Reviews

It seems like everywhere you turn there's some horror movie that's trying to be a throwback to the golden age of eighties slashers. However, none that I've come across have perfectly captured the magic that can be found within a VHS of something like BLOOD RAGE or ROCKTOBER BLOOD. Some have come close (CLUB DREAD), and others have failed miserably. So which category does THE GREENSKEEPER fall under?

Allen is the assistant greens keeper at a lush country club, which his mother and stepfather/ex-uncle own. Some snobby young adults convince him to let them in after the place is closed for a little party. However, someone wearing a greens keeper's outfit begins picking them off in various creative and gruesome ways. Is it Allen, who's had enough with the snobs that tease him? Is it Otis, the head greens keeper who's a little loopy? Or is it Allen's father, back from the dead?

The only thing that saved THE SLEEPER from being complete bottom of the barrel trash was the kills, which really brought be back to the methods of murder in classic late twentieth-century slashers. The same almost applies for THE GREENSKEEPER. Most of the kills are reserved for the last half-hour or so, and they are SUPERB. They're gory, funny, and creative, with each utilizing the golf-theme to a tee (pun not intended). Nails are put in one of those automatic tennis ball shooters, tees are forced through someone's forehead, some gets beaten to death with a nine-iron (I think), and you know those golf ball washers? A DIFFERENT kind of balls is put in it. Ouch.

However, some of the characters in THE GREENSKEEPER are likable, including Allen, Otis, and even Allen's stoner friend. You get a sense that these are real people and they come across as very likable. The snobs that get in, however, you want to see die immediately. This is where it fails as an eighties throwback. Typically in eighties movies, we follow the group for most of the time. Here, most of the time is spent on Allen, and him getting most of the attention causes the movie to drag a tad.

However, I loved the killer's disguise, the ridiculous reveal of the killer (as well as his death), the motive, etc. There are some intentionally funny moments during the first hour or so, but as a whole, it felt very blah before the kills began. It was a bit of a chore to sit through, but the brilliant deaths made up for it.

Overall, I liked it. It's nothing special, but it's a decently fun watch if you want to get your slasher kicks. It's far from a perfect slasher, but it's really not that bad as far as entertainment goes.

Don't go in expecting a new classic, but you could certainly do worse.

I have seen many a horror movie in my day, and few have actually succeeded in scaring me. I will go to the grave with my opinion that PARANORMAL ACTIVITY was terrifying, as well as parts of both versions of THE WOMAN IN BLACK. THE CHANGELING was recommended to me one day by a bearded man with an eye patch (who was a complete stranger) at a book store. Needless to say, I watched it ASAP.

John Russell is a composer who has recently lost his wife and daughter in a truck accident and decides to move into a huge, old mansion. Soon, strange things begin going on and John begins to dig into the history of the house, discovering its shocking history.

I went into THE CHANGELING expecting just your standard, things-go-bump haunted house story. I knew it could be scary, but I didn't know anything about it. I also saw it was 115-minutes long. "That's way too long!" I proclaimed. "How are they going to keep this running?" Well, as it turns out, there's a whole lot more to the story than I expected, and I loved it. I can't say much about what separates this from other haunted house movies because half the enjoyment I got out of it was being surprised at where it went.

There aren't any jump scares in THE CHANGELING (from what I remember it). It's all creepy things like doors opening by themselves, strange noises coming from the attic, and a child whispering. However, it's not limited to just these things, which are creepy enough. There's one scene where a woman just stops and stares up a flight of stairs, and then we get to see what she's staring at and it scared me to death!

THE CHANGELING is certainly very professionally made as well, with likable characters, great acting, very spooky atmosphere, fantastic camera shots, and a solid pace. It may seem slow by most standards, but the time really flew by when I watched it. It's one of the few films that have actually made me afraid to go near my closet for fear of what might be inside after watching this.

This is essential viewing for all horror fans, even if it's not a film you'll find yourself revisiting every week. It's a good nostalgia trip back to the days when films didn't rely on blood, gore, or even cheap jump scares to frighten audiences.

Quintessential viewing for all ages.

Sometimes, I come across a movie that feels like it shouldn't exist, but it's just THERE. It serves no purpose, no one notable is involved, the film doesn't DO anything notable; it's just filling up space. BLOOD SISTERS is one of those movies.

For its initiation, the leader of a sorority takes seven pledges to an abandoned and supposedly haunted brothel in the middle of nowhere. Soon, someone dressed as a whore begins killing them off one by one.

It's really hard to talk about BLOOD SISTERS just because it doesn't really do anything worth talking about. It does have one or two original thoughts in its otherwise brainless head, but it fails miserably. However, it does manage to entertain despite itself.

As far as originality goes, the only somewhat inventive idea is that the whorehouse really is haunted, and maybe we're supposed to assume the killer is possessed by the spirits (maybe). I might say the lack of answers is intended and meant to get the audience thinking any other day of the week, but here, it just feels like lazy writing.

The film takes a really long time to get to the kills, and the hour that isn't spent on deaths is spent on a scavenger hunt the pledges must take part in. When we get to them, he kills aren't too original or even gory for that matter, which aids in BLOOD SISTER's "What's the point?" feel.

It also has some really laughable moments as well, including one shot where we see what looks like an action figure wrapped in black paper fly past a character while on a clearly visible string! It's never explained what this is, but I think we're supposed to assume this is supposed to be one of the ghosts. Then there's the stupid characters that always split up, the obvious dummy falling down the stairs, the classic line "Eat my shorts, tampon breath! I really saw something!" and the very stupid killer reveal.

The film fails on nearly all levels, from fleshed out characters, to suspense, to likable characters, and even to deaths. Director Roberta Findlay even admitted that this was done solely by the studio's request to make money. The final product certainly shows it. It's not as bad as other reviews would have you think, but it's far, FAR from top-quality material.

Don't take this as a warning to stay away; just don't expect much. I went in with low expectations and I enjoyed myself. Hopefully, you will too.

I am of the opinion that eighties monster movies were the best monster movies. I know the fifties is typically the popular choice, but the eighties had THE THING, THE OUTING, FRIGHT NIGHT, BRAIN DAMAGE, and more than I can name. So an early nineties monster movie like TICKS ought to capture some of that magic…right?

Tyler is a nerdy redhead whose father signs him up for an "inner city nature retreat" (or something like that) because his drunken father left him in the woods for a while and Tyler's been scarred ever since. So a bunch of inner city kids head out to the woods where, unbeknownst to them, marijuana farmers have been operating. However, the growth steroids they use for their marijuana have caused the wood ticks in the woods to grow to huge sizes. So now, the group faces a triple threat of the giant man-eating ticks, the hostile marijuana farmers, and the forest fire drawing closer.

