Alien Contamination - 1980

 Also known as:  Contamination, Toxic Spawn, Larvae, Aliendrome, and Contamination: Alien on Earth.

Luigi Cozzi is a well known Italian schlock hero basically, and he's been seen on this blog multiple times.  I also got this movie confused many times with Shocking Dark, which was a another Alien ripoff out of Italy in 1989.  Shocking Dark was a much more entertaining version of this, but this is fun too.

Basically, in this there was a former astronaut who reported seeing Alien-style eggs, no one believed him, and he was disbanded.  Now, a ship pulls up to a harbor chock full of Alien-style eggs and Colonel Stella Holmes is on the case.  The eggs emit a strange ghostly sound, and seem to partially control you?  It's unclear.  It's also unclear if there are aliens in the eggs or not, but what is clear is that they pose a threat and Stella is going against them.

Also continuing another thing I've been doing, is that I read this was labeled as a Video Nasty when it came out, a label I truly do not understand especially if I saw the original cut.  There's no nudity and very little gore in this movie, by today's standards it might actually be a PG-13 movie practically.

The movie varies wildly with its pacing.  I will say, I had a couple of stout beers and watched this, and I paid attention as much as one could, but I couldn't quite track what was happening.  There's a lot of dialogue and there's endless scenes in this movie, and I tuned it out eventually.  

I got back into it by the time the "alien queen" shows up at the end, and that's a hilarious and awesome effect.  Overall, it is hit and miss, but I enjoyed it thoroughly and I would recommend it as a soft intro to the sort of ripoff Italian stuff you might not know existed.

The Hollywood Strangler - 1979

 I opted to just "keep the train rollin" last night with Ray Dennis Steckler. 

The director of MST3K classic The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed Up Zombies turns in another near incomprehensible "movie" this time something involving two serial killers operating at the same time in Los Angeles. 

I had a cool idea last night, a new term for movies like this. Movies which were made completely without actors, sets, costumes, plots, and were likely strung together on a $75 budget and filmed in the directors backyard. I'm going to call these "Sub Z" meaning below Z Grade. 

There's a sexist male photographer who strangles the women who he shoots. Then there's a female serial killer who sees homeless people and follows them, killing them once they're drunk and helpless. Cut back to the man killing someone, cut back to the woman, etc etc etc. Then the two meet and the film ends. 

I put this on hoping for skeezy 70s sexual hijinks, and yes there's nudity in here, but it's not as tit heavy as the others I've been watching. In fact, there is nothing in this, and it's devoid of almost every single thing which defines what a movie is. 

It opens a weird discussion for me, the concept of what is a movie and what is a film, and the difference being the medium used as experimentation. This is shot without sound, without a script, without even an idea. Doesn't that inherently define it as experimental? I don't know. Maybe. 

Whatever it is, it's not good, but it does bear some bizarre interest factor simply for being so goddamn strange. I'll give it... Geez. A 2?

Message Parlor Murders! - 1975

 I've been in the mood for what amounts to as 70s theatrical porn, with this and the prison film. 

I couldn't say exactly what it is. Its a collection of things about them really. Any film which is absolutely indicative of a time, anything which is completely alien to cinemas now, I'm really fascinated with. 

Surely of all film genres, this ranks high in the list of things that won't make a comeback.  It's interesting the recurring themes and styles that have resurgence, I mean let's not forget that friggin The Artist won an Academy Award for best picture. 

This won't get reignited I feel, and it's audience is gone. The audience for super sleazy skeezed out sex killer movies is now probably part of some incel group online, not watching overly long, terribly shot zero budget jerk off films. I guess I'm alone in watching these.

Essentially it's an excuse to have nude boobs that get covered in blood, and to have maybe one "laugh".  You don't watch this for the plot. At least Playboy did have real articles!

Pink Floyd - The Wall - 1982

 I think of Pink Floyd sometimes as "the other band" I remember from my youth, the primary of course was The Beatles, these being the bands I heard around my house a lot.

When I went into this movie as a teen or so, I had heard the radio hits of Pink Floyd and some of the back catalogue, but I was no means a fan and I was not seeing the movie because of them.  I heard it was weird, artistic, probably disturbing.  See my previous post today Brazil for an explanation of how I found movies back in the day.

Pink Floyd The Wall revisits the themes present in the album The Wall, the 1980 album.  Those themes are basically:  coming of age, loss of innocence, drug addiction, violence, women, mothers, loss of father, loss of parents, and authoritarian influence stemming from unfocused rage basically.  These themes are visited in the film in what is basically a long music video of the character Pink suffering a drug overdose wherein he thinks about his childhood and reflects on his current pysche and being a musician.

Pink Floyd The Wall is heavily image-ridden, with animation and multi other expressionistic art mediums used to illustrate (literally, get it? Because of the animation.  Okay) the film's point.  There's a lot of anger here, there's a lot of loss and frustration.  There's equally a lot of beauty, and all of those are present in the movie.  

