Bloody Pit of Horror - 1965

The Marquis de Sade is possibly the most influential single figure in the genre of exploitation. Now, I thought of this opening line but then I remembered the entire genre of Brucespoitation. But I still stand by, and Bruce Lee aside, Marquis de Sade is certainly front and center.

This says at the beginning it is based on the writing of the Marquis, and it is 1965 looking a lot like a 70s. This is prime 70's feeling schlock-orama. The story begins with a killer known as The Crimson Executioner being executed back in medieval times. His body is sealed in a tomb in a castle and soon enough, we're in modern day and a group of people are wandering around, and they come in to the castle. There is a private and secluded guy living there now, and he has a legion of striped shirt goons. As the group of people wander through the castle, the seal on the tomb is broken and bodies begin to pile up!

This movie was exploitation, and I'm honestly surprised that it was 1965! There is a whole thing about the group of people being killed, and they are killed in super creative ways. This is a obvious precursor to Saw and that type of film, and a precursor to the 70s exploitation themes that were going on. The kills are awesome and creative. You have some old school torture type deaths, you have some new things that fit right in, and there's some random whatever deaths along the way.

The weird thing about this and something that did stand out a lot, and makes more sense now that I know the year, is that there is no nudity at all. They actually have several moments where the girl is topless and everything, but they carefully shoot around the nudity and don't show anything.

Another awesome thing about this movie is that the killer, when he appears, looks like a fucking luchadore:

This movie was really zany and a bit nutso. I don't think it was full tilt Insanity like some of the ones I've seen on this blog. It stars a young Mickey Hargitay, who is an actor with many credits but one I have not seen. Actually he was apparently in The Loves of Hercules, which was riffed in MST3K. Also, he was in Lady Frankenstein, which I reviewed back in 2015.

The Exorcist III - 1990

I saw this in Amazon's Halloween instant watch list, and I thought it was the infamous Exorcist II The Heretic. I put it on and instantly this is "actors I know exclusively from one role" fest. Nicol Williamson, the landlady from The Mask, and George C. Scott.

Exorcist III follows older George C. Scott as he investigates a string of recent killings. He is in his late 60's in this, playing like a retired cop or something. The weirdness starts early, and I don't really remember a lot of the early stuff, but I know there's weird scenes in churches and also a great scene where a clock stops while two people are talking.

Eventually it comes out that some of these new deaths match the profile of dead serial killer dude The Gemini Killer. George C. Scott finds a connection to some prisoner somewhere where it seems that the Gemini Killer, played by Brad Dourif, has taken over another imprisoned guy. He's trying to convince everyone that Dourif is the Gemini and people are continuing to die, and it goes from there.

Why is this Exorcist, you ask? In the end, there is an exorcism scene, and it's pretty bland and I guess the good guy doesn't win but also doesn't lose. Who knows.

There were a few creepy parts to this movie I did like, but overall it's a forgettable average possession film. George C. Scott really elevates the story, even though he is terribly cast in it. I dunno, just another movie to watch some random day in life.

Frankenstein 80 - 1972

Wow, forgot I started this one. But I'm not going to rewatch the beginning for completionist sake. I might rewatch it for fun, but not for completionism.

Frankenstein 80 is essentially trying to live it's name. "Let's take Frankenstein and modernize it for the hip world of the 1970's! As 1980 approaches let's translate the story into our swaggerific times!"
Frankenstein 80 is so fucking 70's. It has a main character with a huge turtleneck sweater, tweed jacket on over it, bell bottom jeans, and flocky long hair. In fact it has several of these guys, and they're all cavorting with young supple nubile woman who take off their shirts a LOT. This is one of those movies made with the nudity in mind, and in fact front and center.

Second to the nudity and the 70's there is a monster running about killing people. I'll say that despite the obvious fact these guys made a stupid exploitation movie, they stick to the Frankenstein story decently. Dr. F created the monster, the monster is not named Frankenstein! So many Frankenstein movies do this wrong!

So anyways, Dr. Frankenstein makes the monster, he's the typical array of sewn together people, and he goes on the typical rampage, killing all sorts of people. Mostly he seems to kill girls in a state of undress. He can also teleport. I mean, it's not said, and they never show it, but he will randomly go from girls dormitory to the horse race track to someone's house, in broad daylight, without ever being seen by anyone.