TICKS is one of those movies where it feels like the director was given a 2-hour time slot to fill, and after he shot an hour of material, the studio came to him and said now he had to fit it in an 85-minute time slot. The movie seems to focus more on the marijuana farmers and character interactions for the first hour instead of the ticks, and finally, with about twenty-five minutes to spare, the ticks actually begin to attack the whole group.

Therein lies my biggest complaint; I love a little time being spent to flesh out the characters, but in a monster movie, most of the time should be focused on the actual monsters! The characterization does pay off, as we do get a lot of likable and well fleshed out characters. However, I thought the quiet Asian girl was really superfluous because she really doesn't contribute anything. Oh, and Clint Howard is in this, and he acts exactly like you expect him to as a backwoods marijuana farmer. He even spews the movie's classic line, "I'M INNFEEEESSSSSTTEEEEEEDDDD!!!" It also features Alphonso Rebeiro (Carl from THE FRESH PRINCE OF BEL-AIR) as the "bad" kid (who's pretty likable), Panic.

However, the final siege on the cabin with the ticks is really entertaining! The practical effects are fantastic (they were done by the renowned KNB effects) and some of the gore is really good. However, it began to wear on me because it was so repetitive and I realized what it needed. Then, as if my prayers had been answered, what the film needed was included. And it was awesome.

TICKS is an alright watch, but it's far from perfection. It tends to drag considerably in the middle and it really isn't that original. But then again, lack of originality is better than throwing everything at the audience and hoping something works a la THE UNNAMABLE. It has good acting, likable characters, fantastic effects, good gore, and it's just FUN. It may bore you, but in the end, everything is all right.

Take a look.

As part of my "revenge-movie-catch-up," I knew that I HAD to see SAVAGE STREETS. Not only did this have glowing reviews from exploitation fans, but it looked totally amazing as well!

Brenda is the toughest girl in her high school who usually goes out with her posse and her sweet, deaf younger sister for some fun. One night, they decide to get back at a gang called the Scars (whom have been hassling them) by jacking their car and then filling it with garbage. The Scars respond by gang-raping Brenda's sister and throwing her pregnant and bride-to-be best friend off a bridge. Brenda decides it's time to adopt the principle of "an eye for an eye," loads up her crossbow, and goes out for some payback.

SAVAGE STREETS is classic exploitation at its finest. It has the standard formula (first hour is building on characters, last half hour is payback) and does it very well. This was during Linda Blair's "exploitation days," where it seemed this Oscar-nominated actress would take just about any role as long as the pay was good. I think she did a great job with the role, which surprised me because of how innocent she usually looks (one of my complaints about HELL NIGHT (1981) was that she looked "too Cherubian").

John Vernon makes an appearance as the tough as nails and completely AWESOME principal and spews the classic line about what the gang should do with an iceberg. The actors who play the gang are all over-the-top, but they do come across as despicable people and that's really all that matters.

However, my problem here is my problem with most revenge movies: they just wait too long to get to the payback (and awesome) part. But trust me; considering how great that last half hour was, the wait was worth it. A lot of people complain about how a lot of that hour is high school drama where the boyfriend of the head cheerleader keeps hitting on Brenda, but I thought that was all really entertaining (the head cheerleader is just as despicable as the gang members, in my opinion).

It's no surprise this was directed by Danny Steinmann, a porn director, because of the abundance of female nudity in it. It was completely unnecessary, yet thankfully, it doesn't really make the film drag like in other movies (THE INVISIBLE MANIAC). The film also features Marcia Karr in a role before she played Rhonda in the phenomenal KILLER WORKOUT (1987) as one of Brenda's friends, as well as everyone's favorite eighties scream queen, Linnea Quigley, as Heather.

Even the soundtrack to this movie kicks all sorts of butt, with loads of classic eighties tunes, including the unforgettable "Justice for One." The protagonists are all likable and I really didn't want any of them to die, and as previously stated, the antagonists were all very unlikable and just itching to get an arrow through the throat.

SAVAGE STREETS isn't perfect (it skims the surface of being that, though), but there's no arguing that this is a great exploitation movie. Loaded with over-the-top violence, gratuitous nudity, entertaining characters (John Vernon, baby!), likable characters, good suspense, a fast pace, and a great soundtrack. Yes sir, they just don't make 'em like they used to.

Essential viewing for everyone.

It's really hard to screw up an H.P. Lovecraft story. Even if your movie is low-budget and you can't afford too many luxuries (i.e. good effects, acting, etc.), the film would probably still end up entertaining just because the man's work is so entertaining in itself. Unfortunately, not even that could save THE UNNAMABLE.

Two college couples decide to check out the old Winthrop place for initiation into the fraternity/sorority. However, they discover that a hideous monster resides in the house and it soon begins to kill them off one by one. Can they stop it before it's too late?

Granted, I have not read the seven-page short story by Mr. Lovecraft, but I'm rather certain something got lost in translation here. I mean, almost everything about the film is great, with great gore, great effects, a great score, good actors, and good camera-work. The problem is that the film simply cannot utilize all these things productively. The score is good, but completely out of place. The gore was good, but the deaths weren't too inventive. The monster effects are good, but the monster is not frightening. The actors are capable of good things, but the writing they have to work with is putrid. And the camera-work…well, that can't be the saving grace for a film.

What angers me about THE UNNAMABLE is that it could have been great. There was a time in the beginning where I began to feel fear, but the score completely ruined it for me (at times it sounds exactly like Zelda). Also, the film just cannot decide whether it wants to be a fun popcorn flick or a serious horror movie, which leads to scenes that should either be fun or scary, and I can't tell which. Overall, this gives the film a very bland feel.

Towards the end, the film takes a bizarre left turn into stuff like magical spells and even underground skeleton attacks! It sounds fun, but its relevance is never explained and it all happens in the blink of an eye! Then there's the non-reactivity of the characters. One girl sees a boy with his throat ripped out, and when help comes, she begins asking the other boy why people are more attracted to her friend than to her (?!?). Hello; you just saw someone BRUTALLY KILLED! REACT!!!

Overall, THE UNNAMABLE is just a monster movie that's trying too hard to stand out, when all it needs to be entertaining is just play it like a straight monster movie. It's like those inspirational movies where someone goes looking for happiness when all that person really needs is right under his/her nose. Only THE UNNAMABLE never discovers that, and the audience pays for it. Fortunately, there's a sequel that looks, and, from what I have heard, is better than this.

For the moment, this one's alright if you have nothing better to do.

One sub-genre of film that I have been neglecting for quite some time is the revenge movie. Sure, I've seen the EXTERMINATOR movies and DEATH WISH 3, but that was about it until I decided to watch CLASS OF 1984. It wasn't a film I'd wanted to watch; one night I just spontaneously decided to watch it for no reason. Boy oh boy was I surprised.

