Film Review: The Terror

 

"The Terror"  *** (out of ****)

Roger Corman's "The Terror" (1963) is a tale about illusion, about the dance between reality vs fantasy. It is about the secrets and lies we live with it and the ways in which we preserve the memory of the dead.

The short paragraph above is probably the most detailed analysis you will read about "The Terror" as you scower the internet for hours at a time. Your search will lead you to sheep (movie critics) or internet movie fans more interested to recite to readers the events of the chaotic production that "haunted" Corman's movie. I believe they use that information to then justify a negative review under the guise of "how could you expect the movie to turn out good when the production was so troubled"? That's lazy film criticism. Are you writing a gossip piece or a review? That's why I'm deciding not to detail what happened during the movie's production. Why mention it at all if I won't discuss it? I don't know who reads my reviews but for those "in the know" that read this, rest assured, I know too. For those that don't know what happened, there really isn't any reason to know. It will only hamper your judgement of the movie.

Corman directed "The Terror" in the midst of his Edgar Allan Poe adaptations (there were seven in total) and had already released "House of Usher" (1960), "The Pit and the Pendulum" (1961) and a loosey-goosey adaptation of "The Raven" (1963). Corman, known to squeeze the life out of a nickel, took the opportunity to immediately make one more movie with the sets from "The Raven" and recast two of the movie's actors - Boris Karloff and Jack Nicholson. In true Corman fashion it is also said he shot the bulk of  "The Terror" in four days (supposedly one of the fastest movie shoots of all-time was Corman's original "The Little Shop of Horrors" (1960) which lasted 2 1/2 days).

"The Terror" is not a Poe adaptation but has the look and feel of one with its Victorian setting and macbre subject matter. It also helps that the art director (Daniel Haller) and set decorator (Harold Reif) were Corman regulars. 

Set in the 19th century, the story revolves around a French soldier, Andre Duvalier (Nicholson). He is first seen on horseback along a coastal shore. We assume the soldier has been riding for a lengthy period of time as he looks fatigued and we assume parched as the hot sun beats down on him. He falls off of his horse and his face kisses the sand, only to be awoken by the tide that splashes on him. He begins to collect himself and notices a figure in the distance, a beautiful woman - "I'm a wry, disillusioned soldier and you're the only pleasant sight I've seen in seven months." A flirtation begins and we learn Andre is lost from his regiment. The woman though behaves strangely and the musical score by Ronald Stein confirms something mysterious about the situation. The woman, named Helene (Sandra Knight, Mrs. Jack Nicholson) moves around freely and rapidly. It almost seems otherworldly especially against the music. Their brief meeting is ended when Helene moves towards violent waves. Andre, fearful she will drown, chases after her but is unable to find her due to turbulent waves and a bird attacking him. The meeting last long enough to cause an infatuation on Andre's part. 

Andre however runs into a problem - no one knows who Helene is! After being taken in by a elderly female villager he is told no such person exist and the only Helene she knows is her pet bird. Suspiciously it's the same bird Andre says attacked him. Andre will not be dissuaded, he knows Helene is real and will find her. 

The other prominent detail between Andre and Helene's meeting is the significance of water. After the movie's opening credits the first image we see is of a strong wave clashing against rocks. Helene is standing in water. Andre is awoken by water and later becomes thirsty. Clearly Corman is foreshadowing something and the movie's use of water will take on biblical symbolism.

The soldier's quest for Helene leads him to the castle of Baron von Leppe (Karloff), a lonely elderly man who has isolated himself from the villagers for the past 20 years, ever since his wife Ilsa died. The Baron's only company is his butler, Stefan (Dick Miller) but  Andre believes another is in the castle - Helene! Andre believes he has seen Helene standing in front of one of the castle's windows. The Baron is oddly unphased by this and tells Andre not to believe everything he sees. He points the young soldier to a portrait hanging on a wall and asks if this is the woman Andre claims to have seen. It turns out Helene bears a resemblance to the Baron's wife but that leaves too many things unexplained. Are Helene and Ilsa one in the same? Is the spirit of Ilsa haunting the Baron and the castle, as the Baron believes to be true? Is the spirit now haunting Andre? Is Corman tipping his hat to the noir classic, "Laura" (1944) and Andre is in love with a dead woman?

