The Burning (1981)

Tagline: ‘Don’t look he’ll see you. Don’t breathe he’ll hear you. Don’t move you’re dead’
UK Running Time: 91 Minutes

Film Quality: 3/5
Gore Content: 3/5
Entertainment Value: 4/5
Originality: 3/5

Introduction

Thanks to the success of ‘Halloween’ and ‘Friday the 13^th’ cinemas were awash with slasher movies, each trying to outdo the other in terms of body count and gore. In 1981 came a film that set a new high (or low, depending on your point of view!) for future films to beat which got it into trouble with the censors and attracted word of mouth interest in equal measure. ‘The Burning’ followed the slasher conventions to a point but deviated in a number of ways which raises it above the level of most other pale imitations.

These pranks never end well

In a nutshell

After a group of summer camp teens attempt to play a prank on unpopular camp caretaker Cropsy, of course it goes horribly wrong. Burned beyond recognition, Cropsy goes insane and returns to the camp five years later to exact his revenge

What’s good about it?

They managed to attract a lot of high end talent to this nasty little film. The undoubted star of the show is special effects wizard Tom Savini who turned down ‘Friday 13^th Part 2’ to do the effects work on this. They are outstanding right from the opening burn effects to the infamous raft scene which caused so much trouble for the censors. It’s well documented that Savini was a war photographer in Vietnam and he based his burn effects on the sights he saw during that period, hence the amazing realism.

A young Holly Hunter (left)

How on earth they managed to convince Rick Wakeman to do the music is anyone’s guess but they did and he does a great job creating a menacing electronic score. There is some very deep bass that thumps along relentlessly, representing Cropsy’s absolute obsession with getting revenge for his horrific injuries. We also have screen debuts for Oscar winner Holly Hunter, Fisher Stevens (‘Short Circuit’, ‘Lost’), Jason Alexander (‘Pretty Woman’, ‘Seinfeld’) and Brian Backer (‘Fast Times at Ridgemont High’, ‘Police Academy 4’).

As for the film itself it does deviate from the norm in a number of ways. First of all it’s the first time we ever saw the kids become the victims, usually it’s the babysitters, camp counsellors, teachers or other neglectful carers who turn their toes up, typically because they’re having sex with each other and drinking…basically NOT looking after the kids! Secondly, for the most part they act responsibly and aren’t particularly annoying…we actually like these kids and, apart from a couple pratting about in the lake, they don’t do a great deal to deserve their fate.

This leads us on to the usual criticism of the depiction of women in slasher films. Apart from one slightly gratuitous, voyeuristic shower scene, the sex and nudity is kept to a minimum and the terrorisation is pretty levelled between the sexes. The shower scene in question leads to the male voyeur being taken to one side and given something of a bollocking – no, you cannot treat women like that. This relative sexual equality is extended to the ‘final girl’ which, in this movie, is a ‘final boy’. Yes, he is to a certain extent stripped of his masculinity as we see he can’t swim, he’s bullied by the bigger kids and doesn’t ‘fit in’ with the guys. In this sense he is just as ‘vulnerable’ as the traditional ‘final girl’ is initially made out to be. That said, it does make for a more interesting and alternative final ten minutes.

Fisher Stevens gets the snip on a raft

It also breaks a few rules when it comes to the stalking and slashing of the victims themselves. The body count is relatively high for a slasher film…I believe it’s ten. However, five of these come in a single, 30 second rampage, the famous raft massacre which comes as an enormous shock to the audience. We’re used to seeing people stalked first but on this occasion THEY come across HIM and the unexpected burst of extreme violence has quite the effect.

What about the bad?

Unfortunately, for me, the killer is not particularly memorable. We know too much about him. We get the obligatory camp fire ghost story (which turns into a prank – won’t these kids ever learn?) which is kind of pointless in this sense because we know the legend is true and surely, as only five years has passed and we know full well he’s been discharge from hospital, at least one of the kids or counsellors would know this as well?

If only there was a 'stabbing weapon as metaphor for

penis' example in this film!