Andrew Norris is a young music teacher who has just accepted his first teaching position at Lincoln High School. Norris is shocked to find that Terry, a fellow teacher, carries a gun in his brief case and there are metal detectors at the doors. He soon discovers this is with good reason, given the amount of gangs and gang violence in the school, mostly by Peter Stegman, a punk whose drug-pushing gang "owns" the school and who just so happens to be a brilliant pianist. Andrew stands up to him, which leads to full-on war between the two until Stegman goes too far and pushes Norris over the edge.

CLASS OF 1984 is exploitation cinema at its finest, but the film is so accomplished that it almost feels too classy to be exploitation. The acting is nothing short of fantastic, featuring breakout performances by Perry King as the caring Norris who slowly begins to lose his patience, the always incredible Roddy McDowell as Terry, the man who has lost all hope in his teaching abilities and dreams of actually making a good change in these kids lives, and, of course, Timothy Van Patten as Stegman, who plays the role with a mix of suaveness, psychosis, and even tragedy at his wasted life. Oh, and Michael J. Fox also makes an early appearance as a good kid trapped in such a miserable world.

The film does a good job of building the antagonists up as completely despicable so by the final showdown between Norris and the gang, you are itching for them to die, yet they are sympathetic in a way. The film's pacing is superb as well, with each passing scene continually mounting the tension until the blood-soaked climax.

The film also captures quite aptly the total hopelessness some teachers face with their students, and even if you're not a teacher, you can still relate to it because we've all had that a-hole in our class that would never give the teacher a break. Only here, in classic exploitation fashion, these guys go beyond that. They actually set fire to Norris's car early on and slaughter all the animals in Terry's biology class.

But have no fear exploitation fanatics! This isn't exactly an art house film, as it is filled with full-frontal nudity and some graphic violence towards the end.

CLASS OF 1984 was a real surprise for me. I was expecting a gritty, grindhouse exploitation movie, and in most ways, that's what I got. However, the film is more than that. It's very professionally made, it's smart, and it's emotional. It really is depressing in some scenes building up to the climax, and I like that. The finale will quench any exploitation fan's quench for violence. Great acting, great characters, great story, great pacing, great violence, just great EVERYTHING all around.

Don't pass this one up; seek it out immediately.

I love eighties movies of all kinds, yet I have been neglecting the great eighties sex comedy for a while. I decided to finally catch up on some of them, and I figured JOYSTICKS wasn't a bad place to start.

The local video arcade is the greatest hot spot in town for the teens, but it's not too popular with the richest man in town. Can the manager's grandson (who runs the place, since his grandfather is out of town), his nerdy co-worker, and the arcade's gaming champion stop him from shutting it down for good?

Even if it's not the greatest, JOYSTICKS still manages to entertain despite itself. It's your stereotypical eighties comedy, with lots of sex jokes, boobs, and all the caricatures you'd expect to find (the fat guy, the nerd, the suave guy, the punk, etc.). This kind of familiarity gives JOYSTICKS a very comfortable feeling, like homemade cooking.

Fans of eighties nostalgia will have a lot to love as well, with a classic soundtrack filled with cheesy tunes (including a title song), as well as all (or at least most of) the arcade games you can remember. The film does have its funny parts, and they're funny in the "that's-so-stupid" kind of way.

However, for every funny part, there are at least two jokes that fall flat on their face. This leads to some groan-worthy moments where you wonder why they would even put a joke like that in the film. For one, there's the rich guy's daughter, who they try to make funny by making her voice squeaky and making every third word she says, "Like." There are also the bumbling nephews who go into the arcade incognito with one of them dressed in drag.

JOYSTICKS really isn't that great, but it provides for a fun night of late twentieth century nostalgia. I'm being really generous by awarding it a 7/10, but no one can deny how fun it is.

There are obviously better eighties comedies out there, but this one will still entertain in a C.H.U.D. II: BUD THE C.H.U.D. kind of way.

I always thought Alexandre Aja's 2010 remake of Joe Dante's classic PIRANHA was a bit overrated. However, I was still excited for the sequel. I mean, it had David Hasselhoff, Gary Busey, Clu Gulager, Christopher Lloyd, and Ving Rhames in the cast and was set at a water park, so how could they possibly screw this up? Enter PIRANHA 3DD.

The prehistoric, carnivorous piranha from the first film have swam out of Lake Victoria and find themselves in a lake just outside of The Big Wet, a sleazy water park. The lecherous owner decides to use water from that lake for his water park to save money, and unwittingly unleashes the piranha on the patrons at the park. Can his step-daughter, her love interest, and even the Hoff himself put a stop to the ensuing carnage?

PIRANHA 3DD should have been great. It should have been the best movie of the summer. But it wasn't. It was one of the biggest letdowns I have ever come across. But it wasn't ALL bad. The inclusion of the Hoff and Busey was entertaining in itself, even if Busey isn't really given anything to do. I mean, if you get Gary Busey to be in your film, why not make him, well, crazy, seeing as that's what he's known for? David Hasselhoff was easily the best part of the entire thing because of how hilarious he was. There's even a montage of him running in slow motion to save a ginger kid from the piranhas!

Actually, all the events leading up to the big massacre at the water park were really unnecessary. You could have just shown the beginning and the end water park scene, and the whole thing would still make perfect sense.

Probably the worst thing about it is how hard it's trying to replicate the original. Much like MEN IN BLACK II, it tries to be like the original by over-exploiting the good things about the first. The first was taken somewhat serious with an underlying humor, but here, there's absolutely no seriousness. There are a lot of dumb jokes that just do not work, and a lot of situations that are just trying way too hard to be funny instead of just being naturally humorous like the first.

Even though the water park massacre was the best part of the movie, it was still a letdown! Remember how the first PIRANHA 3D actually had some funny and interesting death scenes? Not here. It's just piranhas nibbling on swimmers. That's it. Oh, and a piranha gets stuck between a guy's crack. That's the kind of humor we're dealing with in this movie. They could have done so much with the water park setting, and they waste it all.

PIRANHA 3DD had some fun moments, but as a whole was pretty stale. It tries WAY too hard to replicate the original and be funny, and loses half the entertainment value along the way. This one might get better with future viewings, but right now, it's pretty moldy.

I was never that big of a fan of the original, but now, I see that it could have been a whole lot worse

I've seen some really obscure slashers in my day, but MIRAGE has to be one of the hardest to find. Never released on video in the US (no idea why not), it's near impossible to find on the internet or elsewhere. Sometimes, with certain movies, the obscurity is understandable (HEAVY METAL MASSACRE), but here, I am very perplexed.

Three couples decide to head out to the middle of the desert for a little R&R. However, they soon begin being menaced by a black truck and an unknown driver. Then the mysterious driver begins bumping them off one by one. Who is this man? What does he want with them? Is he real, or is it all just a mirage?