These questions allow the movie to function as a mystery with supernatural overtones than a horror movie. The questions however have caused many viewers to become confused and criticize the script co-written by Leo Gordon and Jack Hill (his first feature-length script!). The questions don't confuse me. Instead, I feel the script doesn't properly create tension and pull the viewer in with the plot's twists and turns. The plot reveals don't feel dramatic enough. A lot of the movie's questions are answered but they are somewhat simplistic answers that don't feel satisfactory.

If the writers were given more time to fully explore these characters and the dramatic elements of the plot "The Terror" could have amounted to something far greater than what it does here. Boris Karloff  was a step up from Vincent Price, who appeared in nearly all of Corman's Poe adaptations. Price had his own (campy) charms as an actor and is fun to watch but Karloff  could show more restraint in his performances. He could have created empathy for his character in a more sorrowful and dramatic way than Price would have been able to. "The Terror" feels as if it is telling two separate stories forced together - The Baron's story, typical of the Poe adaptations, and Andre's story.

That doesn't mean the movie is a dud. "The Terror" succeeds in creating atmosphere with its gothic sets, use of shadows and lighting, musical score, and use of colors. Yes, this is essentially a "B" movie and genre filmmaking but there is more craft here than in most Hollywood, CGI dominated blockbusters. Give Roger Corman and his crew credit. Don't dismiss these movies as lacking any aesthetic value or thematic relevance.

Pay attention to the sequence between Andre and Helene during their second meeting. Notice how everything comes together and it is far more mysterious and moody than their first meeting. Look at the crooked trees in the forest and their branches as they create obstacles for Andre. Focus on how Helene is filmed in darkness and shadow and how it contrasts with the way Andre is filmed. Take a moment to reflect on how it makes you, the viewer, feel about the characters. If you think these are the words of a young, over-zealous film major eager to show you what a college degree gets you, you are mistaken. Though I do appreciate being thought of as "young". Filmmaking is essentially a tool for manipulating your emotions. A director uses all the tools in their bag to stir you. Every choice is a deliberate one.

For modern viewers the movie is interesting to watch because of Jack Nicholson's performance. It would still be a few years until Nicholson would achieve fame and become one of his generation's greatest actors. Here his performance walks a delicate balance between vulnerability and heroic masculinity with dashes of sexuality (Jack always seems "naughtier" than what any script suggests). He would continue to explore this throughout his performances in the 1970s. Here though it provides a contrast to Karloff's "feeble old man" performance.

Too bad more character development wasn't given to Helene and Stefan. Helene never functions as a real person but as the forest scene points out, at a minimal, the character could have oozed sexuality and been a real seductress. The character Stefan could have been more mysterious and provided more clues to the movie's conclusion. 

"The Terror" isn't a classic but is far from a howling failure. It has the best elements of Corman's Poe adaptations but does suffer from a weak script even though it benefits from Karloff and Nicholson's acting, which is far better than the usual performances in a Corman movie. The movie is worth watching if you are a Roger Corman fan. If you are a newbie to Corman's work you may want to start elsewhere but make this an early stop along your journey.

Film Review: Halloween II

 "Halloween II"  

***  (out of ****)

For a horror movie "Halloween II" (1981) starts off in a strange way. The very first thing an audience hears is the movie's soundtrack. It isn't the famous theme created by filmmaker John Carpenter but the 1950s female a cappella group The Chordettes singing "Mr. Sandman". Why is that interesting? It either speaks to the titillating nature of horror movies combining sex and violence or is an attempt at dark humor. Maybe it's both!

"Mr. Sandman" is a love song. A song about a lonely person wishing and hoping (that's the name of another song) to find "the one". The search for "the one" expands beyond dreams into reality. In "Halloween II", as in "Halloween" (1978), the villainous Michael Myers is doing his own searching for "the one" in Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) though his kiss may prove to be more deadly (did you see what I did there?). 

The first few minutes of "Halloween II" basically reuses the ending of the first movie though replaces its soundtrack (the first movie had better music) and makes some minor edit changes. We see Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasance) shoot Myers repeatedly causing Myers to fall off of a second floor balcony. By the end of the first movie the audience and Dr. Loomis are aware the body of Michael Myers is no longer in the spot he landed. Part II begins with Dr. Loomis' hunt for the deranged serial killer that same night.