Oddly, as the film breaks a few slasher conventions which I find interesting, it does create some moral ambiguity. One of the ‘kids’ who was involved in the opening scene prank gets away with it…as we know Cropsy is out for revenge surely in the morality filled world of a slasher movie he would be the first to perish. Add the fact that he kills innocent children we soon leap to the conclusion that there is little to no moral code going on here…yes a couple who have sex are killed straight afterwards but what did the kids on the raft do? The film deserves praise for ignoring convention but it does have an inconsistent sense of morality.

Any themes?

Nothing beyond cashing in on the slasher movie craze. Apparently a crew were filming ‘Madman’ just a few miles up the river…was America really so overwhelmed by slasher movie crews that they were bumping into each other like locals in a small town?

Release History

This is such a great shot

The BBFC don’t like unconventional weapons, particularly ones that you might find lying around the house or garden sheds (apart from knives apparently). The weapon of choice in ‘The Burning’ is a pair of garden sheers which caused our lovely censorship body a king-sized headache that only two Ibuprofen and 26 seconds of cuts could relieve. Most of the gory scenes were trimmed and, although time wise there wasn’t much missing, the impact was massive. This isn’t a film that lingered on gory shots, it’s explicit and quick so the amount missing is deceptively significant.

This meant the opening scissor murder, neck slash, finger slice, neck stab and head chop were either missing or shortened. This accounted for pretty much all of the raft massacre scene which rendered one of the most shocking and memorable scenes in slasher movie history almost nonsensical and confusing.

This was one of the first to be prosecuted as a video nasty because Thorn EMI accidentally released an uncut version in the early 80s which meant that it was could be seized and the distributors prosecuted. In the US it fared even worse with more than a minute excised for an ‘R’ rated cinema release which was also released on VHS.

An uncut UK DVD was released in 2002 by VIPCO but it wasn’t until 2016’s Arrow release that a full uncut, remastered, widescreen print was released on a stunning blu ray disc.

Cultural Impact

Well renowned as being one of the most notorious slasher movies and one of the first to be slapped with the video nasties tag, it’ll always have that element of notoriety, in the UK at least. Apart from that it launched some serious acting talent, was one of the first productions by the Weinstein Brothers and the first to be released by Miramax. It was also further proof, if proof were needed, that Tom Savini was capable of improving pretty much any horror film he decided to work on and the only special effects artist who was a marketable name on the front cover of a VHS sleeve.

Final Thoughts

Not the most original film ever made, it did at least try to do a few things differently within the limited scope of a slasher film. What we have here is a basic film delivered by some exceptional talent all working at or near to the top of their game. Take away the acting, supreme special effects and pounding score then you’re left with half a film so what should have been a terrible film became a pretty good one as a result.

You’ll like this if you enjoyed…

‘Friday the 13^th’, ‘The Mutilator’, ‘The Slayer’

Halloween (1978)

Tagline: ’The night HE came home’
Running Time: 91 minutes (Theatrical Version), 102 minutes (TV/Extended Version)

Film Quality: 5/5
Gore Content: 1/5
Entertainment Value: 5/5
Originality: 4/5

Introduction

Some films really don’t need an introduction!

In a Nutshell

After murdering his sister at the age of just six years, Michael Myers spends the next 15 years in a sanitarium under the care of Dr Loomis. Shortly before the anniversary of the fatal stabbing, Myers escapes and heads for his home town of Haddonfield to pick up where he left off and target more teenage victims on Halloween night.

So, what’s good about it?

‘Less is more’! Some of the truly great horror films leave more to the imagination knowing that what’s going on in your head is far worse than anything that could take place on screen. Do you remember when you were young, afraid of opening your bedroom door when it was dark? There was nothing behind it that could possibly hurt you, you knew that but because it was dark you imagined that there might, possibly be something unnatural on the other side, in the dark. That’s how ‘Halloween’ works. No blood, you only ever catch a glimpse of Myers’ face, the film is steeped in shadow…everything is just off screen but you know that at any moment that door will be pulled wide open and you’ll be face to face with the bogey man (or ‘Boogeyman’ for our American friends) and your fate will be sealed.