I imagine MIRAGE came about when someone thought to his/herself, "Say, I wonder what would happen is Steven Spielberg's DUEL was a straight-up slasher, and with a group of teens instead of Dennis Weaver?" Well, that idea culminates here, and it's actually not as campy as you would think. Sure, the acting isn't the best in certain spots, and some of the characters do dumb things, but those can easily be forgiven through what good things MIRAGE has to offer.

I've always said that in order to create a perfect (or at least near perfect) slasher is spend thirty minutes on character development and maybe one or two murders, forty to fifty minutes on stalk and slash, and ten to twenty minutes on killer confrontation. MIRAGE follows this nearly to a tee and it works wonders for it.

The characters were all likable and believable, and even the "jerk" character was likable to a degree. The setting doesn't feel forced (it doesn't feel like these characters came here just to get killed), as they actually partake in believable activities instead of just constant sex. They also act like they're all friends, as opposed to just non-stop bickering. There's also some entertaining montages, such as them playing football or one of the couples making love in the back of a pick-up while a weight presses on the gas as they roar across the desert.

The kills in MIRAGE are all gory and well-done, even if they aren't too creative. We get to see the aftermath of a messy meeting of a head and a grenade, an arrow through the head, a dismemberment, etc. However, don't think that the kills are all MIRAGE has going for it. There are some brilliant suspense sequences involving the truck menacing the final girl and whoever else is with her. The desert is one of my favorite underused slasher settings, and it's done to perfection here. They make this desert seem so vast and endless, which really builds on the isolated atmosphere.

I don't think it would be too much of a spoiler to say that the killer is someone completely random, however, one might get the feeling the film is trying to be a whodunit because of how the audience never sees his face until the final ten or so minutes. There is some good suspense when he gets out of his truck and chases the final girl around some rocks while taunting her. There's also a twist ending that I didn't care for, but oh well.

I love this movie with all my heart. It has nearly everything I look for in an entertaining slasher flick: Likable and fun characters, good gore, great pacing, lots of suspense, a phenomenal setting, and good acting to boot. I just wish they had used the concept of mirages more.

Highly recommended, if you can find it.

Jim Wynorski is, without a doubt, the king of B-movie sequels. He directed some of my favorite follow-ups, including 976-EVIL II, BIG BAD MAMA II, and this, SORORITY HOUSE MASSACRE III, also known as HARD TO DIE.

Five women working in a high-rise lingerie company building are forced to work overtime. A package mistakenly arrives at the address, and after they open it, they unwittingly release the soul of Hockstetter, a psychotic madman who died years before. Soon, the girls begin getting picked off one by one. Could the killer be Orville Ketchum, the creepy janitor and supposed hero of the sorority house massacre years before? Whoever it is, the girls decide the situation can best be solved with heavy firepower!

HARD TO DIE had one of the most intriguing ideas I've seen in a while: take DIE HARD, and replace Bruce Willis with lingerie-clad women with machine guns. Brilliant, right? Close, but no cigar. However, HARD TO DIE is still a fun movie. The first fifty minutes or so is straight-up slasher, with an unseen person picking off these girls one by one (off-screen).

However, the bad acting and hilarious dialogue kept me amused for that period of time. Then they break out the machine guns in the final twenty minutes. And it is glorious. Wynorski knows who his audience is and he knows how to entertain them. He jam-packs the movie with loads of female nudity (he even cameos as a porn director), lots of gun fire, and almost no plot.

The film is hilarious for both intended and unintended reasons. For unintended, we get loads of bad acting and poorly written dialogue. For intended we get an over-the-top display of violence towards poor Orville as he is shot multiple times, stabbed multiple times, and even falls off the top of the high rise! Then there's the extremely goofy final shot and how the girls feel the need to change into the new lingerie after their clothes get a little wet! It's brilliant! However, I do have a few complaints. For one, the film is just too short for its own good. Jim Wynorski has proved before that he can make a 70-minute runtime work (CHOPPING MALL), but here, it just feels like the studios gave him a specific 77-minute runtime while he was halfway through filming and realized he needed to speed things up. I think if the girls had gotten the guns earlier on (maybe with about forty or so minutes left on the runtime) it would have been better.

Still, HARD TO DIE is a really fun movie and is sure to please for fans of B-movie cheddar. The plot is brilliant, the humor is top-notch, and the fun spirit is fully intact.

Even though it's not the greatest, it's still quintessential viewing fans of bad movies.

One of my all-time favorite hobbies is collecting VHS tapes. Sure, it's not as fun now that all the major rental stores have either been shut down or don't carry the format anymore, but it's still fun to browse online. On that note, any self-respecting VHS collector knows one of the rarest finds is a big box VHS of 1987's LUNCH MEAT.

A group of fun-loving teenagers decide to head up to a cabin in the woods for the weekend. However, the gang encounters a backwoods, cannibal family looking to chop them up and sell their meat to the local hamburger joint. Will anyone survive?

Indeed, will anyone survive the grating experience that is the unbelievably inept LUNCH MEAT? I know I did, but just barely. Honestly, this is one of the only films I've come across that nearly fails on all levels, both in actual quality and genuine entertainment. However, a few bits of cheesy goodness put it one or two levels above the bottom of the barrel.

The people who made this obviously had no idea what they were doing, which is blatantly obvious because of how poorly executed everything in this movie is. The acting is horrible and these people are clearly friends and family of the director (it does have Ashlyn Gere, who starred in one of my favorite cheesy slashers, 1986's EVIL LAUGH). Also, I have to throw in that one character sounded a lot like Roger from the show American DAD.

The biggest problem I have with LUNCH MEAT is the chase. Here's the case: first, we get thirty minutes of hilarious character development (hilarious for the wrong reasons, of course). Then we get a forty minute long chase scene that's just that: people running around. Nothing happens except PEOPLE. RUNNING. AWAY. It has to be one of the most excruciating things I've had to sit through in a while.

The film does have the occasional fun and/or funny moment, but they are few and far between. For the burger stand, they just put a white sign reading "So-and-So's Burgers" on the side of a run-down building in downtown Detroit (or some other place). Some of the character interactions are amusing as well. Once the final couple begins to fight back, the pace picks up considerably, but it resorts back to mediocrity after a while.

Overall, I don't want to say LUNCH MEAT is worth watching, but I don't want to advise anyone to avoid it at all costs. It has its fun moments, but the painful-to-watch middle section is enough to scare anyone away. Also, for a film to sell itself as a really gruesome movie filled with carnage, there isn't a whole lot of bloodshed. In fact, I might even say I enjoyed CANNIBAL CAMPOUT more than this. It's that bad.

My advice: If you stumble upon it by chance, watch it once just to say you did. Then throw it in the trash.