This didn't border the so bad it's good, this was made to help define it. This is before the self-aware so bad it's good, this is smackdab why that term exists. It is self aware, meta, and trying, but it is also fucking authentic and it works! It's a hard definition to draw, but there's countless blogs about it, I'm not making shit up bro.

Anyhow, Frankenstein is being tracked by baffled detectives and his creator, and shit culminates and it all ends in less than 90 minutes. Great minutes. No lie, this shit was just plain entertaining. It is not 5 star type of entertaining, but I'll give it a high 4 any day.

Death in the Shadows - 1985

And thus we come to the first thing that I didn't like about this movie. The terrible, trite, boring, overused name. First line of the review how could I remark on anything but the name? In the original language this is titled The Prey, a not-much-better title.

Death in the Shadows is a movie from Holland. It has no actors in it I've seen in anything, it has a director I have never heard of, and I'm in the cabin writing this without any internet to find information about this obscure ass film.

We begin by following 17 year old Valentine. She is a confident, but in-over-hear-head and naive young woman. She is taken for a turn when her mother dies suddenly, hit by a car. Soon enough, this is added to by a police detective coming around and telling Valentine that her mother was not actually her mother. The woman who raised her and just died had never had children. Soon enough, someone is also after Valentine as the mystery deepens....

I really loved this movie. What is it about slow building suspense mysteries I love? This movie reminded me a lot of the tone and feeling present in Footprints on the Moon. Footprints and this both share a bizarre, ambiguous and ethereal feeling. There is a "otherness" to this movie, a unknown factor that makes it really great.

But let's stick to known factors for now. And...I scrolled down and I seriously forgot the terrible title of this movie because it's not at the top of the page here. Fuck it, let's start on the bad actually:
First of all the fucking dubbing is terrible. Bland and lifeless, these people seem like they are in a black room without being told what their characters are thinking, going through, hell these voice actors don't even know they're being recorded.
Secondly in a short list, it is a bit uneven just like Footprints was. Intense deep bizarre mystery is evenly met by long, nonsense scenes that could have been cut. The first hour of this movie flies by while the last 30 minutes was slow.
Okay, back to the good stuff about Death in the Shadows. Number one, the music. The music in this is SO good. It's weird, it's all over the place, it's zany and miraculous. Honestly, I would get the soundtrack to this movie. Straight up.
The acting. the dubbing aside, the acting in this movie is great. The main actress is confident, childish, mature, energetic, morose, and smart enough. She kills it in the movie. The police detective, the few other characters are all great in their small roles. Minor characters like the boyfriend are greatly written, and each given enough to make them likeable.

In the end, there is not really horror aspect to this as much as the other films in the boxset. There is a killer after Veronica, but mostly this is a straight mystery. I'm glad it made the boxset though, I'm ecstatic with this film.

I can't quite justify 5 stars though, I'll give this 4 stars.

Terror in the Jungle - 1968

I'm still trying. I haven't given up, though I'm obviously slowing down and I don't retain either of my hopes I started out with originally.

Terror in the Jungle has a great first 30 minutes which gets me all pumped for a classic so bad it's good type experience, then slows down a bit and dwaddles out until it finishes. It's not a terrible, not a great, not especially memorable film, but it is on the boxset and it does have a similar plotline to one of these other cannibal Amazon jungle tribal type movies I've seen before.

The plot of this movie is that there is a kid on a plane that crashes in the Amazon jungle. This is around minute 23, and the kid is a blonde haired blue eyed young lad of maybe 6 years old. He survives the crash and gets put into a coffin(?!) that acts as a boat whereas the other survivors of the plane crash all either got exploded or were attacked by crocodiles in a hilarious sequence.

Blonde kid eventually gets discovered by indigenous tribal Amazonians, and they see the blonde hair and think him to be something special. Instead of killing the boy they take him to their leader, who decides the kid is special and holy and soon the village is practically worshipping him. In the meantime the kids father learns of the fallen plane and gets it together to go out and try to rescue the kid.

