Category Archives: Movies

movie reviews

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

August 9, 2013

Posted under

Movies

Comments

3 Comments

Guyana: Crime of the Century (1979)

Image

ImageImageImage

I’ve been looking forward to seeing Guyana: Crime of the Century for a while and can say that I was not disappointed.  The only reason I dropped the grade from 4 to 3 iron crosses is because maybe there could have been a little bit more editing and the lighting was incredibly dim.  I don’t know if that’s the DVD transfer or  the way it was shot.  If it was the DVD, then I apologize.

Either way, Rene Cardona Jr.’s film received the hilarious “zero stars” from Roger Ebert when he saw the film at the beginning of 1980.  The version he saw was actually called Guyana: Cult of the Damned (not to be confused with the 1969 film Cult of the Damned) and was edited down to 96 minutes from the unneccesarily long 115 minute version I saw and had a voice-over narration.  That might have been a slightly tighter, more compact film.

But why am I arguing technique when the only reason I watched the movie was to see if it is as tasteless, shocking and repulsive as its reputation?  The Jonestown massacre is officially considered the largest loss of American lives at a single time before 9/11 and what makes it even more disturbing is the fact that the Reverand Jim Jones was such a well respected public figure.  Under a socialist guise, he united people of various ethnicities and races and promoted equality.  He was praised by a number of public figures like Walter Mondale and Rosalyn Carter.

So what went wrong?  Of course no questions are answered in Guyana: Crime of the Century.  If you want a real documentary about the topic, check out Jonestone: Life and Death of Peoples Temple.  Cardona’s film is an exploitation film.

There isn’t much plot to the film really.  Rev. James Johnson (Stuart Whitman) does a bunch of over the top, Hitler-like sermons in spite of preaching against Hitler, tyranny, violence and bigotry.  The people believe and follow him from San Francisco to their tiny, self-constructed colony called Johnstontown in the jungles of Guyana.

At first a few people bitch about not getting any better food than rice and bread.  Soon, three children are brutally punished for petty theft.  This is where the dim lighting really annoyed me.  Was the one kid dipped in tar, hot oil or just water?  One kid had electric shockers put on his balls and one was covered in snakes, I guess.  There’s another scene where a man is punished for having sex with his wife by being forced to do the sexual act with a big black guy.  Unfortunately we don’t get to see this part.  There’s also a scene where reporters go into a giant shack to see a bunch of bodies stowed away like in a “slave galley.”

There are a few scenes that follow the real life narrative, particularly when the movie version of Congressman Leo Ryan along with some reporters visits Jonestown in order to bring back some of its prisoners resulting in their being gunned down.  Also Joseph Cotton and Yvonne De Carlo play toss-aside roles as lawyer and press person, etc.

But, as expected, the true impact lies in the gruesome climax.  It starts with the Jim Jones speech as people line up to drink koolaid.  Then we see people forcing others to drink the substance, we see a horrified woman shrieking that she doesn’t want to die, we see a mother feeding the substance to her baby then to herself and then clutching her baby as she crumples to the floor.  But, above all, we see Rev. James Johnson from the perspective of the dying temple members in a psychedelic sepia tone, which, given this stylistic choice, sorta proves Cardona wasn’t going for a truly documentary vibe with this.  At the end, the camera shows us the sign that says, “those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”  Yep, it’s a message movie.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

August 5, 2013

Posted under

Movies

Comments

Leave a comment

Chamber of Horrors (1966)

Image

ImageImage

More like Chamber of Borers, hahahahaha… uh, yeah.  Don’t be fooled by the poster.  There ain’t nothin’ terrifying about this movie and I’m not just talking in today’s standards.  According to the poster, a built-in audio-visual warning system is used to warn the audience when to turn away.  The irony is that there is nothing to turn away from.  The camera always cuts away from the violent part rendering the warning system rather useless.  Plus they tell you in advance that this will happen exactly four times during the course of a 99 minute film.  So what’s in the rest of the movie?

Chamber of Horrors doesn’t even deserve two iron crosses.  But, what can I say; it looks like a Hammer horror film and has a wax museum setting in some parts, some hilariously demeaning “slut shaming” dialogue and a really hot actress who I’d never seen before.  Other than that, the movie sucks.