It's no secret that one of my favorite movies of all time is David A. Prior's 1986 classic KILLER WORKOUT. Given that, imagine my joy when I discovered there was another workout slasher made in the eighties. I somehow knew it wouldn't top KILLER WORKOUT, but it's near impossible to not enjoy DEATH SPA.

Michael is the owner of a prestigious spa that's run completely by a large computer system built by his ex-brother-in-law David. You see, Michael's wife, Catherine, had a miscarriage, which severely damaged her spine and committed her to a wheelchair. Depressed, she doused herself in gasoline and set herself on fire. Well, now someone, or something, is killing off members of the spa. Is it Catherine, back from the dead? Or is it David, out to avenge his sister? Or is it someone else trying to get Michael to lose the spa?

DEATH SPA is great, but for all the wrong reasons. I imagine this movie had a budget twice that of KILLER WORKOUT, yet the quality is still the same, and maybe even worse. This is definitely a movie made solely to show off some fancy gore FX, so the writing is very sloppy and very funny. Sometimes the hilarity is the result of just bad acting, but sometimes, you can't help but wonder if they actually could have done better, given the material. This is sad, considering some of the actors have done bigger things. There's Ken Foree (DAWN OF THE DEAD), Merrit Butrick (STAR TREK 2&3), Brenda Bakke (L.A. CONFIDENTIAL), and Frank McCarthy (THE RELIC).

DEATH SPA definitely doesn't skimp on the gore, with inventive deaths, a huge body count, and lots and lots of grue. One guy's face falls off, another gets boiled alive by hot water, another explodes, etc. The effects aren't the greatest, but did you really expect them to be? I will say that DEATH SPA beats out KILLER WORKOUT in the death and gore department, but then again, there aren't any deaths by giant safety pin in DEATH SPA, are there?

That's really all there is to talk about with DEATH SPA. It's not scary in the slightest, the gore is great, some of the kills are so absurd they're hilarious (death by fish, anyone?), the writing is beyond awful, and it is sort of sad to see these stars appearing in, well, THIS.

Needless to say, it's required viewing for every organism on Earth.

THE DEAD PIT is a movie that seems to divide people on whether they like it or not. Straight zombie fans say it's too slasher-esque in the middle. Straight slasher fans dislike the zombie angle. I happen to be both, so I quite enjoyed it.

Dr. Colin Ramzi is a psychotic scientist who experiments on the patients at the mental institution he works for. His associate, Dr. Swan, has had enough, so he confronts him in his basement laboratory, shoots him in the head, and throws him in the pit where he stored the dead bodies. Twenty years later, a woman who calls herself Jane Doe enters the institution because the doctors say she has amnesia, yet she knows her memory was taken from her. She manages to befriend one patient by the name of Chris, who's in there for his habit of building bombs (Golly, I'll bet that won't come in handy later in the film!). Well, after a large earthquake, Dr. Ramzi and all the corpses in the dead pit awaken and wreak havoc on the hospital. Can Jane and Chris save the day?

I liked THE DEAD PIT. The movie had a lot of good things going for it, even though it doesn't fully utilize some of its potential, but as it stands, it's a fun ride. All the actors were pretty good, with the exception of Cheryl Lawson as Jane. She's fine during scenes where she just has to talk, but in her "emotional" scenes, like crying and such, she was horrible. She was a good screamer, though, and she was easy on the eyes, but she began to really get on my nerves after a while.

THE DEAD PIT is a very well-made movie as well. Director Brett Leonard obviously knew what he was doing, and it's no surprise he went on to do bigger things like direct the sci-fi film THE LAWNMOWER MAN. Leonard uses lots of fog and colored lights to build atmosphere, and he does so surprisingly well.

The gore is also top-notch, especially during a period where the MPAA basically neutered a lot of these gore films. There's a lot of gory brain-munching, head-drilling, and decapitations, courtesy of Dr. ramzi and co.

While the last forty or so minutes are pure zombie-filled bliss, the previous hour was one half characterization and one half stalk 'n' slash with some pretty good and nasty kills. This seems to annoy people expecting a straight-forward zombie movie, but I liked it.

Of course, the film does have its flaws. There are some obvious miniatures, especially near the end, but personally, the added to the fun for me. There are some slow parts, but that doesn't take too much out of it. There's also a REALLY obvious "twist" that I guessed in the first fifteen minutes.

Overall, THE DEAD PIT is a really fun movie that plays it straight, yet with a sense of fun all throughout. It's gory, occasionally funny (for both intended and unintended reasons), and some the characters are likable. Dr. Ramzi is a great villain, and the zombie effects are great as well.

Check it out.

One really good episode of TALES FROM THE DARKSIDE that I remember is "Dead Man's Shoes," where an average Joe finds a pair of shoes and decides to put them on. The shoes, however, belonged to a recently deceased mobster, who decides to possess the man and seek revenge on those who sent him to his grave. RETRIBUTION is just like that, only a lot bloodier.

George is a depressed painter who's had it with life. On Halloween night, he jumps off the roof of his apartment building and dies. However, he is brought back by some paramedics, but something isn't quite right with him. Whenever he falls asleep, he has dreams of killing people in gruesome ways, and when he awakens, these people are actually dead. You see, he is now possessed by a mobster who not only shared his birthday, but he was gunned down at the same time George realized he can't fly, so now, the mobster is killing those who killed him. Can George stop him before the killing begins again?

RETRIBUTION is a decent enough watch, but it could have been a whole lot better. Considering this was released in the trash-tastic year of 1987, they managed to have a really intriguing plot, great actors, and good gore effects. Unfortunately, they underplay everything except the actors.

Yes, there is a lot of talking and a lot of character building, which is both a good and a bad thing. Good, because we actually begin to like and connect with the characters. Bad, because it keeps us away from the good stuff.

The kills in RETRIBUTION are all gory, all inventive, and there aren't many of them. There are only four people who gunned down Vito (the mobster), and he doesn't even get his revenge on all of them. There is some great build-up and suspense with the deaths and the "possessed George" is frightening enough to work.

There are a lot of scenes where George's possession takes hold, like when they go to a spiritualist, or when he paints several portraits of the charred Vito (which looks eerily similar to Freddy).

Don't get me wrong; RETRIBUTION is from being a bad movie, it's just not all that great. I liked all the characters, I liked the gore, and the scares were good, it's just that each of these is either underplayed or overplayed. It's "technically" a lot better than most late-eighties direct-to-video garbage; it's just not as entertaining as it should be.

Still, it's worth watching.

David A. Prior is the man! Not only did he give us the surreal (and the first SOV film made for the video market) SLEDGEHAMMER, he gave us one of the best movies ever, KILLER WORKOUT. Now, he gives us DEADLY PREY. An action movie. You can already imagine it, can't you?