Much like a movie western "Halloween II" is about a posse searching for an escaped bandit with Dr. Loomis as a mixture of sheriff and Professor van Helsing. Maybe I've lost my marbles but I also thought there were traces of Brecht's "Three Penny Opera" (of course minus any social and economic commentary) and foreshadows of Carpenter's "The Ward" (2010) and Woody Allen's Brecht inspired "Shadows and Fog" (1991) which also featured Pleasance.

Carpenter's "Halloween" is one of my all-time favorite horror movies delivering real thrills and suspense. I can't quite honestly say "Halloween II" is up to par. Directed by Rick Rosenthal from a script co-written by Carpenter and Debra Hill, "Halloween II" is a movie that knows the melody but not how to play the tune properly. At times this sequel feels like a by-the-numbers horror movie.

However I don't know if my judgement is skewed because of my appreciation for the original. Does "Halloween II" stand on its own? I would imagine I'm partially bias but I can't believe there would be viewers that would feel this sequel is better than the original.

One of the major differences this time around is that Michael Myers has much more screen time. As a general rule I prefer it when the killer is sparsely seen on screen but remains an ominous presence. This, I feel, creates more suspense, keeping the viewer on the edge of their seat. Once you see the killer so often the character loses their fear factor. The viewer becomes too accustomed to their presence. It's not so much the sight of Myers that then becomes scary but the horror clichés i.e. Myers slowly approaches a character in a car that won't start. Will Myers get them?! A character runs away from Myers but falls down. Will Myers catch them?! Myers is seen walking down a hallway but the character has their back to him. Will they turn around in time?!    

We also notice in this sequel that Laurie is not a driving force of the plot. After Dr. Loomis shoots Michael Myers, Laurie is taken to a hospital, where she remains for the rest of the picture. Her character is also heavily sedated for the remainder of the movie. The character is constantly the victim of the plot. Meaning she is always on the defense, always reacting to something happening to her.

The driving force of the movie is Dr. Loomis. The movie is as much of a showdown between the doctor and Michael Myers as it is between Laurie and Myers. Interestingly enough Jamie Lee Curtis gets higher billing. Literally higher billing. Pleasance and Curtis' name appear on-screen together with Curtis' name written higher on the screen. In the original movie Donald Pleasance is billed first with an "introducing" credit for Curtis.

By today's standards the movie isn't very gory either. This was not the reaction movie critics had at the time however. New York Times movie critic Janet Maslin described the gore as "very explicit and gruesome" but added it "won't make you feel as if you're watching major surgery." Chicago Sun-Times movie critic Roger Ebert wrote "It is not a horror film but a geek show." I've indicated numerous times excessive violence in horror movies is not scary. To borrow a phrase from Ebert, it does turn those movies into a "geek show". There is nothing scary about watching a character get sliced and diced and "Halloween II" by and large keeps excessive gore off screen. What does it say about me and society when what we see in this movie is an "acceptable" amount of gore? Clearly in 1981 it was pushing the envelope.

Maybe because of Debra Hill's involvement "Halloween II" doesn't feel like an assault on females either. For a genre usually described by some as misogynistic there isn't anything demeaning here. Yes the male to female ratio in the final body count isn't even and yes there is a scene featuring brief female nudity, but we must remember this is an 80s horror movie. At least there is no scene like the one in "The Evil Dead" (1981) where a tree branch penetrates a woman. 

Refreshingly the movie also doesn't focus around Myers killing a group of teenagers or teenage girls, as had been commonplace in the genre during the decade. In "Halloween II" the victims are adults - a security guard, a head nurse, a doctor, and a U.S. Marshal. The movie, and the genre, can't completely escape the fatalities of young adults but it is drastically toned down.

Using a single primary location reminded me of a device used in Carpenter's "Assault on Precinct 13" (1976) which was inspired by the western "Rio Bravo" (1959). Both of these movies used a single small space to create suspense. The hospital setting in "Halloween II" is a much bigger location but the principle idea is the same. The movie's objective is to get all of the characters to meet in the same location for a shoot-out.

Still "Halloween II" feels a bit like a letdown with no big scares. Whatever does get a reaction from an audience will be due to the way the movie builds suspense as the zombie-ish Myers approaches his potential victims. The movie only starts to kick into high gear in the last third of the picture as the first two-thirds establish the final battle.