It starts off promising when this crazy guy named Jason Cravatte (Patrick O’Neal) forces a priest to conduct a wedding between him and this dead woman at gun point.  Not having read the plot synopsis and going by the title of the film, I was under the impression that this Jason Cravatte character would conduct weird experiments and do strange things involving necrophilia in some chamber of horrors.

But, nope, that’s not the case at all.  Instead the movie quickly degenerates into a boring cat and mouse chase type thing as the womanizer and wax museam curator Cesar Danova (Anthony Draco) follow clues and leads to catch up with Jason Cravatte.

There are little plot points like Cravattes holing up in a New Orleans whore house before he is caught and escapes certain death by chopping his hand off and replacing it with an assortment of scary looking but underused weapons and then heads to Baltimore where he decides to give a good life to a struggling prostitute he meets in a bar in exchange for luring in all the people who were responsible for his murder conviction or something.  That was a run-on sentence

The point is is that, once again, the poster makes the movie seem scarier and more exciting than it really is.  There is almost no gore or suspense.  Again the wax museam was cool as these tend to be in movies like this but that’s about all there is to say about this clunker.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

August 1, 2013

Posted under

Movies

Comments

Leave a comment

Therese and Isabelle (1968)

Image

ImageImageImage

Okay, fine!  I watch a lot of old porn!  Therese and Isabelle is my introduction to the work of Radley Metzger, a director who I always had interest in.  In pornographic terms, once again, this film is no worse than something you’d see an NC-17 rated movie.  Hell, on a more liberal occasion, the fascist dictatorship known as the MPAA might even let this one slide with an R if some of the scenes were shortened.

But, there aren’t even that many scenes that would need to be shortened.  Regardless of film’s salacious poster, the majority of the film’s 118 minute run time focuses on the relationship between the two girls and Therese’s strained relationship with her mom on account her marrying someone after her husband died.  In other words, if you went into this to see some black and white lesbian shagging, you’re gonna be bored to tears my man!  This ain’t no 65 minute nudie cutey, Bary Mahon picture.  This is art, dammit!

And if you thought that last sentence was said with even an ounce of sarcasm, then you’re mistaken my friend.  The only thing preventing me from giving Therese and Isabelle four iron crosses is that it may have run just a little too long, it had some terribly corny narration which described things that didn’t need description and a horrendous score that sounded way too old for a movie that was made in 1967.

These are all minor complaints, mind you.  The film looks fantastic with some brilliant master shots; it didn’t hurt that the movie was shot on gorgeous real life locations, such as old churches, courtyards, swanky restaurants and cafes.  Metzger did some crazy, awesome things with shadows that I found pretty interesting as well.  The stairway sequences looked especially exquisite.

The movie is based on the Violette Leduc novel of the same name.  I haven’t read it so I can’t say how closely the movie follows the book but that hardly matters.  The story kicks off when an adult Therese (Barbara Laage) visits the Catholic school she attended as a teenager and begins to relive the memories.  Almost right away, young Therese (Esse Persson) meets Isabelle (Anna Gael) and the two become fast friends.  It’s pretty clear who was driving the boat in the developing relationship between the two; Isabelle is a gorgeous blonde who eventually seduces the slightly more plain (though, by no means ugly) Therese, which leads to the latter’s sexual awakening.

The movie is told slightly out of sequence, with their little liaisons being interspersed with little plot details such as the strained relationship between Therese and her mother on account of her marrying someone following the death of her husband.  The little detail of Therese’s mother looking more like Isabelle than her own daughter and drama that ensues when Isabelle accuses her mother of betraying her by marrying adds a bit of a lesbian Oedipus complex to the proceedings.

Elsewhere, we are briefly introduced to an annoying, playboy named Pier (Remy Longa), who later takes part in a brief tryst with a curious Therese.  In a later scene, the two ladies play hooky and visit a cheap hotel in an attempt to hook up but just end up leaving the place since the atmosphere wasn’t right.  Other than that, there are numerous, whimsical moments, such as the one where the two ladies annoy an automobile driver by riding their bikes together and not letting him pass.

The sex scenes are more sensual than dirty but as mentioned, the voice-over narration is really stupid.  The narrator uses out-dated terms such as “pearl” when describing the clitoris for instance and there is no way even the most mature among us can hold in the laughter; maybe, during those scenes, you should mute the sound?  Still though, regardless of the fact that the sex was simulated and you really only see the two ladies facial expressions as it’s happening, the scenes are effective in delivering the raw emotions that such a thing should deliver.  Also the nudity is brief.