John Carpenter’s direction is absolutely impeccable and he cranks the tension up to eleven throughout the course of the film. He unwittingly created a number of tropes that have been done to death to give us some monumental scares. The ‘terrible place’ which is the Myers home, a house where something dreadful happened (the original Myers murder) resulting in the house being abandoned and branded haunted. The terrorisation of the ‘final girl’, her vulnerability causing us to fear for the safety of the only character we now empathise with. The fluid ‘point of view’ camera creating the illusion of an omnipresent evil. Characters who drink, have sex or do drugs are murdered for their sins whilst the ‘virgin’ is pure and is able to defeat or deflect the vengeful redeemer. This is where it started.

Carpenter was reportedly so confident of the project that he rescinded any fee, taking only $10,000 for writing, directing and scoring the movie – as well as retaining ten percent of the profits, a genius move that made him a millionaire. He wrote the script in ten days, shot it in just 20 days on a budget of $300,000 which is an astonishing achievement. Carpenter had such a tight control of the movie, keeping the continuity going by introducing a fear meter so that characters would know (it was shot out of sequence to maximise shooting time) at what stage of fear and tension they were required to be.

The art direction and lighting is central to the movie, becoming part of Myers’ character make up as he bases himself in the shadows. You think you’re seeing something from his point of view until you see him move out of the shadows. He’s dressed in black with a white mask allowing him to blend into the night (try watching the film in black and white – it’s just as, if not more effective than in colour!). The mask is a likeness of William Shatner spray painted white and that emotionless, featureless face is so terrifyingly effective, especially the scene where he stabs one victim before stepping back and tilting his head as if admiring a work of art.

Of course there’s the wonderful Jamie Lee Curtis (right), scream queen extraordinaire and daughter of Janet Leigh who’s infamous for being the first victim of Norman Bates in ‘Psycho’. What could have simply been a great bit of movie trivia or PR began a fantastic sequence of scream queen performances I ‘Prom Night’, ‘Terror Train’, ‘Halloween 2’ and of course working with Carpenter again in ‘The Fog’. She’s the human heart of the film, the one we cheer for and her sweet innocence and studious nature ensures that she wins us over immediately. Of course she’s gone on to become a screen legend in her own right, being equally at home as an action heroine, comedy actress and in more serious fare. She also recalls the film with fondness in documentaries which is pleasing.

And staying with acting who can forget Donald Pleasance (left) as Dr Sam Loomis. I find it interesting that this element hasn’t turned up in any other slasher film that I can think of. It lends the film a certain credence that other such genre films don’t have, a glimpse into Myers’ psyche that we haven’t seen since. Apparently Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee turned down the role but Pleasance nails it. He has an intensity that is underpinned by a vulnerability and knowing that he simply cannot stop the evil. Subsequent slashers would reduce his role to a janitor or petrol pump attendant as the ‘harbinger of doom’, the one who knows the evil and warns them of its power but those damn fool kids think they know better. It grounds the film in reality as well…a character as insane as Myers would surely have a psychiatrist by the time they’re an adult!!!

What about the bad?

It’s pretty much the perfect horror film and so influential that it inspired countless imitations, but there’s more on that later. At the time of release it certainly had its critics, many accusing Carpenter of misogyny. I’m not sure that really holds up. The main criticism was that the violence towards women lingered more than the violence against the male characters. I’m pretty sure it was one of the male characters that Myers stabs with a knife, pinning him up against a door before standing back to admire his work (see below). In fact of the five people murdered, two are male characters and it is left to the final female character, Laurie, to turn the tables on Myers and fight back. Yes, it’s Loomis who eventually comes in, guns blazing who saves Laurie, but it’s a temporary relief…Laurie is the heroine of the film and the only one string and capable enough to muster any kind of defence.