Forty years after this sequel the "Halloween" franchise is still a cash-cow. In a couple of weeks the latest installment, "Halloween Kills" (2021) will be released and in the following year there are plans to release "Halloween Ends" (2022) which would bring the total number of movies to lucky 13. Even director Rick Rosenthal would return to this material in "Halloween: Resurrection" (2002).

At the end of "Halloween II" the closing credits bring us back to the song "Mr. Sandman". Maybe the writers were on to something even though they didn't know countless sequels and remakes would follow. Maybe these two characters are made for each other. Maybe Michael Myers is the man Laurie sees in her dreams. Sleep tight!

Film Review: The Evil Dead

 The Evil Dead 

** (out of ****) 

In his review of "Halloween II" (1981), released the same year as "The Evil Dead" (1981), former Chicago Sun-Times movie critic Roger Ebert, quoted author John McCarty from his book Splatter Movies to describe the definition of the term "splatter film" -     "[They] aim not to scare their audiences, necessarily, nor to drive them to the edge of their seats in suspense, but to mortify them with scenes of explicit gore. In splatter movies, mutilation is indeed the message, many times the only one."

I thought a lot about that quote not only while watching "The Evil Dead" but while watching movies of today.

There is a preoccupation among artists and filmmakers with the concept of "pushing the envelope" to the point many movies, not just horror movies, are disturbing to watch. Comedy changed for the worst after "There's Something About Mary" (1998) as comedies no longer focused on making us laugh due to enjoyment but rather pushing the limits to see how far they could go with gross out humor. Many times we don't laugh out of pleasure but awkwardness and discomfort. Today's action movies - "Gunpower Milkshake" (2021), "Suicide Squad 2" (2021), and "Kate" (2021) to name a few, have substituted pulse racing action sequences for violent death scenes. Good ol' fashion car chases aren't enough for audiences anymore! I hate to sound like one of those right-wing evangelical nutjobs but we've become desensitized to violence. What have we gained in exchange? iPhones? Keep 'em!

I've long been of the opinion violence, in horror movies, isn't scary. I am not scared watching a character get sliced and diced by a killer, as it's shown in gruesome detail. At best it is disturbing and disgusting but not scary. "The Evil Dead" is an example of this trend in horror movies popularized in the 1980s.

"The Evil Dead" is considered a cult-classic and an influential movie within the horror genre. On the website imdb.com the movie has a score of 7.5 (out of 10) from a total of 195,000 votes. User comments gush praise at the movie calling it a "masterpiece", "a horror classic", and an "ultimate experience". I'm not sure what the gender is of those making these comments but I have a suspicion they're men. I'd love to hear however what women think of this movie and movies like it. Too bad Pauline Kael didn't review it when released in 1981. However, one of my favorite critics, Elizabeth Weitzman, wasn't very impressed with the 2013 remake in her review for the New York Daily News. Nor was Manohla Dargis in her New York Times review.

If you've been reading my blog these past 10 plus years you know I'm not afraid of going against "prevailing wisdom" and often scratch my head trying to figure out the public's movie preferences and logic to life. I'm not sure what makes "The Evil Dead" so celebrated and influential. There isn't anything here I haven't already seen in  "Night of the Living Dead" (1968), vampire movies, "I Walked with A  Zombie" (1943)  or "The Exorcist" (1973). If your response is, yes, but it took those movies and pushed the genre forward by updating them. Really!? How? Just by adding excessive violence? All any modern adaptation of older movies can "contribute" to a story is adding graphic sex and excessive violence. THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH! EITHER DO BETTER OR DON'T TOUCH THE CLASSICS! It's a simple rule to follow.

As for "The Evil Dead"'s influence, it gave us "Cabin Fever" (2002) and "The Cabin in the Woods" (2011). Goody, goody gumdrops! Two movies that made my top ten list of the worst movies released in their respective years. That's the kind of influence I can live without.

The movie revolves around five college age students (one has a Michigan State sweater on) on a road trip, headed to Tennessee, where they have rented a cabin in the woods. Director Sam Raimi wastes no time immediately establishing a spirit following the group in the first scene.