I have a feeling The Lickerish Quartet isn’t going to be so wholesome.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

July 30, 2013

Posted under

Movies

Comments

Leave a comment

I Drink Your Blood (1970)

Image

ImageImageImageImage

I hit the jackpot with I Drink Your Blood.  I think it was also called Satan’s Gang in Germany.  What’s with me watching all these X rated movies lately?  This one has some nudity, but it mainly received an X because of its violence.  Either way, David E. Durston’s film is a masterpiece of bloody shocks and horror that actually delivers on all of its promises.

I Drink Your Blood perfectly fits the theme of this here very blog.  The group in this film were definitely savage hippies, not to mention Satan worshipers.  I also think Durston might have been influenced by the recent Manson killings, as were many directors who made films about psycho hippie cults.  However, Satanism is only a minor part of the plot.  The main plot concerns zombies!  Durston was most definitely riffing on Night of the Living Dead, but the zombies in I Drink Your Blood are infected with rabies, and three years later Romero did The Crazies, which is roughly about the same thing, so who’s really influencing who here?

But probably the most glaring observation that Durston pointed out in the entertaining DVD special feature is no characters drank any blood!  The title was made up by executive producer Barney Cohen in order to be shown as a double feature with I Eat Your Skin.  Also, the version I watched was the director’s cut; the movie had apparently been cut up and edited down for different markets, which is a curious thing considering it’s only 80 minutes long.

The ethnically diverse and politically correct group of creeps – lead by a Native American and consisting of an African American and an Asian woman along with a few typical white, long-haired weirdos – are “out for kicks.”  They set up their operation in a small, hick town that looks like it was left behind in the wholesome 50s, get naked, say a bunch of made up Satanic gibberish, spill some animal blood and drop a bunch of acid.  One of their members is the good guy who breaks from the group and one is the adorable Lynn Lowry who plays a deaf mute and “innocently” chops a woman’s hand off.

I don’t want to give too much of the plot away, but the film turns “horror” when a mischievous boy serves rabies-infected meat pies to the hippies, who gobble it up and turn into blood crazed zombies.  In perhaps a slightly ironic twist, the infection spreads to the local hard-hats when they gang bang a hippie girl who is tripping on acid.  It should also be noted that these zombies aren’t hungry for flesh; they’re just crazy and like to kill.

When I Drink Your Blood gets going, it really gets going!  The non-horror scenes of the hippies tripping out and being weird – including hanging their buddy by the waste and slicing his feet up – are entertaining as it is, but then it all gets crazy violent with severed limbs, impalement, decapitations, rabid bites and axe to sword combat!  The blood looks real, which wasn’t typical at the time, as much blood from this era looked more like paint, the acting isn’t too hammy, the color of the film looks really lush and the musical score, although just a bunch of creepy, layered Moog tones, adds to the atmosphere.

This is one for the ages!  How is it not considered more of a classic?  On a completely unrelated note, I wrote this entire review while listening to A Saucerful of Secrets on me ol’ turntable!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

July 28, 2013

Posted under

Movies

Comments

Leave a comment

Sugar Cookies (1973)

Image

ImageImageImage

Back in the world of pre-Troma Troma, we have this intriguing little picture which has the distinction of being the only X rated film that lost money.  Upon release, the film was re-rated with an R because the sex is no more explicit than a typical soft-core porn.  Sugar Cookies, although an American production from the independent Armor films, which Lloyd Kaufman worked for before starting Troma, resembles a stylish Euro-trash picture of the era.  Even though there is a lot of sex, it’s still held together with a solid thriller plot and it’s also a blatant homage to Vertigo.

What I really liked about Theodore Gershuny’s film is its insight into the world of that era of pornographic films, which, at the time, were also referred to as “art films.”  In this way, the movie functions as something of a time capsule; especially with the really tacky art-deco set designs.  After all, while early pornographic films might have been shot well with some actual art in mind, this certainly is not the case anymore.

The plot takes off after a bizarre game in the home of “art film” director Max Pavell (George Shannon) leaves Alta Leigh (Lynn Lowery) dead.  Inevitably, the police try to piece together what happened.  But this only serves as a framework to a series of vignettes which further illustrate the “alternative” world in which these characters live in.  Among them is Camilla Stone (Mary Woronov), a sexually dominant casting agent who brings the somewhat naive Julie Kent (also Lynn Lowery) into her world.