I really loved it when I originally saw it in my teens.  I think now on a rewatch, that it's possible, indeed likely that I had simply never seen anything like this before.  Not to say this is not a good movie or a fun watch.  It's clear this is heavily infuenced by war and politics, and overall, I think it is really well shot and interesting, but it didn't resonate with me in the same way it did when I first saw it.

Basically when it ended I said aloud (because I had been considering it before the rewatch) "Yeah, I could donate that."

I'll give it a 4 though, cause it is a good movie and a precursor to music videos, and has some horrifically memorable sequences.

Brazil - 1985

 It's funny, strange, bizarre, surreal, in general, to find the things that your friends and significant other love, and witness them yourself with that person.  Me - A History:

I used to do lots of research on weird movies.  Using the internet, film dudes, blogs, people with weird taste who I actually knew, I remember putting together lists and having files saved all over the place.  This type of thing would become emblematic for me, and would continue basically until the age 33 when I moved here, and in a lot of ways being here in Idaho where I am now, I'm slowly shifting my focus away from movies (fucking finally, btw).

Brazil was one of the movies that I know was on the list.  It had that weirdness of being Terry Gilliam, but also the necessary darkness to appease the weirdo artistic type that I was/am.  I don't think I saw Brazil when I was younger.  If I did, it left no impression.  But I do know that later on in life when I was married, my ex wife loved this movie, loved the actor Jonathan Pryce because of it, and I watched it once with her.

So that was my original opening here.  The idea, the weirdness, of seeing these movies which are meaningful to other people, and then you see it through their lens.  If you're a good partner you also struggle to understand, why does this mean something to them?  Why did Brazil mean something to Rachel?

Brazil is a dystopian sci fi film released in 1985, a year after the notorious book 1984 was set of course.  It's important to note that because I'm sure Brazil was shot in 1984, and thought of in the years leading to 1984.  Sam Lowry is a low level government worker in a crazy, dysfunctional society that nabs te wrong guy in the first few minutes of the movie and ends up torturing and killing him anyway.  This gets Sam involved, Sam is in the meantime someone with recurring highly visual dreams involving a particular woman, a woman who when he sees her in the real world, risks his job, his life, and everything else to pursue her.

Intensely visual, hugely impressive in its scope, Brazil is a sight to behold.  It is a classic, a cult film, and voted as one of the best British films of all time.  There's a good balance off sci fi and comedy, there's some really apparent darkness and eeriness to the film at times, it has a host of talented actors in it, and it has a huge voice.  

If you're sensing a "but" here, there is one...  But, I never quite got what the hubbub was and I felt like it was fine.  Fine, but overrated.  I dunno, it's possible it was built up to me.  I think it gets to a point where I like it, but it feels too long and honestly, its not like the story is hugely strong.  We basically know what's going to happen and there's very little diversion from that.  In that way it feels style over substance, which I guess I like in some things and I like less in others.

I cannot slam it for that though, so I guess I'll still give it a 5.

City of the Vampires - 1993

 I was working yesterday and needed something that I didn't give a crap about.  I found a few 90s horror comedies and turned each one off after like 5 or less minutes, until I gave this one a shot, and it stuck.

City of the Vampires is in an era where yea, a lot of these coming out were awful.  They were schlocky and self aware, they were low budget and shot on VHS, they were beyond amateur.  This one is not hugely different from that idea of 90s flicks.

It's all there, the terrible, Z grade acting, that sounds like they quite literally are an automaton saying words that were programmed into them.  The "action" is boring beyond all thoughts, and ponders from one scene to the next with nary a concern for its audience.  

The reason I stuck with this is the same as what this person on IMDb agrees with me on.  The one review on there:  "The music is worth +1 star. The rest of the film - well, I assume this was somebody's school project."  The music!  The music in this is downright awesome.  This guy took a page right out of John Carpenter's book with a cool, unique, and minimal electronic score.  

Additionally, it doesn't wear its ridiculous self awareness on its sleeves, and there's even a few shots of cool special effects towards the end.  That alone will keep me watching, cuz even when I want shit, I don't want TOTAL SHIT.  I'll give it 2 stars, for what it is.

Helga, She Wolf of Stilberg - 1972

 I can't recall right off which of the Ilsa or other Nazisploitation movies I've seen. Some here, some there. Not tons, I'm not a weirdo. 

This entry isn't strictly Nazi because there aren't any but this is still very much ripping off Ilsa She Wolf of the SS and it's ripping off the popular Women in Prison films up to this point. 

These movies are super low grade misogynist Z types wherein nudity is not only present but featured in virtually every scene, sex is had, beatings are shown, and often lesbianism is hinted at.  The actresses are amateur, the plot is minimal, the language is dubbed, and the desire was to titilate the greasy blue collar men in the audience who drank cheap whiskey while they watched, hands going into their pants. 