Once the students (consisting of Bruce Campbell, Ellen Sandweiss, Betsy Baker, and Richard DeManincor) arrive, a porch swing violently bangs against the side of the cabin, an indication that evil lurks around it, but when Scott (DeManincor) finds the key placed above the front door and opens it, the ominous banging stops. It would seem we are substituting the scary old mansion in haunted house movies for the small little cabin, engaging in the same horror movie tropes associated with the genre. But then things take a turn when Ash (Campbell) discovers a book and a tape recorder seeming to warn the listener of evil goings-on and then "The Evil Dead" becomes a demonic possession movie.

At a lean 85 minutes "The Evil Dead" actually wears out its welcome when the movie's obvious conclusion - the killing of the evil dead in grisly fashion - is delayed. Raimi, as the movie's writer and director, appears to be playing around with the character archetype I've referred to as "the cowardly liberal" - a passive individual who gives grand speeches on justice and equality but is placed in a situation where their masculinity must be proven, usually signified by committing violence and clashing with their prior beliefs. Examples of this character can be seen in Sam Peckinpah's "Straw Dogs" (1971), Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" (1998) and the classic western "The Ox-Bow  Incident" (1943). This time around it is the Ash character who freezes in the movie's frenetic, violent sequences. Ash will eventually need to "prove" himself by the destruction of these beings.

The problem however is  Ash and the rest of the characters are underwritten. They have no distinguishable personalities. They are merely generic plot devices disposable to the mechanics of the movie's plot. We know one by one each will fall victim to the spirits haunting them, with the exception of one. Ash, as the movie's hero, is not clearly defined. Not enough is done to establish he will be "the cowardly liberal". Half-ass implications aren't enough (i.e. freezing during fights)! We need to know Ash is a weakling, a pacifist, opposed to violence, has a religious background. His "set-backs" and his alleged "weaknesses" need to be defined early on so that the audience clearly understands the "inner obstacles" he must overcome. Once we get to his final violent act it will pack a punch and we can see there has been a transformation.

This is to say nothing about the acting and the dialogue. Has a horror movie had more bland acting than what we see by Bruce Campbell and the rest of the cast? They witness horrific events and more often than not they stand there with blank expressions on their face, completely oblivious to what they have seen. Performances in Ed Wood movies are more animated. How can the audience be afraid when the characters just stand around like a bunch of dummies? And the dialogue! Sam Raimi couldn't be bothered writing it. Characters engage in actions and never explain to the others what they are doing. It's not only dialogue but characters don't even scream when they see danger at certain moments.

Then there is the usual criticism of horror films as being deeply misogynistic and having unnecessary sexual overtones. Lets take for example the bizarre tree rape scene (pictured above) where tree branches begin to not only tear off a woman's clothes, knock her down to the ground and tie her down, but a tree branch slides up her thighs and inserts itself in her, causing her to moan in what seems to be momentary delight (!). Go ahead defenders of  "The Evil Dead", explain the necessity of this sequence to your dumb Hungarian movie critic friend! 

And it's not just that one particular scene but the entire sweep of the movie. The function of the female characters seems to be to get the stuffing beat out of them by the male characters. It is the female characters that are the ones first possessed by the demonic spirits and it is the male characters that slap, punch, and ultimately chop up with an ax the female characters. Not to mention, when the female characters are killed a white liquid substance oozes out of their mouths, resembling semen. Something far more disturbing than demonic possession is going on here!

At this point I have to take a step back and get into social politics a bit to point out what a bunch of hypocrites the woke left crowd is. This crowd goes after the low hanging fruit of cinema from the 1930s and 40s, complaining about the representation (or lack thereof) of minorities. Classics from Hollywood's past now need "trigger warnings" while everyone turns a blind eye to movies like "The Evil Dead". Why? Because you grew up with it? This crowd wants to say movies from the 1930s don't reflect the values of today (duh!). Movies of today don't reflect the (pretend) values of today! Mind you, I'm not part of the cancel-culture left and I don't want to ban Sam Raimi or "The Evil Dead" but movies from the 1930s never showed a woman getting penetrated by a tree! Aim higher wokesters!

Yes, there is a small amount of craft to what Raimi is doing here. There are some nice framing shots with open doors that lead out to darkness, where we suspect danger will come running towards us, and some minimal attempts at creating atmosphere by way of thick fog. But I must point readers in the direction of classic "B" horror films from the 1940s by producer Val Lewton like "The Cat People" (1942), "The Leopard Man" (1943) and "I Walked with A Zombie". Those movies did a far better job creating atmosphere by playing around with lighting and shadows. Some even talk about "Evil Dead"'s make-up. It looked somewhat decent but resembles "The Exorcist" to me. What was that about "The Evil Dead" being original? I'm still waiting.