The Vertigo-riffing is obvious since Stone blatantly tries to turn Kent into Alta Leigh through personality and style makeovers.  Along with these, we get to lesbian scenes which are well played and full of tension.  There are also some interesting montage sequences which are not forced either.  Lowery, although only briefly playing the first role, does a fantastic job as the second.  Her adorable yet unique face – huge eyes and big teethy smile – further add to her innocent-turn-corrupt appeal.

Elsewhere, there is a subplot involving an overweight kid trying to lose his virginity.  His tie in the film is that he’s Max Pavell’s brother in law and he visits a prostitute in a comic subplot that is okay but not particularly necessary.  Also, look out for Lloyd Kaufman somewhere in this movie.

I’ve been a fan of Mary Woronov since I first saw her in Rock ‘n’ Roll High School and enjoyed her dominant sex appeal.  I’ve also enjoyed Lowery who was in I Drink Your Blood, The Crazies and Shivers (a.k.a. They Come from Within) among others.  One interesting scene involves Woronov’s character who watches the dailies of the first Lowery character in a voyeuristic manner and later tries to recreate the scene with the second Lowery character.  Another neat scene is the sequence in which several different actresses audition for the role in the next Pavell film; some are pretty frank about what they are doing while others treat it as “art.”

OH, ya know what I just realized as I write this?  Remember the frankness with which Sharon Stone talks to the cops in Basic Instinct?  Do you think this movie invented that shockingly frank female character?  In this film, Woronov answers the officer as such: “you mean, did we fuck?  Why yes, we did.”  Haha!

So yes, I would say it’s a soft core film about the world of hard core films but, really it’s just a sexy, Eurotrash thriller, ya know?  Ah, how the world of sex films has changed!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

July 27, 2013

Posted under

Movies

Comments

Leave a comment

Tintorera: Killer Shark (1977)

Image

Image

This is the second night in row that I’ve been mislead by a movie’s title and poster. And, incidentally, in both cases, the alleged blood and gore were replaced by copious amounts of nudity. Strangely, Tintorera: Killer Shark is the first film I’ve seen from Mexican director Rene Cardona Jr., who I otherwise wouldn’t know about except that I’m dying to see Guyana: Crime of the Century (and now Terror Storm and The Bermuda Triangle have piqued my interest as well).

But daaamn… it’s hard to fathom that a b movie about a killer shark could be 2 hours and 6 minutes long except for the fact that Jaws is two hours long and Tintorer: Killer Shark isn’t about a killer shark.

Okay, it sort of is since there is a killer shark in the movie. But most of this ridiculous film’s running time concerns two shark hunters played by Hugo Stiglitz and Andreas Garcia (who resembles Elliot Gould) and their attempt to shack up with as many women as possible.

Holy hell, this movie is so bad and stupid it’s surreal. There’s no beat or structure to it; there’s just scene after pointless scene in which people meet up in a cantina, beach or late night dance, bed together, have romantic montages in various locations – including a particularly pretty one atop some ancient pyramids – before something goes wrong and it starts over again.  Somewhere, in all of this, there is a plot about a killer shark – the kind that attacks you if you provoke it.  How this got marketed as a piggy-back off Jaws, I have no clue.

The shark kills exactly two people in the entire movie.  The first is a woman over whom the two main characters are pining after.  Neither character inquires about her disappearance.  She’s gone and that’s that and let’s move on to other women.  More than halfway through, they start a sex triangle with Susan George who must have been starved for work after her performance in the abominable Mandingo.  And this is where the movie gets a bit more interesting.  All of a sudden, there are copious amounts of homo-erotic insinuations including their “sharing” of George in one sex act – which is unfortunately not shown – to blatant closeups and point of view shots from our two characters which imply they might have a secret attraction to each other.

That’s how damn weird this movie; where is the shark, goddamit?  Eventually we get to a climax where one of the guys hunts the shark down to avenge the other (oh spoiler!) as if the shark killed the guy out of maliciousness because, ya know, sharks think like that.  Then, after that, it flashes back to Susan George and the two guys for some reason, as if to remind the audience of the love they once shared.  Wow.