Terror in the Jungle wasn't too bad. It moves, it has great moments in the first 30 minutes especially and scattered throughout the rest of the movie. The movie wasn't one I'd watch again, but it is way better than the recent fare on the boxset. I would give it about 3 stars.

Warrior Queen - 1987

Wow. Total random guess and I got the year first try.

Warrior Queen is the type of movie I didn't want to write a review for. I sat here for a day, two days, thinking of the shortness of the review that it would have. I thought of the nothingness to say about the bland late 80's sword-and-sandal entry. I thought about the fact I didn't pay very much attention. Then I decided to write the review anyways.

Warrior Queen follows the illustrious line of movies on this blog which were made only to have lots of tits in them.

I don't remember the how or where or why of anything in the "plot" of this movie. What I do remember is many mostly naked women in the beginning, slowly petering out to not as many naked women in the end. Things happened, people said lines, occassionally I got a glimpse of a story about slaves or something, and then the movie was over around the 80 minute mark.

Director Chuck Vincent was a director mostly of porn, and that's obvious if you watch any of this movie. Despite the nudity and the director, I don't remember any actual sex or even kissing in this movie, which is weird. I kept expecting these two women to kiss, and frankly, the movie would've been a lot better if they had. Whatever. I give it a star.

Peeping Tom - 1960

Peeping Tom is often mentioned alongside Psycho, and given this and the other things this movie revolutionized, it's amazing that I haven't ever seen it.

As the movie begins it's a revolution right from the get go. We see, first person, as a killer approaches and hires a prostitute and hires her to take the cameraman up to her room. Then, we watch as an entire sequence happens as the killer goes after her. The very first first-person thing done in a horror sense, and it's a kill scene nonetheless.

The killer in question is Mark Lewis. He's a private, quiet, solitary man living a life of relative obscurity in a camera related position on films and he also has a side hustle as a shooter of erotic photographs. He is a maniac, through and through, and we are curious as to the nature of his madness. The movie puts a love interest in his life in the form of Helen, a curious next-door neighbor. Things go from there as he murders people, as the courts the young woman, and as various other things happen.

THis movie is innovative, enjoyable, and well paced. The acting is good, the leading man is really great as is the girl interest. The obvious comparison here is Peeping Tom versus Psycho. While Psycho has a lot more suspense, this is a much more human story. Yes, this is thinly written, but somehow it's pulled off very well. Psycho obviously wins out, but this is an overlooked entry and a hot contender.

I'll give this one 4 stars.

War of the Gargantuas - 1966

My library here has a little "new to the library" section on their website which has stuff cycling through whenever you go to their homepage. On that, out of nowhere one day, appeared War of the Gargantuas. I clicked on it and hit reserve without thinking. It had been a while, thought I. It might be fun.

Yeah, I've seen this before. I don't know which kaiju films I've seen and which I haven't seen, but this one I know I've seen. I was always interested in the more obscure, unheard of entries to any franchise. I love things like the two Bond films with Timothy Dalton, I love the bizarre unheard of crossover movies that exist later on in franchises when they get weird. I love things that exist in a state of obscurity, and appeal to little. I think it's something about the process of finding a "hidden gem" which people don't know about. That is a really cool prospect to me.

War of the Gargantuas was apparently a inspiration for Tim Burton, Quentin Tarantino, Brad Pitt, and many others. Why, is anyone's guess. At this point, 12 years had passed since Godzilla had come out, and there were about 6-7 Godzilla films out. There had been a cesspool of other kaiju films in Japan, and shit, I count a quick 18 kaiju films in total released by this time. This was one of many released in the year 1966, the others being Ebirah Horror of the Deep, Gamera Versus Barugon, and all three Daimajin films.

Given the quick cluster of kaiju films around this time, for me, it's very hard for them to stand out. Far as I can tell, Gargantuas was made to introduce Frankenstien to the kaiju theater. Originally, it was going to be Frankenstien in the King Kong Versus Godzilla film. The original Gargantuas film was called Frankenstein Conquers the World, and I believe the Mary Shelley estate stepped in and told them not use the name anymore. Or something like that. Hence the Gargantuas name in this film. Ah, who knows, who cares.