Early in this review I mentioned violence in horror movies isn't scary. It occurred to me there is probably an entire generation that knows nothing but excessive violence in horror movies. It has become synonymous with the genre. To them I say watch "The Exorcist", "Rosemary's Baby" (1968), or "Psycho" (1960). For examples of craftsmanship in creating atmosphere watch the classic Universal Monster movies of the 1930s & 40s. For effective modern horror movies watch "Dark Waters" (2005) and "The Conjuring" (2013). I like psychological horror movies, movies that activate my imagination. I don't need to see blood and guts.

Others will say, I just don't get it, I don't understand what makes "The Evil Dead" so good. No. You don't understand. You don't understand the movie isn't original. It's not scary. The characters are boring. It isn't remotely funny. It's repetitive. I've seen it all before and I've seen it done better. If you wanna say you like it, that's your prerogative but don't feed me this garbage that "The Evil Dead" is original. It's a bloody freak show.

Film Review: The Slumber Party Massacre

"The Slumber Party Massacre"
*** (out of ****)

After the success of John Carpenter's "Halloween" (1978) and "Friday the 13th" (1980) audiences saw a significant increase in low budget slasher movies and they may have reached their peak in the 1980s.

The horror movies of the 1970s and 80s would begin a new trend in the genre - violence against teenagers. Looking back at horror movies from the silent era through the 1960s we notice those movies dealt with adult characters, some with an emphasis on adult females. One of the guidelines of the Motion Picture Production Code prevented violence against children and animals. Once it ended in 1968, and was replaced by our current film rating system, we begin to notice horror movies centering on teenage characters. What was at one time considered unconscionable was now a reflection of society's systematic lowering of standards.

The slasher movie was not a new concept. Many film historians cite Mario Bava's Italian giallo film, "Blood and Black Lace" (1964) as an early example that helped established this sub-genre of horror movies. What was unique however was the contrast between titillation and violence presented in these movies. It has lead many to interpret these horror movies as cautionary tales warning against premarital sex. Look at "Blood and Lace" (1971) as an early American example.

This  would come to be a defining characteristic of 1980s horror movies making "The Slumber Party Massacre" (1982) typical for the time period. Revolving around a group of female high school seniors, it was one of many similarly themed movies such as "The House on Sorority Row" (1982) and "Sorority House Massacre" (1986). "The Slumber Party Massacre" however is be the best of these examples.

First take a moment and bring your attention to the movie's poster. Notice how before anyone has even seen the movie its makers immediately initiate the concept of sex and violence with imagery. A group of women (in lingerie) on the floor, looking up at a man standing above them. His legs are spread apart as a power drill dangles between them. It looks as if the man is exposing himself to the girls. That was no accident. It was a deliberate move meant to objectify the women and get the male audience thinking about sex. Isn't it a strange combination? Movie fans today may not think much of it as it is commonplace but take a moment to let it sink in. Ultimately what kind of commentary does it make regarding society's attitude towards sex and violence?

Upon its initial release "The Slumber Party Massacre" was a box-office hit, inspiring two sequels, though it opened to mixed reviews. Today it is considered a "cult classic". It has the distinction of being directed by a woman, Amy Holden Jones (who unfortunately didn't have much of a directing career) and written by one as well, Rita Mae Brown, a noted lesbian activist and feminist who reportedly did not approve of the final product. Brown intended the movie to be a parody of horror movies  with a dash of feminism thrown in. The end result was your standard female teenagers in jeopardy slasher movie.

Michele Michaels stars as Trish Devereaux, an 18 year old high school senior who will be left home alone while her parents are away on vacation. To celebrate the occasion Trish has invited some friends over for a slumber party; Kim (Debra DeLiso), Jackie (Andree Honore) and Diane (Gina Mari). Trish would like to invite a new girl, Valerie (Robin Stille), who isn't very popular but the objections are too strong. According to Diane, Valerie is a bit too perfect. This also happens to be the same day a mass murderer has escaped from prison, Russ Thorn (Michael Villella). Will these two events somehow become linked during the course of the movie?

