THE 366 WEIRD MOVIES GUIDE, VOL. 1 IS LIVE!

In case you missed it (beware: more promotion coming!)

“Covering everything from art-house surrealism to next-generation cult movies to B-movie atrocities and unclassifiable oddities, 366 Weird Movies has been publishing online since 2009. Here are our canonical choices of the 366 weirdest movies worthy of your eyeballs – and the day you should watch them on – in all-new capsule reviews, delivered with our usual combination of sly humor and series insight.” Available now from our publisher, Bear Manor Media (in hardback or paperback) or from Amazon, more options (including buying from us directly) to come. Vol. 1 covers movies selected for viewing on January 1st to June 30th; we’ll let you know when Volume 2 is ready.

POD 366, EP. 85: 9 MINUTES OF SELF-PROMOTION, 27 MINUTES OF OTHER-PROMOTION

366 Weird Movies may earn commissions from purchases made through product links.

Quick links/Discussed in this episode:

“The 366 Weird Movies Guide, Vol. 1:” It’s here! “Covering everything from art-house surrealism to next-generation cult movies to B-movie atrocities and unclassifiable oddities, 366 Weird Movies has been publishing online since 2009. Here are our canonical choices of the 366 weirdest movies worthy of your eyeballs – and the day you should watch them on – in all-new capsule reviews, delivered with our usual combination of sly humor and series insight.” Available now from our publisher, Bear Manor Media (in hardback or paperback) or from Amazon, more options (including buying from us directly) to come. Vol. 1 covers movies selected for viewing on January 1st to June 30th; we’ll let you know when Volume 2 is ready.

Buy 366 Weird Movies Guide Volume 1

HK: Forbidden Superhero  [AKA Hentai Kamen] (2013): Japanese drama about a superhero who gains secret “pervert powers” by wearing women’s panties on his face. As far as we can tell this has never before been released on physical media in North America. It’s been in our reader-suggestion queue, though (naturally!) Buy Hentai Kamen.

Late Night with the Devil (2023): Read Giles Edwards’ Apocrypha Candidate review. Arriving on physical media in time for Halloween, the “live” 70s vintage talk show/exorcism is available in limited-edition steelbook or DVD format, with a standard (pre-order now) Blu-ray coming on October 8.

My Love Affair with Marriage (2022): The latest introspective feature-length animation from , who addressed depression in her 2014 feature Rocks in My Pocket, takes on the subject of romance (and abuse). On Blu-ray or DVD, no special features advertised. Buy My Love Affair with Marriage.

Psychosis (2023): A criminal “fixer” experiences auditory (and other) hallucinations as a mysterious contact drags him into a “surreal maelstrom.” Now on VOD, Hoopla, or you can wait until October 4 when it shows up on ad-supported Tubi. Buy or rent Psychosis.

Viva la Murete [Long Live Death] (1971): Read the Canonically Weird entry! Radiance restores ‘s surreal (and extremely personal) autobiography about growing up in Francoist Spain; includes a lot of new bonus material, including short and full-length docs on Arrabal.  Buy Viva la Murete.

WHAT’S IN THE PIPELINE:

No guest is scheduled on Pod 366 next week, although we will have new names to announce soon. In written reviews, Shane Wilson hopes the stop-motion apocalyptic oddity Mécanix (2003) will become popular; Giles Edwards investigates the case of the suspiciously surreal noir The Blue Rose (2023); and Gregory J. Smalley sinks into Psychosis (see above). And we might just send out some more reminders about “The 366 Weird Movies Guide, Vol. 1.” Onward and weirdward!

CAPSULE: SPIDER BABY (2024)

AKA Spider Baby, or the Maddest Story Ever Told

366 Weird Movies may earn commissions from purchases made through product links.

Beware

DIRECTED BY: Dustin Ferguson

FEATURING: Noel Jason Scott, Skylar Fast, Emma Keifer, Jennifer Moriarity, Peter Stickles, Cody J. Briscoe

PLOT: A family of three young adults suffer from “Merrye syndrome,” which causes them to slowly regress to a childlike (but homicidal) state; their kindly caretaker tries to protect them from scheming relatives seeking to seize their ancestral homestead.

Still from spider baby (2024)

COMMENTS: Despite what laypeople might assume, it is rarely a fun exercise to review a bad movie. There are, of course, exceptions. Movies that are bad, but unintentionally entertaining, can be eviscerated and celebrated in the same breath. It can be cathartic to unload on Hollywood product cynically dumped into theaters just to make a few bucks off unwitting dupes by people who should care more about their craft —these provide excellent excuses to flex your mordant prose muscles. And there are a small number of movies for which calling out their antisocial elements—be they misogynist, sadistic, exploitative, ignorant, or bigoted—feels like a public service. But most bad movies, unfortunately, were made with love by decent people doing the best with what they had to work with; these flicks inspire disappointment, not indignation. And disappointment rarely results in prose that’s a delight for either reader or writer.

But the issuance of a remake of a weird movie classic  like Spider Baby is newsworthy. And although the project feels wholly unnecessary, people are likely to be at least a little curious. Seeing the name of original director on the marquee as executive producer is encouraging; surely he would not leave his baby in the hands of ne’er-do-well filmmakers? Unfortunately, the new Baby goes wrong in just about every way imaginable; so much so that any analysis reads less like a meaningful critique and more like a particularly grisly cinematic autopsy report.