Others use this ‘final girl’ role as a criticism, it is the relentless pursuit of Laurie and watching her terrorised that creates the misogyny. Though this is true, watching her fight back is surely just as thrilling for the audience, we WANT to see her fight back and win, we’re on her side and empathise with her. If Myers is supposed to represent the sexual threat of aggressive males onto passive women then why are we so delighted when she turns the tables on him? For me it’s an argument that works both ways and the cries of misogyny can be argued much more forcefully against slasher films other than, and inferior to Carpenter’s which I think shows no bias either way.

My only sadness about ‘Halloween’ is that the number of pale imitations may have dulled the impact for those approaching the film with fresh eyes. Pretty new at the time, only a few ‘slashers’ (‘Texas Chain Saw Massacre’, ‘Black Christmas’, ‘Bay of Blood’) had been made before and weren’t really categorised as such, but it was Carpenter’s film that laid the blueprint. Blood and gore are the order of the day in modern day slashers and with this aspect lacking from ‘Halloween’, would it hold the interest when presented with scenes and situations that will have been seen many times before from inferior films? Perhaps I’m just getting old but for the ‘Scream’ generation (as an aside, I loved Craven’s film!), is this film too old fashioned for today’s kids?

Release History

No blood, very little nudity and any sex was off screen so there was nothing really to cause any censorship issues. There were some additional scenes filmed for a TV version which has since become known as the ‘Extended Version’ and released alongside the theatrical version as a special edition blu-ray.

Any Themes?

We’ve touched on some of the themes already but ‘Scream’ laid some of the issues on the line pretty well, one of which is the punishment of youth, particularly irresponsible behaviour. The original premise of the film was a serial killer who preyed on babysitters, some of which was retained. Michael kills his sister, Judith, for preferring to have sex (the very quickest of ‘quickies’!) rather than looking after her younger brother. As she is the one responsible for her brother’s welfare, she is the one punished rather than her boyfriend. We later see other characters, some sexually promiscuous, killed for their ‘sins’ which also includes drinking.

Taking this to its logical conclusion, Laurie survives because she doesn’t have sex, doesn’t drink and fulfils her role as the carer, in this case a babysitter. Because she has her wits about her and is able to ‘see’ - she is the only character aware that there is a killer on the loose, spotting the danger and being able to protect Tommy and Lindsey. This is a frequent character trait of the ‘final girl’ – presumably not drinking, taking drugs or participating in sex means there are no distractions, making them aware of the presence of a threat and being able to deal with it. Those ‘distracted’ by sin, are not and pay the ultimate price.

Most slashers are ultimately morality tales…there are some where the ‘final girl’ is a teenage boy who doesn’t act like an alpha male and a few others where the killer is female. The victims however remain the same and designed to be as disposable as possible – foreshadowing is not the strong point of your average slasher film!

Cultural Impact

‘Halloween’ spawned an entire sub-genre of horror films. For the terrible place, in this case the Myers house, you can reference Camp Crystal Lake or Freddy’s boiler room. For Myers you can read Jason Vorhees, Cropsy or Freddy. For every kitchen knife you have a chainsaw, a machete or a power drill – guns don’t work, only tools and implements designed to penetrate. They’re all the same and took their cues directly from ‘Halloween’.

As a film series it spawned six sequels and two remakes, all elaborating on the Myers character and, in the case of ‘Halloween: H20’ returned to Laurie’s character to give us a glimpse of what a horror film survivor may have ended up like.

Final Thoughts

It’s hard to do justice to a film like ‘Halloween’ in a relatively short blog post. Everything that could be said or written about it has already been committed to print and film and summing it up in this way makes it sound like every other slasher film that has ever been made. But that’s the point, every other slasher came AFTER ‘Halloween’, one of the most profitable independent films of all time let’s not forget at a budget of just $300,000 and a box office of around $70million, plus who knows how much since in VHS, DVD and Blu-Ray sales. It’s an incredible success story and a testament to everyone involved who believed in this little low budget chiller that continues to take the world by storm.

Memorable Quotes

Sheriff Blacket: “It’s Halloween, everyone’s entitled to one good scare.”