I didn't quite enjoy this film. it felt like every other. First they try to kill the creature, then that doesn't work, then there's two of them with one being good and one being evil and mankind thrown in being all scared. People do stuff, things get destroyed. Obvious miniatures are thrown around. Eventually, there's big kaiju fights and the film ends. Yup, seen this before.

It's not my favorite. 2 average kaiju film stars.

If... - 1968

I've wanted to watch this well known Malcolm McDowell film for a long time, and I found it free on Amazon. So, I finally got around to it.

This is the film role which got Malcolm McDowell noticed by Stanley Kubrick and ended up getting McDowell into A Clockwork Orange. This film is also well known for being revolutionary in being rated X when it came out, for bringing on controversy with the British Ratings Board, and for being called everything from vile, to disgusting, to completely godsend. Such a film likely can and will be divisive, and I went in without knowing the first thing about it.

About 35 or 45 minutes into If, I paused it and exited the Amazon player. I said aloud "Does this movie have a plot?" From IMDb: "In this allegorical story, a revolution led by pupil Mick Travis takes place at an old established private school in England." And yes, in the end, that is what this film is about. If you sit through about 90 minutes, that does happen in the last 20 minutes.

The first thing I noticed about this is the bizarre, nonsensical randomness that happens. It's a halucinatory, visual film, stuffed full of bizarre artistic shots such as odd women, slightly offbeat surreality, and cryptic imagery. Although that sounds cool, you might only get one of these every 20-30 minutes, so don't get too excited. For the most part, the majority of the time, you're watching British kids wandering around, saying stuff to each other, going to school and absolutely nothing happening. Yes, this movie is VERY slow.

I didn't like If for most of the time I was watching it. I found it to be ponderous, self indulgent, and if it was supposed to be justified that the end took the angle that it did, that certainly was never explored. If leans heavily on Malcolm McDowell, which you can tell was the right move, and he fucking kills it as Mick Travis. No Malcolm, no movie in this case.

I don't know. I didn't like it when I watched it, and now the flow of it is sitting with me days later and I'm liking it more. I do wish it was at least 25 minutes shorter. You don't even meet Mick Travis until like minute 15 or so, and you don't need ANY of the stuff before he comes along.

I'll give it 3.5 stars.

The Embalmer - 1965

I just finished "watching" The Embalmer. I'll admit I paid little attention. The boxset has to have a few I don't pay attention to, otherwise I'd never get to say "I should rewatch this" after all.

I was struck early on by the fact that The Embalmer had a bit of good cinematography. That didn't last too long. Overall, it's a murder story, a mystery, a thriller I guess. It's really shitty black and white film. I always wonder about that, because there were so many color films by this point, and because even black and white films at this point looked better. But, low low budgets will bring in bad bad quality.

It was a bland, slow, talky movie from what I could tell. I texted friends about whiskey, I looked up some other stuff online, I watched the movie. It counts. It's "good enough". I don't think I missed much. 2 stars.

The Undertaker And His Pals - 1966

I'm going through the list of movies on this boxset, watching the shortest ones first. So far, I'm not finding any lurking 2 or 3 hour films thank god.

The Undertaker and His Pals. Okay, so in the title I'm guessing that they're going for an alt/comedic approach? And yes, they are...uuugh. I thought of something in the realm of comedy as I watched this, I'll explain here:
There's this idea in comedy, and I will first say I don't find it funny. It's the John Waters approach, similar in Undertaker here, and it's the idea that "gross" and "classless" is just soooooo funny. I never find this kind of comedy very funny. So your redneck or your trans actor says something gross and makes a weird face while wiping their ass with the American flag. Is that funny? No, I say no.

Undertaker follows that approach with it's comedy a lot, and when it's not doing that, it follows the same plot of The Corpse Grinders. Some guys are using dead bodies to provide food, this time it's for people instead of cats. They run a shitty greasy spoon restaurant where no one comes anyways, and they dress up in stupid costumes sometimes to chop up and kill people... yeeeeep.

The Undertaker and His Pals is a ok horror comedy with no horror and no comedy. The characters try, the movie tries and you can tell. But it's too amateur to be anything but a dumb flick. With no skin, no real development, and nothing else worth mentioning, it ends up in a weird grey middle are where I feel bad for slamming it, but I certainly didn't enjoy it. 1 star.