Ferguson has added entirely new scenes, and yet the new version somehow runs almost ten minutes shorter than the original. The film is padded with little home-movie style clips (a tribute to House of 1,000 Corpses, a movie this actually resembles more than its source) and many more senseless murders—as if a greater quantity of perfunctory killings could make up for the carefully orchestrated, individualizes fates that befell the original’s scant three victims. The four top credited actors are Beverly Washburn (Elizabeth in the original), Ron (great-grandson of Lon) Chaney, Robert Mukes, and . Each of them spent at most an afternoon on the project, filming meaningless death, flashback, or wraparound scenes. Stevens doesn’t even speak. The actual principals are no match for the originals. Nor is the camerawork, the setting (sunny Cali mansion instead of old dark country house), the continuity, the humor, or, really, anything. A few of the performances aren’t completely embarrassing (Moriarity is best), the credit sequence is well done, and the score is good (if used far to liberally, in an attempt to manufacture a spooky atmosphere not happening onscreen). But it’s like a community theater enactment a beloved classic, with no real individual take to offer. Great scenes are omitted, inconsequential ones are substituted. All that you really need to do is to compare the two renditions of the famous “playing spider with Uncle Peter” scenes. The original is a masterpiece of suspense worthy of , playful and subtle, conveying themes of bondage, incest, and sadism through the context of a villainess with the unknowable, morally ambiguous mind of a child. Even though some of the dialogue is lifted verbatim for the remake, this re-enactment is more like watching candid security footage from the VIP room of a B&D-themed strip club. Ferguson establishes no relationship (much less chemistry) between the characters, starts the scene in medias res, and ends it in sleaziest res.

Of course, there will be some generous and charitable folks who think that this younger sibling is not such a bad egg, and good for them, I guess. But my recommendation is to avoid; the fact that, despite the cult tie-in, this movie has almost no distribution, marketing, or reviews from sources besides us bolsters that warning. It would be all terribly depressing, but the bright side is that this microbudget remake helps us to appreciate the miraculous accomplishment of Hill’s original so much more. Hill may have been working in schlock, but he was a master schlock craftsman, able to wring memorable performances out of mediocre talent and genuine suspense out of thin, musty air.

On Pod 366, we incorrectly speculated that the advertised “BONUS black and white feature” was a copy of the original film. It is, in fact, merely a monochrome rendering of the remake. There are a lot of interviews and behind-the-scenes footage on the disc, however.

366 UNDERGROUND: PSYCHO APE: PART II – THE WRATH OF KONG (2024)

366 Weird Movies may earn commissions from purchases made through product links.

Weirdest!

Psycho Ape 2: The Wrath of Kong Indiegogo page for more information, including ordering

DIRECTED BY: Addison Binek, Greg DeLiso

FEATURING: Bill Weeden, Kansas Bowling, Floyd Cashio

PLOT: During the trial of Psycho Ape, the filmmakers make a sequel to Psycho Ape.

Still from Pyshco Ape Part II: The Wrath of Kong (2024)

COMMENTS:

Good afternoon, reader, we now take you to the Psycho Ape Part II -the Wrath of Kong review, already in progress:

…and that moment when the presenter is challenged to a staring contest with the camera lens and proceeds to gaze at the viewer for  several minutes—all while clips of this, that, and particularly the other spool out on the in-frame—it’s clear that these jokers (by which I mean Binek and Deliso) are really just doing whatever they want. The scattershot approach to this compelling nonsense keeps you on your toes, because who knows what will happen next? Will it be flashback? Complaints from Psycho Ape actors about not being in the sequel? More courtroom shenanigans? Or maybe it will just be a long segment featuring Bill “Doctor ZOOmis” Weeden getting his right ear pierced after avoiding this for decades?

This mash-up of , , and has everything to say, virtually all of it about how this is a sequel to a film, set twenty-five years before, during, or after the original, an original which…

I’m going to have to ask you to hold that thought as we have just received a live-breaking report from our man in the field, Giles Edwards.

 

[ON THE SCENE REMARKS FROM GILES EDWARDS]

Shocking, if true. We now return to Giles in the studio.

…so I’m not sure what more to say. From the nonsensical trial of Psycho Ape, to the odd nod to prey-predator polyamory, to the direct re-creations of classic film scenes (Titanic, The Dark Knight, and The Temple of Doom, among others), to the regular blasts of product placement, this is goofy, meandering, and defiantly pointless—with a degree of self-awareness not usually becoming for a feature film. But it’s always lively, and wraps up well before interest might wane. The talent gathered for this (presumably from a deep well of friends and acquaintances), though mixed in proficiency, is invariably cheerful, with a deep, deep, deep awareness that while they probably shouldn’t bother with this thing of a movie, they Can, and so, boldly, they Do.

Back to you.

WHAT THE CRITICS SAY:

“It does not matter if one finds this to be good-bad, bad-bad, or just plain blah; this is an experience that should be had by everyone interested in low-budget and experimental filmmaking.” — Bobby LePire, Film Threat (contemporaneous)

 

Celebrating the cinematically surreal, bizarre, cult, oddball, fantastique, strange, psychedelic, and the just plain WEIRD!