The movie begins with Trish throwing away some of her childhood toys  (stuffed animals and a barbie doll) which is meant to signify she is no longer a child but an adult (which is good because this opening sequence also requires her to get naked). However there is one stuffed animal she cannot part with, suggesting she still has a bit of childhood innocence in her. This will become useful information as I have already indicated how these movies are usually interpreted.

The objectification of women continues in what has to be the most blatant gratuitous nude sequence in the entire movie as female students head to the showers after playing basketball. The sequence begins with one of the girls removing her towel exposing her rear end as the camera pans over to Trish (who has her back to the camera) and pans down on her rear end. What is actually interesting about this sequence is the contrast between the images and the dialogue. The girls are talking about how they enjoy watching sports so they can stare at the male athletes thus illustrating how women can objectify men however at the same time the camera is objectifying women.

This sequence also serves the purpose of showing the majority of the characters naked. Although gratuitous nudity was a staple of 80s horror I suspect it was done for more than the obvious reasons. Yes, it was meant to appeal to male teenagers but I think it was also done to mask poor character development. These aren't the most fascinating characters and the nudity will help endure the characters to male audiences while making them randy. You aren't going to want to see any of them die after you've seen them naked! You are going to cheer on their survival and hope for more nude scenes. That is the best shot at creating an emotional investment from the audience.

Gender objectification, in particular male objectification, is further presented by posters shown in Trish's bedroom of male athletes on the walls and in a scene where Valerie's younger sister Courtney (Jennifer Meyers) snoops around in Valerie's room to steal her copy of  Playgirl magazine. Valerie knows what Courtney is up to and only tells her not to tear out the centerfold again.

Sequences like this create a persistent feeling of sex and violence lurking everywhere. Two of the girls' male classmates, Jeff (David Millbern) and Neil (Joseph Alan Johnson), decide to spy on their slumber party. They happen to arrive at the exact moment the girls are undressing however we have already witnessed characters being killed which makes us wonder if these two boys are next. In another scene Diane and her boyfriend are making out in his car. Diane leaves to let Trish know she is going to her boyfriend's place but things don't go as expected. In any number of scenes we don't know if we are going to see nudity or violence.

It falls in line with interpreting these movies as cautionary tales. Whenever a character is presented as sexually activate they will end up being next on the killer's victim list.

Much like "Halloween", which clearly inspired this movie, the identity of the killer is not a mystery. The movie doesn't try to falsely make the audience suspicious of one character or another. There also isn't any motive explained for the killer's actions. Interestingly however we are told the killer has been in jail since 1969 which also happens to be the year the Mason family murders took place. Supposedly Michael Villella read about Helter Skelter prior to playing the role of the killer.

The killer isn't given too much screen time either. I like this approach more than having the killer be a dominant character. Unless you are trying to make a social commentary about the killer's motives it is better to keep the character off screen for the majority and instead make the killer represent the threat of evil forever present. It becomes much more suspenseful.

That's what makes "The Slumber Party Massacre" work. It is suspenseful. I can't say I found the movie to be scary but I was happily surprised it wasn't excessively gory, as slasher movies tend to be. A lot of the violence is off screen. It is formulaic in the way it kills the pretty young things one by one but the story is told with a lot of energy and is well paced. The movie doesn't over stay its welcome, running roughly 80 minutes. Credit must be given to director Amy Holden Jones.

If there is a downfall to the movie it is the effectiveness of the performances. The worst is Michael Villella. He isn't much of an actor and doesn't look very menacing - he sort of resembles comedian Fred Armisen. While the acting in "Portlandia" may have been scary at times, Armisen wasn't necessarily scary looking. The best performances would be the ones given by Michele Michaels and Robin Stille with Stille slightly ahead (sadly Stille died in 1996 as the result of suicide). However, none of the characters are very engaging or well written. We don't sense these are real people. They are only pawns to be added up for the killer's final body count.

"The Slumber Party Massacre" is no classic but within the 80s horror genre it stands out for its minor attempts at gender commentary. Pay attention to the casting of minor characters like a phone repair person or a home repairmen, they are played by women but some of these characters are also victims of the killer. One step forward, two steps back. Still, "The Slumber Party Massacre" is worth seeing.