Oh, and this movie isn’t exactly female friendly either.  All of the women are just sex-crazy and jump into bed the second they are asked.  The most creepy scene is when two thrill seeking women who have nothing to do with the plot get sexually assaulted atop an orange truck but, instead of being repulsed by the two ugly, overweight rapists, they unzip the old jeans and get busy; cuz ya know, being raped can be good time as long as it’s in a foreign country atop an orange truck.

Say!  That’s a unique coincidence, isn’t it?  Susan George has now been in two films where a woman who is being raped begins to enjoy the experience – the other is Straw Dogs where George is the woman in case you’re wondering.

What else is there to say about this film?  Nuttin’, it sucks but it’s weird so I guess watch it but be warned that it’s over two hours long and has almost nothing to do with the shark.

Also, I think the DVD we were watching was defective.  We wanted English dubbing because acting is negligible for this type of movie. So they’re talking in English.  Then they’re talking in Spanish so I thought those are just minor parts that we don’t need to understand.  Then, after they started talking in Spanish for long periods of time, I put on the sub-titles so I’d understand it and turns out they were saying things that were relevant to the plot.  Then they would switch back to English – sometimes in the same conversation – and the subtitles for the English parts would be in Spanish!  If you happen to stumble upon this review and have seen this movie on DVD, can you tell me if you’ve experienced the same thing?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

July 23, 2013

Posted under

Movies

Comments

Leave a comment

Blood Mania (1970)

Image

Image

More like Crud Mania if you ask me, yuck yuck.  This movie totally blows and delivers nothing even close to the alleged “shocking climax” that is advertised on this here poster.  In fact, the little netflix envelope claimed the movie was going to be “gory” but I think the guy writing it meant to say “boring” because, blah blah, etc…

The bottom line is; don’t watch this movie, it sucks.  And when I say that, that actually means something since I’ll watch practically anything.  I thought I was in for a real treat since the movie has a really cool title sequence in which a scantily clad young lady is running away from a psycho-stalker all under an awesome, psychedelic sepia tone followed by animated blood splattering out the name of the movie in a manner similar to the poster above.

But that’s a tease.  Most of the film is a series of shack-ups under psychedelic lighting usually involving the gorgeous, psychotic red head (Maria De Aragon) and a doctor (Peter Carpenter).  There’s some plot involving blackmail or something but it was so damn boring it made no difference.  This was NOT a slowly paced, stylish thriller where there is a slow build up – I like Roman Polanski films, you see – this is just boring, borderline soft core porn.

And, ya know, that’s okay!  There was a fair amount of flesh to look at and it was stylishly shot, I suppose.  And I love trashy European looking films especially if they’re from Europe.  So, if you’re the type of person who likes to just look at stuff and doesn’t care if anything actually happens, you might dig this film.

But, in my case at least, if a film is advertised as “gory” and only two people get killed – one of which was by forced amyl nitrate overdose – then I feel I didn’t really get what I asked for.

Just for shits and giggles, I copied and pasted a review from an IMDB user so, if you actually want to know what the movie is about, read further.  He (she? it?) pretty much gets it right except for the “isn’t as bad as I’d read”, “there’s plenty of plot twists” and “worth a look if you’re open-minded” part.  It ain’t worth jack shit and I’m very open-minded!

Stylish film noir-like thriller concerning a dashing doctor (Carpenter) whose medical practice owner (Allison) is bed-ridden following a heart attack, his daughter (De Aragon) a seductive vixen with a psychotic streak and a penchant for mind altering substances is eager to sink her claws into the virile Carpenter, but he’s already got his hands full with another lusty companion (Wilson). De Aragon paints bold, expressive canvasses, has lots of sex and looks dazzling in the buff. She also agrees to help out Carpenter after he’s blackmailed for having been a backyard abortionist, a stain that threatens his career, but the grand plan they conjure begins to unravel when her little sister (Peters) returns to claim the inheritance.

Funky, psychedelic sex soap opera isn’t as bad as I’d read; it’s not so much “blood” as it is “mania”, and there’s plenty of plot twists and diversions to keep you engaged. Carpenter isn’t the best actor, but he’s charismatic and has the charm to pull it off, as his character digs his grave ever deeper with each carnal lapse, while De Aragon, Peters and Wilson are three impressive specimens in spite of their apparent amateurish acting (De Aragon does improve as the film progresses, her ‘mania’ is at times quite chilling). Leslie Simms is sometimes amusing as an ugly duckling nurse and Alex Rocco gets a few frivolous moments as an estate lawyer. You’d also have to appreciate the minor yet absorbing role played by Dalya as Peters’ loyal lesbian minder.