Colonel Hogan is the commander of an army of mercenaries who usually orders his men to kidnap random people off the street so they can be released into the wild for training exercises for his troops. However, they just kidnapped Mike Danton, a former man under Hogan's control, and needless to say, he's pretty angry and ready to fight back.

DEADLY PREY is the film definition of sheer insanity. It wastes zero time getting going. It opens with one poor fellow getting hunted and killed, Hogan ordering another one, and Danton is taken while wearing shorts shorter than any man should be allowed to wear. Seeing as Ted Prior plays the role, the mercenaries take off his shirt for no reason and release him.

DEADLY PREY has one of the highest kill counts of any action movie I've ever seen, and it may just beat out STRIKE COMMANDO for that title. A lot of them are straight up shootings, but occasionally, there's a killing that will make your jaw hit the floor. There's a grenade down the pants, a guy somehow not seeing Danton under a pile of leaves, and, possibly the best action movie death I've ever seen, a guy getting his arm hacked off and then getting beat to death with it!

The acting is standard for a Prior movie, and even includes a lot of the cast. There's David Campbell (KILLER WORKOUT, and acting the same as he did there), Ted Prior (KILLER WORKOUT, acting the same as he did there), Fritz Matthews (KILLER WORKOUT, acting the same as he did…say, I'm starting to see a pattern…).

Overall, it's a great movie to watch if you're looking for over-the-top action and no plot. The ending is open for a sequel that, sadly, never was. Still, I would rank this movie up there with STRIKE COMMANDO as far as nonsensical, cheesy action flicks go.

Watch it at all costs.

I think Wes Craven gets picked on too much. Most people say he's only directed a few decent movies and the rest are crap. Sure, the man's made some bad movies (CURSED), but I think he has enough good material in his cannon to be declared a quality director. Take, for example, one of his more forgotten works, DEADLY BLESSING.

Marsha and her husband live next to a colony of Hittites, which her husband used to belong to until they exiled him for marrying Marsha, so now the colony calls her "the Incubus." Marsha's husband dies in a tractor "accident," and soon, someone begins killing off various people in the area. Is it the vengeful leader of the Hittites, Isaiah? Is it one of the two friends Marsha has invited over? Or is something supernatural at work?

I was avoiding this movie for a while, mainly because I'm not a fan of movies that take place in old-fashioned places, such as Amish (or Hittites, technically) communities. However, I discovered that this is actually quite enjoyable! One strong point is the pacing. The pace is neither too fast, nor too slow, and it never changes at any point in the movie. The acting is also really good, including such notable players as Sharon Stone, Ernest Borgnine, and Michael Berryman (who really doesn't serve much of a purpose, but his presence is always welcome).

The film is essentially a slasher flick, and a pretty good one at that. The murders are never very bloody, Craven manages to build up a lot of suspense with most of them. I did guess the identity of the killer, however, I did not guess his/her motive, and let me just say that in any other movie, ti would have been completely laughable. However, Craven manages to pull it off well in my eyes.

There are a few small things that go nowhere (either that or I wasn't paying enough attention to the plot), such as Lana (Stone) having recurring nightmares where something is out to get here, Isaiah's son being exiled, Berryman, etc.

And then there's a completely ludicrous, out-of-left-field, has NOTHING to do with the rest of the film shock ending, which has to be one of the biggest WTF's I've ever seen. And yes, that ending is what made me bump up the rating from a "7" to an "8."

DEADLY BLESSING is pure entertainment any way you slice it. The suspense is great, the atmosphere is heavy, it rarely drags, the acting is way above average, and it has the biggest WTF ending ever!

It's a must-see.

I'm a fan of 80's metal. I'm a fan of 80's horror movies. Put the two together, and what do you get? Well, if you're lucky, ROCKTOBER BLOOD (1984). Or you might get TERROR ON TOUR (1980), but that's not too shabby.

The Clowns are a rock band who wear clown make-up and half a clown mask across the right side of their faces. Someone sporting their concert get-up is murdering prostitutes and various groupies at their concerts. Who could it be? TERROR ON TOUR certainly isn't for everyone. The acting isn't great, the killer is goofy, the identity of the killer is obvious, and it's pretty sleazy to boot. But, being the die-hard slasher fan that I am, I really enjoyed it. Sure, it's not as good as ROCKTOBER BLOOD, but what can you do.

The acting wasn't TOO bad; it was more tolerable than anything. The people who played The Clowns were a real band called The Names, so you have to at least give them credit for trying.

The kills aren't too bloody or even original (it's all stabbing with a large knife), but they (mostly) come rapid fire and I'm in a forgiving mood, so I'll let it slide. The killer's identity is obvious (any four-year old who's seen more than one episode of Scooby-Doo can guess it), and his motive is really, really stupid.

On the rock scale, I'd say it gets a decent 3/4 mannequin be-headings. There are a lot of catchy rock songs, but none of them are very memorable. The runtime was short, but I never felt that it was boring; just a little repetitive.

Anyway, TERROR ON TOUR was a treat for an undemanding eighties slasher fanatic like myself. So if you're in the mood for a little rock and slashing and your VHS of ROCKTOBER BLOOD just broke, check this out.

I first started watching PROM NIGHT about four or five years ago because it starred the famous Jamie Lee Curtis, but gave up on it about twenty-thirty minutes in just because nothing was happening. I finally managed to force myself to finish it, and it wasn't too bad.

Ten years ago, four friends (Wendy, Kelly, Jude, and Nick) unintentionally made a girl their age fall to her death. Now, they're seniors and it's the day of the prom. All four have dates, and even Nick is going with Kim, the sister of the girl that died ten years prior. But on prom, someone begins killing them off one by one. Is it the principal, who was the father of the murdered girl ten years prior? Is it the brother of that girl? Is it the man who was convicted of the crime, but has escaped from a mental institution recently? Or is it the creepy gardener? PROM NIGHT really is an endurance test for slasher fans. The first fifty odd minutes consist of nothing but "character-building," which mostly amounts to just talking about who's dating who and other crap. Granted, there are some entertaining characters and some of the character-building does succeed in creating likable characters, but it is still difficult to make it through that length of time unscathed.

However, fifty minutes in, the prom begins. And that's when the fun begins. Flashing, colored lights, disco music, Leslie Nielson, and disco dancing. Nielson was in the film before the prom, but still. There's about a three-minute long period where Curtis's character (Kim) disco dances with her boyfriend. It's wonderful. There are some kills, but they're not that bloody. There is some great suspense, especially in the chase scene with Wendy. The film's most memorable moment, however, is when the ski-mask clad killer decapitates one poor teen (who he thinks is Nick), and his head rolls out onto the catwalk! I still stand by my theory that PROM NIGHT is only famous because of Ms. Curtis, but it's still a fun watch if you have the patience to wait for the last forty minutes or so. Gotta love that "Prom Night" disco song, though.