Bygone era is what I'm referring to here, and it's a really interesting thing, man, to watch these bizarre 70s exploitation films of all genre. Torturing and raping women in a prison would get so cancelled in this modern day it's not even funny. 

There's also a strangeness to this movie because in a lot of scenes of whipping, beating, slapping, hair pulling, it's clear these actions were really done. These women were actually degraded and abused physically for this movie, and one wonders, was the $100 they got for it worth it? I wonder about the making of these kinds of things. 

All this aside, it's a generally whatever exploitation flick. 3 stars. 

The Vineyard - 1989

 I recall this movie all the way back from the days of video rental stores, cause I have certainly seen the cover for this movie before:

Scotch fixes everything.

The Vineyard is directed by Jomes Hong, starring James Hong.  James Hong is one of those actors who's in absolutely everything, I knew him when I was younger from Wayne's World, but then as I got older I saw him pop up in horror movies and Sci Fi movies.  He has one of those faces that's very unique, and he has a very noticeable presence as well.  

The Vineyard is a relatively tame late 80's horror movie.  Basically, James Hong is capturing young people and torturing them, then planting them in his vineyard and drinking some of the wine after science has been done to it (see pic above) to remain young.  We see his real age twice, like again above, and after he drinks the wine it restores him to his normal looking self.  People come to the vineyard to see what's happening there, and they begin to uncover his secret while in the meantime he is hunting them to remain young.

Something about this was kinda just....I dunno, mild.  Don't expect a lot, that's for sure.  There's nudity, and the effects are pretty good, but something with the momentum left one wanting more, and none of the characters are very interesting.  I just realized there's barely a lead character in this, and its not just because we spend a lot of time with Hong.

Probably super low budget, there's not like there's endless things to complain about, it just sorta is there and then it's not.  I've always wanted to see it, so maybe I had built it up a bit in my head.  I'll give it a 2.5.

Dagon - 2001

 I watched a bunch of Brian Yuzna and Stuart Gordon movies early on in this blog, and I really liked the Re-Animator series and Society and even The Dentist and other stuff they've done.

These two are a good selection of an unknown favorite because while they may not blow any one thing out of the water, they're above average in the low budget lesser-known side of things.  They have a nice comedic timing and great effects, and the movies are minimal in scope so are often more fun than those that overreach.  These guys know what kinda movies they're making, and that's ok.

Dagon is based on HP Lovecraft stuff, which almost instantly makes it contender for best HP adaption, cuz most of them pretty much suck.  I might've read this HP book, or not.  I read a 800-something page collection of his works, and I don't fucking remember.  

In Dagon, a group of young people accidentally comes to a small fishing village when there's stormy water.  Two of them, Paul and Barbara go to shore and Paul goes back to get the others on the boat to find they're no longer there.  Then when he gets back to the village, Barbara is gone, and he's off to look for her.  That night, a crowd of crazy fish people descend on him from everywhere in the village, eager to sacrifice him to their crazy fish god Dagon.

In short, this movie is what you need it to be.  It's fast paced enough, dumb and whatever while not being trite.  The main guy Paul is alone for the vast majority and it well acted enough to pull it off, and there's occassional nudity and other fun stuff to keep you from checking your phone.  

This, like a lot of their stuff is well done B horror, and it need not rewrite the book, just have a great chapter.  I give it a above average 3.5, though for it's ilk it's like a 4.

Paganini Horror - 1989

 I was going to do Paganini, a different 1989 film starring and written by Klaus Kinski, I got it confused with this movie Paganini Horror, and got about 20 minutes in before I realized my error when I wondered "where the fuck is Kinski in this movie?"

Kinski in part made yesterday's blog post Vampire In Venice so he could get his Paganini biopic made, and he made that in 1989.  I believe I read about Vampire in Venice that Kinski collaborated with Luigi Cozzi on Vampire in Venice a bit, and it seems shared with Cozzi about his Paganini idea.  Cozzi then turned around and made this movie, Paganini Horror, probably at the approval of Kinski...  or maybe just without, I dunno which one is wonkier and funnier.

Paganini Horror is a late 80's, MTV influenced, over top late Cozzi film.  Cozzi is still alive and made a movie in 2020, and I'm interested in looking it up some day soon and seeing what his recent output is like.  This one is extremely indicative of the time, it's flashy and showy and insane, it's dumb and fun, and short of not having any nudity it's overall trash-o-rama.

In the beginning of Paganini Horror, a little girl plays a song by Paganini, then goes and kills her mom.  This piece of music is cursed, and then 80's pop star Sylvia gets it because her bandmate buys it off Donald Pleasense they're gonna play it and open up the horror.