The soundtrack is a hybrid electronica, progressive rock sound, a fusion you’ll either find petulant and irritating, or fitting with the offbeat nature of the film. Overall, I like it – it’s cheap, dated and clichéd (it also ends quite abruptly), but it remains a sensory attraction with plenty of effort displayed in light, sound, sets, cinematography (some credited to Gary Graver), costumes and colour, not garish or gaudy when taken in its temporal context. Worth a look if you’re open-minded.

Or if you like boring, shitty movies!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

July 11, 2013

Posted under

Movies

Comments

Leave a comment

The Food of the Gods (1976)

Image

ImageImageImageImage

I wonder if the poster above is for the British release because I don’t know any movie that has a giant rooster as the bad guy that would get an X rating… ohh boy, don’t go there!  The British X rating wasn’t like the U.S. X rating; it was just a catch-all meaning “not appropriate for children.”  But then again the movie was made in 1976 not 1956 so I’ll have to get back to you on that one.

Anyhoo, The Food of the Gods is an “eco-terror” horror movie but really it’s just a 1950s giant animal movie which happens to have been made in 1976 so there were no restrictions on violence and that’s why it earned the daring PG rating in the U.S.  That’s right!  This movie is rated P fucking G!  That means if you’re a parent, you may want to use caution when taking your kids to see this!

There isn’t much to say about this movie except that it’s entertaining and features Ralph Meeker and Ida Lupino, two very talented people who mostly played in the b pictures of yesteryear.  Meeker’s big role was in Paths of Glory but I prefer to remember him as MIKE FUCKING HAMMER in Kiss Me Deadly!!!  Ida Lupino was in some film noirs or something but more importantly she directed the classic, creepy thriller The Hitch-Hiker.

Uh yeah, there’s some plot about animals eating some weird chemical that causes them to grow really big; you’ll see giant roosters, giant larvae, giant wasps and, of course, giant rats.  One little white one is so adorable that I couldn’t find it scary no matter how big it seemed in comparison with the miniature it was attacking.

I love these kinds of movies so don’t expect some kind of real analysis here.  I like watching the director, in this case Bert I. Gordon, attempt to build a serious case around animals attacking miniature models in the master shot and then puppets eating the characters during the closeups.

Meeker plays a jerk scientist who only cares about money.  Lupino plays someone who lives in a cabin in the woods.  There is a football player, an assistant to the scientist, a couple with a pregnant woman and another guy who dies pretty early on from wasp stings.  The ending is a hoot but I really, sincerely hope no animals were hurt during the movie’s final scene.  I can’t give that way but, from what I read, the climax scene is real and though it works for the movie, pretty much qualifies as animal cruelty.  So I can’t back that but, at the same time, I like Cannibal Holocaust so I guess I’m a hypocrite.

Apparently, The Food of the Gods got a Golden Turkey award but I’m at a loss as to why as it’s no worse than any other “eco terror” film of the era and it’s certainly better than a lot of schlocky drive-in horror films.  I guess I should have mentioned that it’s based on a work by H.G. Wells so people know I ain’t no ignint dumbass who cusses a lot in film reviews.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

July 8, 2013

Posted under

Movies

Comments

2 Comments

The Love-Thrill Murders (1971)

Image

ImageImageImageImage

I don’t know what the Troma team is waiting for but it’s time to give The Love-Thrill Murders a full DVD release because it is easily one of the finest films in the Troma library.  The film originally came out in 1971 with the title Sweet Savior and somewhere along the line, it was also called Frenetic Party but Troma made the correct choice by calling it The Love-Thrill Murders when they distributed it a few years after its initial run.

The Love-Thrill Murders is a somewhat fictionalized account of the Tate killings perpetuated by Manson family members.  I say “somewhat” because director Bob Roberts followed some of the details but, to make the story work, changed a few of them, like having the Manson like leader Moon (Troy Donahue) present at the Tate killings which, of course, weren’t called the Tate killings in the film.  Roberts wasn’t trying to make a straight, documentary retelling of what happened but instead to explore the makeup of the cult, the characters within and what drives them to follow their leader, who is nothing more than a long-haired degenerate.