I've seen a lot of movies with weird titles in my day, but THE NOSTRIL PICKER takes the cake. Can you just imagine what this movie is about? If you haven't read the description of it, no, you can't, because this movie really isn't about nostril picking.

Joe is a loser whose life is changed when he meets a homeless Vietnam vet who tells him he will teach Joe a magic spell if Joe lets him have some of his booze. Well, with this magic spell, Joe can change into anyone he wants to whenever he hums his favorite song. Well, Joe, being the creepy pervert that he is, changes into a high school girl so he can go into the girls showers and stuff like that without being detected. However, doing this will slowly drive him insane, and soon, he begins to kill off high school girls. Can the police chief, whose daughter is friends with Joe's alter ego, stop the killer before it's too late?

No matter who you are, you haven't seen anything quite like this movie. I guess the only proper way to review it is to go into the basics. For the most part, the acting was more wooden than a pirate ship, but it looked like most everyone was having fun making the movie. However, when one girl got her fingers cut off, she didn't even have any sort of look of pain on her face; it almost looked like she was bored. It also feels like the director started filming without a script and was just making it up as he went, which adds to the hilarity. The gore effects are atrocious, because the blood they use has a pinkish tinge to it. There's also a really predictable and very stupid ending to go with it.

Now, the sole enjoyment that one can get out of THE NOSTRIL PICKER is through all the hilarious scenes. There's the aforementioned terrible acting and gore, the sheer stupidity of the premise, some of the dialogue ("He attacked me with a thingy!"), and just how weird some of the scenes are (Joe chases a transvestite around his apartment with a squirting dildo).

And, of course, I must mention the school montage. So Joe goes to high school and there's a montage of, basically, him slacking off, smoking, and spying on the girls, all set to this incredible song that just repeats, "Schooooooo-ooOOo-lin'…I've got to get me some schooooooooo-ooOOo-lin'…" over and over again. It's pants-wettingly hilarious.

Given how much I laughed at it, I should probably give THE NOSTRIL PICKER a 6/10. But I just can't bring myself to do it. I don't think I could ever respect myself again.

If variety is the spice of life, then BACKWOODS is as bland as a bar of soap. Even though I wasn't born there, I will always consider Indiana my home state because I spent most of my childhood there. However, in all my years there, I never once heard mention of a movie that was made there, BACKWOODS. After watching it, I can see why.

Jamie and Karen are a couple who bike into the woods to go camping. However, when they awake, they find a young girl choking and her father standing above her holding a shotgun. Jamie, being a doctor, rescues her and gets invited to the family homestead (a small house) out of gratitude. However, it turns out the family has a son named William who is a bit nutty. Well, Karen reminds William of his mother, which causes him to go on a homicidal rampage as he kills anyone who gets between the two. Will anyone survive the night?

I'm usually not the biggest fan of the backwoods slashers, but a few have managed to stand out, like JUST BEFORE DAWN, HUNTER'S BLOOD, and RITUALS. BACKWOODS is a crowning example of why I try to avoid this type of slasher. Okay, so the acting is definitely really good, it does manage to build up some atmosphere, and the characters were somewhat likable. Actually, those three things are responsible for one of the stars I've awarded this movie. The other two are for a decent chase, a cool death to the killer, and an nicely ominous ending.

Now onto what happened to the seven stars absent. The major complaint I have with this movie is how mind-numbingly, unbelievably BORING it is. Absolutely NOTHING happens for the first hour or so. The couple bike around, they talk with the forest ranger, they have dinner with the pa, Jamie and Pa go 'coon hunting, etc. Even when we ARE introduced to William, he really does nothing but peek in the windows at Karen. FINALLY he goes on a rampage with a half hour to spare. And when that happens, it's still boring because we've seen it all before, and there are more than thirty other flicks that do it a lot better than BACKWOODS.

Aside from the rare spurt of entertainment, BACKWOODS should be chopped up for firewood. There are no interesting plot twists, no interesting characters, almost no interesting kills (the last one is alright), no memorable gore, no nothing. That's atrocious, BACKWOODS. Indiana should be ashamed.

BLOODY MOON is an interesting film for sure. For one, it's directed by Jess Franco, who was notorious for making several porno movies. So what would a slasher movie directed by him be like?

Miguel is a disfigured man who killed a young woman at an all-girls language school five years prior. His sister Manuela, who runs the school, takes him under her wing once he is released from the mental institution. Soon, students at the school begin getting killed off in gruesome ways. Is Miguel up to his old tricks again? Or is it someone else?

BLOODY MOON ranks alongside 1982's PIECES as an absolutely hilarious foreign horror movie. While PIECES was notorious for its hilarious WTF moments, BLOODY MOON remains hysterical for the horrible dialogue. I could basically list every line in this film, but some of my favorites are, "I want you to melt in my arms!" and "Honestly! How gruesome! That's a bit far-fetched!" Make those lines horrendously dubbed and you have an idea what the BLOODY MOON experience is like.

The other strong suit of BLOODY MOON is the gory, violent, and often hilarious murders. There's the infamous decapitation via giant buzz saw, but it comes across as more funny than shocking. For one, it has to be one of the most obvious cases where an actress is replaced by a dummy, and the girl doesn't realize anything is fishy until the killer ties her to the moving rock! There's also the killer stabbing a girl in the back with a knife (and the tip exiting through her nipple!).

However, BLOODY MOON fails to really deliver on other levels. The score is awful because it mainly consists of this really, REALLY annoying guitar twanging during every scene. Aside from the two murders I already listed, the others fail to stand out in any way. The characters aren't likable or memorable, and it also fails to end on any sort of bang.

All in all, BLOODY MOON is a fun watch mainly for that one fantastic buzz saw kill and the dialogue you'll find yourself quoting for weeks. Everything else is just bad. Only worth a purchase if it's cheap. Otherwise, just rent it.

By the late eighties, it had pretty much all been done before, hadn't it? The slasher film has always been the most blunt and unoriginal sub genre of horror, and I suppose that's what I like about it. Some slashers did get a little big for their britches and tried to be like the big boys, but that didn't quite work out (FADE TO BLACK being a crowning example of an egomaniacal slasher), but I like the ones that are more humble; more honest with themselves, who are comfortable with the familiar mold of the slasher film. Enter NIGHT SCREAMS.

David is the quarterback of his high school football team as well as the class hunk, which angers his steady girl, Joni, since girls are constantly throwing themselves at him. David's parents decide to reward him for getting a four-year athletics scholarship to O.U. by leaving him the house for the weekend, so naturally, David throws a party. However, someone begins bumping off the partygoers one by one. Is it the two escaped convicts hiding out in the basement? Or is it David, who needs medication to control his violent outbursts? Or is it a third-party?