The movie takes a while to setup, and there's not a clear payoff at all, I will say.  There's not a lot of bodies, blood, guts, kills, monsters...there's sorta no thrills or scares in the movie.  In fact, once the song is sung nothing basically happens except a hole in the ground exists which sorta leads to the devil or whatever.  This movie was sorta dumb come to think of it.

I dunno, it has some fun and 80s kitsch.

Vampire in Venice - 1988

 I'm a renowned Klaus Kinski fan, and as I watched this movie with a whiskey in hand this morning I thought to myself:  "Ya know, a person could do a lot worse than watch every Klaus Kinski movie."  Maybe.  Life goals, eh?

Vampire in Venice had a very troubled background, and would certainly get many people cancelled today.  The Kin-ster famously had mental health problems which manifested later in his life, and he was accused of sexually harassing and basically raping a couple women on this set.  In addition to that, he took over the production, refused to do reshoots, took over the lighting setup, and rewrote the film dialogue.  It's worth reading about if you're a fan of that kinda stuff.

Kinski stars as Nosferatu in the sequel to his 1979 film with Werner Herzog.  A group of people are in Nosferatu's realm and uncover the fact their family has been haunted by him for a few generations.  Nosferatu is now seeking death, but he's not going to give up easily.  It is said many times that the only thing which can kill him at this point is being loved by a virgin woman.

The movie works well in certain ways, and meanders along in others.  It doesn't have a strong drive in any way, sorta wafting about between scenes with no sense of progress being made.  In that way it achieves a certain atmosphere of aloof despondence, and honestly that sorta works for this flick.  Balanced by some occassional kills usually by way of brutal looking garden fences, overall I'd say it works, it's just off and or unusual in it's tone.

In short, it's nothing hugely new novel or even all that nifty, it's just another vampire movie, helped by Kinski in his weird enigmatic charisma, and like I said, you could do worse than watch all his movies.

It Follows - 2014

I'd been wanting to rewatch this movie in recent weeks and asked my friend if he wanted to watch it with me.  He expressed no interest, so I rewatched it alone last night.

It Follows has changed the horror scope a bit, and I've heard it referenced as one of the early films that brought on the phase we're in now, which is being commonly accepted as "elevated horror".  This, The Purge, and some others came out, and began a trend which led to Ari Aster and Jordan Peele and few other people, but mainly it seems A24, which is doing a bizarre mix of elevated horror and total shit such as the new Halloween films

It Follows was recommended to me by my wife's coworker, and I remember watching this for the first time in 2015 or 2016 with my wife of the time, saying yeah, sure, that was good.  I get it.  

Then, I promptly forgot about it and didn't give it much mind until the last few months when whatever I was listening to mentioned it.  Now, elevated horror is fine, and I am welcoming it bringing horror into a more mainstream audience sight, but also it's return to slow burn, more psychological and character based horror ideas.  I am not going to trash it, I think it's fine.  Is It Follows elevated?

Yeah, I would say so.  The story is more character focused, following one heroine and delving into her life and character.  It is slow burn, with very few jump scares, and rather having the emphasis be on trope-averting scares, but still some cool genuinely creepy stuff.  

Plotwise, the idea is that our young heroine has sex with a new guy, he ties her up, and warns her that he didn't mean to hurt her, but there is a awful thing he gave her.  There's these creepy people that are coming for you.  Only you can see them.  If they get you, they'll kill you.  And the only thing it seems to be done about this is to have sex with someone else, which passes the curse (or the STD, basically).  

Like I said there's some good stuff in here, some cool moments and tense build.  The main character manages to show proof of what's happening to her to a small group of friends and they try to fight back or evade the curse.  The "followers" after her are a cool, threatening, but subdued idea.  They're all played the right way, and I'm frankly surprised there wasn't a sequel to this in a way.  It would be very easy to redo this.

I'll give it a 4, I think it's a fun new idea, original, and well executed.

Dogs - 1976

 A long time ago in a post I don't remember I talked about wanting to watch animal attack movies, and I name dropped wanting to see this movie.  I never watched it.  Til now.

I put this on during a rather slow day at work and watched animals killing people while I was waiting for something to do.  Friends, this is what I do with my time.

Dogs stars David McCallum, Linda Gray and George Wyner.  Dogs is a couple years after Jaws, and likely about 20th in line to capitalize on the animal attack idea after Jaws, and basically follows a group of peeps in a small town where due to unknown reasons the dogs start to attack and kill people.  

This movie is pretty much whatever.  The Dogs are made to look ok, but you can tell its tricky camera editing and a few highly trained dogs and handlers.  The rest is mild tension and character shit, as random Scottish cop David McCallum dresses in all denim and wanders around this town.  

I mean, it's fine.  Ebert gave it zero stars.  I appreciate that.  But it's not like it's rewriting the book on a bad film, it's just dull and uninspired.  It can at least have a 1.5 though.