People claim this is an exploitation film and, in a way, it is but it’s going for more than just cheap shocks.  It actually is a well made film that is pretty disturbing.  Troy Donahue does a convincing job in the role as he leads a group of hippies from drugged out parties and orgies to eventually commit the murder at the end of the film.  The plot is pretty simple.  The cult initiates a new recruit, the hippies have sex and do drugs of all kinds then plan the killing of Tate like actress Sandra (Renay Granville) and her swinging group of friends at a party.

While Moon is the main character, he’s obviously just a one-dimensional manipulator, using or rather perverting Christian symbols and rituals to his own need.  That’s an interesting detail; that the ceremonies, despite only referring to the cross and Christian mythology look more like Satanic rituals.  After all, what kind of Christian ceremony  incorporates sex on an altar?

But the other character the movie really focuses on is the above-mentioned new recruit.  I wish I could remember her name but the IMDB credits are no help since they don’t have pictures.  But basically she’s a confused, run-away kid looking for acceptance among this new, hip group of people.  And it stands to reason she has no particular sociopath tendencies.  In fact it’s easy to tell she doesn’t exactly feel comfortable with all of the stuff Moon wants her to do to prove she’s with it.  Her desire to fit in eventually leads to the film’s disturbing climax where we witness how far peer pressure can lead a person.

The rest of the kids do anything he tells them, including an early scene where the girl and her friend pick up a local dealer and give him oral sex in exchange for drugs.  One of the kids is Squeagie who is played by none other than Lloyd Kaufman, weee!

On the other hand, the actress Sandra and her bunch try to live up the modern, swinging late 60s/early 70s lifestyle and want to party with the freaks.  Among the group is a particularly flamboyant homosexual whose role is somewhat comical if a bit stereotypical; he gets disgusted by the word “cunt.”

Altogether, as said before, this is a good movie.  Some of the orgy scenes go on a little too long and almost threaten to take away the movie’s credibility but since the acting is good and the killing is realistic and violent, the film prevails at doing what it sets out to do.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

June 30, 2013

Posted under

Movies

Comments

Leave a comment

From Beyond the Grave (1973)

Image

ImageImageImage

First listen to this:

I love anthology films so it’s not a big stretch that I would enjoy Amicus’ From Beyond the Grave.  Granted I didn’t quite understand what happened in two of the stories and the way in which all four stories were connected didn’t make sense so when I give this film a 3 out of 4 iron crosses, it’s more for me than for you, cool?

The movie has a lot of promise since all four stories are loosely connected to an antique shop run by an old Scottish man played by Peter Cushing.  I understand what the movie was going for because each of the stories begins when its lead character visits the antique shop and purchases an item and then that item supposedly becomes the central theme of the story.  However, in two cases, the item had nothing to do with the story.

The other weird thing was that the stories didn’t follow the same flow; in most of these anthology films, there’s a set up and a twist.  But in a couple of these, there is no twist to speak of.  And in one case, the twist didn’t really make sense or I just didn’t understand it.

The first tale begins when a man named Edward (David Warner) purchases an old mirror, conducts a seance and sees a weird dead guy in the mirror.  He tells him to go kill people to feed his hunger for souls until he is satisfied.  The set-ups and killings are cool; including several where he picks up hapless young ladies either off the street or in a dimly lit hippie club.  However, the story drops the ball with the ending.

The second one is the best even though it has nothing to do with the shop.  The lead character played by Jim Underwood steals a military medal he didn’t earn from the shop, takes it home, meets Ian Brennon on the street and has dinner with his family, plans a voodoo killing of his annoying wife and then marries the man’s daughter.  I’m not going to spoil the ending since it’s a doozy!

The third one is about a man who meets a medium on a train and she tells him that he has an “elemental” on his shoulder.  He can’t see it so naturally he thinks she’s crazy.  But later that day his wife starts experiencing the elemental’s presence through physical attacks and soon they call the medium to exercise the elemental.  It’s a neat story but the ending makes no sense at all.

The last one is the silliest.  William Seaton buys an antique door which he uses for his closet and the door opens another world.  There he is attacked by Sir Michael Sinclair (Jack Watson), some guy with a sword.  He destroys the door and world behind it.  The end.

I’m sorry.  This was probably the most boring review you’ve ever read.  Let me stress that I liked this movie because I like the atmosphere and the gothic sets in Hammer and Amicus films but I don’t recommend it to the discriminating movie watcher who cares about things making sense.