NIGHT SCREAMS may be very straight-forward, but it does have a lot of good ideas in mind that don't fully fill themselves out. For one thing, the thought of two criminals hiding out in the basement wile partygoers are being killed upstairs is a nifty idea, but the two don't really DO anything besides serve as the red herrings. I also sort of liked the preposterous "twist" (it's really, really obvious who the killer is),which featured a nice bit of role reversal, as well as a downbeat ending similar to THE DORM THAT DRIPPED BLOOD (1982).

Really, there are two things you should be going into this to see: the deaths and the beloved cheese. Gorehounds will be more than satisfied with NIGHT SCREAMS, as it features more than twenty kills, and most of them have their fair share of bloodshed. There's a bit of variety with the kills as well, and we get an axe to the head, an electrocution in a hot tub, impalement with a fire poker, suffocation with a plastic bag, and, my personal favorite, one poor sap getting his head shoved on a burger he's grilling then getting neck surgery via fork!

There's definitely a LOT of cheesy moments in NIGHT SCREAMS, and it's fantastic! First off, we have what I like to call, "The Most 80's Opening To Any Slasher Movie", in which a couple (the male sporting amulet and a mustache; the female with huge hair) watching the 1981 slasher GRADUATION DAY and getting killed, followed by the killer playing "Chopsticks" on the piano, then cutting to the credits and very, very cheesy synth-music! We also get a love scene spliced with scenes from some seventies porno, a live band playing crappy music, the "nationally famous" Sweetheart Dancers, the comic-relief fat guy, and more.

The script, however is very weak, even though they did manage to craft some likable characters. I would say the acting is slightly better than average, but it's understandable why not a lot of the cast won any awards. Some of the scenes are fairly dark, but that's a very minor complaint.

I guess the best way to sum up NIGHT SCREAMS is that it could have been a whole lot worse than it ended up being. Like SLAUGHTERHOUSE ROCK (1988), NIGHT SCREAMS is a cheesy classic that gets beat up for little-to-no reason. Yes, it is lacking in plot. Yes, nearly no suspense is generated (there were a couple moments that I could see were at least trying to be suspenseful).

But I can see that Allen Plone put his all into it despite lack of budget, and it's fairly obvious Dillis L. Hart II had faith in it (count how many times his name appears in the credits), and I can see that. It's a humble, unabashed body count flick that exists for the sole purpose of entertainment. It moves at a brisk pace and is nearly never boring, which is more than I can say for some other films I've seen. Did I mention this was made in Wichita, Kansas?

Highly recommended.

SCREAM is one of those movies that everyone hates, and it's perfectly understandable why (this is one of the only slashers I've seen where, so far, every single review on IMDb has been negative). However, I managed to find the good in this movie that everyone else is overlooking.

A group of people (it's never explained if they're friends, coworkers, family members, or what) are on a rafting trip down the Rio Grande when they decide to spend the night in an abandoned ghost town miles away from civilization. Soon, one of them is killed. Then another. And another. Could it be someone in the group? Or is it an outsider? Or could it even be something that isn't quite human?

Yes, SCREAM is indeed one of the slowest slashers of the decade. It is also one of the least bloody. But still, there's a certain charm under all the crap that doesn't quite make its way through to the audience. First off, SCREAM is a slow-burn in every meaning of the term. The film sets its own pace (that of a snail) and follows it all throughout. But you know what? I like that. It's a nice, mellow movie that I would pair with THE PREY (1984) as far as movies I would want to watch at three in the morning go. You fall asleep during HALLOWEEN? You miss plot points! You fall asleep during SCREAM? You miss absolutely nothing!

SCREAM is also a movie completely drenched in atmosphere. Any serious-minded horror flick featuring a ghost town is bound to be creepy, and this is no exception. The film opens on a rather creepy note with the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker wax figures all in row. The camera zooms in on a clock striking midnight, the camera pans back, the butcher's cleaver has blood on it, and the other two figurines' heads have been lopped off. Then the butcher's eyes move! Another standout scene is when one character finds he is trapped in a room with something in one of the sleeping bags and breathing heavily.

Both a good and a bad thing is that the characters are really stupid! They constantly go by themselves into dark rooms after people have been killed, and it is a good thing because it does manage to generate some suspense. I guess we're supposed to assume supernatural forces are making them do this, but it is never fully explained.

Another complaint people have is that nothing is ever explained in this movie. I'm guessing the audience is supposed to assume that the ghost of a pirate is killing off these people. Also, the film sets up a huge body count in this large group of vacationers, yet most of them survive, including every single female! That's certainly a rarity in the subgenre, and I liked how they at least mixed things up a little bit (as well as making a lot of the characters middle-aged).

The acting was a mishmash of good and bad, with some actors looking really invested in the film and others looking like they're reading their lines off a teleprompter. Some of the bad writing does lead to some pretty unintentionally funny moments (one character screaming is head off and running away when a spider crawls on his hand, then just standing there in a state of shock when one of the characters is murdered just one or two feet away from him), and some funny dialogue ("I won't let anyone tell me what to do, especially a FEMALE!")

This isn't really an accomplished film (it's obviously made by a first-time director, actors, and, well, basically everyone) by any means, but I found it to be an alright timewaster, especially if you're feeling drowsy but you need to watch a movie before you go to bed. Or if you have insomnia. Take your pick, but just watch it no matter what the case. Unfortunately, both of this film's titles (SCREAM and THE OUTING) have been taken by later and better films (THE OUTING was a great 1987 killer genie flick).

BLOOD FRENZY is a SOV (shot-on-video) horror film I'd heard lots of good things about, yet after I watched it, I have to say that I feel it is overrated, which might be the first time I've ever said that about a SOV movie!

A psychiatrist takes six of her patients in an RV out in the desert for a little isolation therapy, where each will confront his/her problems in an attempt to fix them. However, someone begins killing them in bloody ways, leaving an old jack-in-the-box as their calling card. Is it someone in the group? Or is it someone else?

BLOOD FRENZY started off strong, yet petered out during the last half or so. One of the film's strong suits is the entertaining and three-dimensional characters. I can't really pinpoint many really likable characters, but as quirky as the bunch was, I thought they were all believable, due, in part, to the strong performances given by the cast.

The writing was above average, and I feel the desert setting is a sadly underused setting in slashers. There's a good amount of bloodshed and some realistic throat slashings, including a really good opening murder.

Unfortunately, BLOOD FRENZY became a little too repetitive for its own good. The murders seemed like they were all the same, and even the characters grew to be a bore. Throughout the film, the tone was serious yet a bit goofy at the same time. During the climactic showdown, it just turns to all out goofiness, which really doesn't work in the film's favor.

The movie also features Lisa Loring (Wednesday from THE ADDAMS FAMILY), who would go on to be in the much more entertaining slasher (this time in the snow!) ICED (1988). As it stands, I'd say it's worth seeking out, but don't expect much out of it.