarre images?

Born of Fire is of this vein; that of a clear artistic talent with a clear idea here - what it is, you know, maybe a bit confusing, but it's there.  

Flutist Paul is playing one day and hears a phantom song coming from nowhere.  So does a mystery woman who confronts him and takes him to this weird mystery land where maybe an evil djinn has arisen and only Paul can confront the evil, through his power with the flute.  He'll team up with her and The Silent One to stop the djinn.

I mean...  like I said, this is one of the weirder movies I've ever seen.  Shot beautifully, well acted, and with unexplained hypnotic power, this thing pulls you in and keeps you there as the strangeness builds.  It is in that bizarre pocket with Jodorowsky movies of these otherworldly psuedo-religious inspired experiments that feel like you've truly walked through a portal into another realm.  For all that... 4.5 stars.

The Astrologer - 1975

 "This has nothing to do with India," a random quote from this movie which does arguably have nothing to do with India, though Indian cults and other stuff are in it.

Amateur films are weird man, what can I say, and this is definitely one of the case in point examples.  I wish I could say I followed the plot of this extremely amateur low budget thriller but really, I did not follow it.  Something about a cult in India and something about killing people, its heavy on dialogue to the point where the director himself described it later as "interminable".

The Astrologer is certainly that.  Bequeathed with a very slight modern cult status, this obscure ass flick will really make you examine the concept of dialogue when a woman says her husbands name Alexei about, oh I dunno, 600 times in 3 minutes?  

This movie also has my favorite font of all time, the font of The Astrologer below:

It's just the very definition of "70s font"

This is one to watch, for a weird and confusing unique experience.  I give it 2.5 cause it is not a good movie.

Fatal Charm - 1990

 I'm on an unintentional mini spree of made for TV movies, and this one keeps that going.

Fatal Charm stars Christopher Atkins, Amanda Peterson, James Remar, and the great Andrew Robinson.  It premiered on Showtime on February 22, 1992, which is the year I guessed instead of 1990.  Sometimes, my friends, you just nail it?

Christopher Atkins plays Adam, a man who is arrested in suspicion of a string of deaths that have been happening recently.  He is profusely proclaiming his innocence, and he finds support in young woman Valerie.  She is living in a bizarre situation as her stepdad James Remar is trying to fuck her, and she is having bizarre sexual dreams where she gets fucked doggy style by different men.  Anyways, she reaches out to Adam and starts a correspondence as he goes through his trial.

This movie is disJOINTED! I mean, the sexual dreams have nothing to do with the plot and are never explained number one.  It's just an excuse to have sexuality and nudity, since this is Showtime after all.  Valerie is never given motivation beyond that she's just a dumb kid, and when the twist happens, we never learn anything about the killer or about that motivation either.  

People often make the overused joke that some movies "feel like softcore porn".  Well, this might be the actual movie that is that joke.  This is not even very "porny" for softcore and could have used more.  It is fun though in that hazy gauzy late night grimy lowest common denominator factor, and I did enjoy it despite myself.  It is just by no means high brow entertainment.  3.5 stars.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer - 1993

 I sorta always knew that Buffy was based on a movie.  I had even seen the cover of it around, but had never picked it up for a watch before.  Felt like time, given I had just finished the TV show.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer was written by Joss Whedon and his script was changed a bit during either production or before.  He was pretty upset with this, and he was determined to have more control during the TV show run.  Buffy in the film is played by Kristy Swanson, with a Watcher (sort of) played by Donald Sutherland as Merrick.  Buffy is a cheerleader in the movie and has a little posse including a young Hilary Swank, and the big bad in the movie is played by Rutger Hauer.

Buffy in this film is quite different from the show.  I think every change they made was for the better, and in the film it's definitely a different tone.  The Buffy in the film here is a popular, airhead type filled with some of those Whedon-y snarky comments, unlike the social outcast she is in the show.  Buffy also gets menstrual cramps when the vamps are near?  Wow, am I glad that didn't carry through.  

The vamps in this are fun, and Rutger Hauer is joined by David Arquette and Paul Ruebens as lower tier villain henchmen.  I don't remember if they had a plan or were just around, but either way they are a lot like the villains in season 1 of Buffy, and they do a fine job.  

This is a light breezy horror comedy which works and won't make you think or anything, and overall I give it like a solid 3 stars.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer - 1997-2003

 Buffy was one of the episodic TV shows on when I was younger much like The X-Files that I heard about and was curious about and missed during their initial run.  My ex-wife and I watched it in a void of knowledge out of nowhere in about 2011ish, and this is my second time through the entire series.

Buffy is a great episodic monster of the week series that evolves into something much bigger as it goes.  It had a great idea to have a monster of the week format while building to a "big bad" in almost every season, which would be the overarching story with its own recurring characters and would build in tension and complication throughout the season.

Season by season, briefly:

Season 1 a short season focuses on The Master and has Angel as a more possible baddie as well. 3 stars.

Season 2 Spike and Drusilla show up, The Judge and The Annointed One split Big Bad, Angel's and Buffy's love affair becomes a major plot point more. 4 stars.

Season 3 Faith joins as another slayer, Principal Snyder and The Mayor are the big bad, Willow gets into witchcraft, Angel begins his slow departure.  5 stars.

Season 4 Riley and The Initiative start, Adam is the big bad, Spike turns good, Willow is now a real witch, this one is solid, but a mild step down, 4.5 stars.

Season 5 Dawn joins the cast for an incredible season of trickery about the god Glorificus, witchcraft and the mystical "key".  Giles leaves the show and Anya is full fledged cast by now.  5 stars.

Season 6 is somewhat evident that they had planned to end the show at season 5, but 6 is excellent if only because of an incredible turn in episode Turning Red.  No real big bad sorta, the three evil "mastermind" dorks begin the turn of Buffy becoming a bad sitcom.  3.5 stars

Season 7 The First is a somewhat vague threat taking the form of dead people, Buffy has backing by a bunch of potential slayers, and it really seems like they sorta just kill time waiting to pull some triggers.  Comedy is bad, the characters seem a bit unfocused.  The ending is a good emotional moment but yea  2.5 stars.

This show really has some excellent and memorable moments and stand alone episodes, and the writing in season 4 and 5 is some of the best in television overall I'd say having basically only ever watched about 5 shows.  The B grade charm is front and center, it leans into "what if a soap opera had demons in it" cheese factor in just the right way at times.  I feel like the last two seasons are the added on end of credits extra at the end of a Marvel movie, but they're still fun for sure.  

Overall this is a highly entertaining show that story-line-wise is better than  the X Files for me.  While the X Files had more interestingly written stories, they all go nowhere (spoiler alert) and a lot of them just sorta drag on or die out without any resolution.  Buffy is great acting, writing, and fun from top to bottom.  4 stars.