Loomis: “I watched him for fifteen years, sitting in a room, staring at a wall, not seeing the wall, looking past the wall, looking at this night, inhumanly patient, waiting for some secret, silent alarm to trigger him off. Death has come to your little town.”

Annie: “Poor Laurie, scared another one away.”

Loomis: I met this six year old with this blank, pale, emotionless face and the blackest eyes, the devil’s eyes. I spent eight years trying to reach him and another seven trying to keep him locked up because I realised that what was behind that boys eyes was purely and simply evil.

You’ll like this if you enjoyed…

‘Friday the 13^th’, ‘A Nightmare on Elm Street’, ‘The Burning’, ‘Scream’.

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986)

Tagline: ’He’s not Freddy. He’s not Jason. He’s real.’
Running Time: 83 minutes

Film Quality: 4/5
Gore Content: 3/5
Entertainment Value: 3/5
Originality: 4/5

Introduction

Every once in a while a film comes along that is out of its time. The 80s saw the slasher movie boom, very colourful, glossy, disposable films that copied and parodied one another. Very annoying, vacuous characters who, in many cases, you were pleased to see the back of as they became perishable goods for the latest masked maniac. Then, out of nowhere, comes ‘Henry’. Here the role is reversed as you follow a very real everyman who happens to be a serial killer of victims that you don’t know but pass every day in the street, the shopper, the housewife, the café owner. This was terrifyingly real and proved to be incredibly jarring in a ‘style over substance’ decade.

In a Nutshell

Loosely based on the exploits of notorious serial killer Henry Lee Lucas, Michael Rooker plays the titular character who lives with his flatmate Ottis and, unbeknownst to him, murders people for fun in his spare time. When Ottis’ sister comes to stay and changes their simple dynamic the film descends into the underbelly of Chicago as Ottis joins in with Henry’s extra-curricular activities, placing Becky in serious trouble.

So, what’s good about it?

The horror genre hadn’t seen a film this raw since ‘The Texas Chain Saw Massacre’. Co-written and directed by John McNaughton on a budget of little over $100,000 it is low budget in the extreme with amateur actors. It’s almost cinema verite in style and as far removed from most typical ‘slasher’ films whilst remaining within the same genre. The opening vignettes juxtapose shots of Henry going about his daily business, having lunch and driving around with lingering shots of the aftermath of his preferred pastime, four women and one man, whilst ambient noise of the act of murder including screams, gunshots and struggling can be heard in the background. It’s incredibly effective and, despite no act of violence being shown packs a punch a hundred times more powerful than any murderkilldeath in ‘Friday the 13^th’.

The films preoccupation with Henry predates ‘Silence of the Lambs by five years and its relentless darkness is ahead of ‘Se7en’ by nine years. But it lacks the gloss of those two films and a lot of this is in the grimy details. Their apartment has mildew and damp, the chairs are riddled with cigarette burns and smoke damage. The whole film is like a glimpse into the dark and disturbed mind of Henry with minimal lighting and raw sound.

Terrifying performance by Rooker

It’s interesting that Michael Rooker wasn’t the first choice for ‘Henry’. The casting team originally wanted an older actor who would be a father figure to Becky but what a stroke of luck they landed Rooker because he is electrifying. He plays him more as a sociopath than a psychopath, he knows the difference between right and wrong, such as his reaction when Ottis very nearly assaults his sister and when he follows a woman walking her dog and very clearly changes his mind about murdering her. He also gives him a certain awkwardness around people, particularly with Becky, shuffling around and putting his coat back on when Becky is trying to seduce him. Rumour has it that he remained in character on set which must have scared the brown stinky stuff out of everybody on set. You can see why people might warm to him as a character, he blends into the background, but you firmly believe that he is capable of committing the random acts of violence you ultimately see him commit.

The violence when it does arrive is sudden, largely unplanned and utterly terrifying. There is no ‘trademark’ machete, knife or chainsaw, here we see random, everyday items become weapons including a comb, a broken bottle, a TV, wiring – it is frightening and, as we’ll see later, a lot of this trouble the BBFC. If you like your horror ‘horrific’ and challenging rather than blood soaked then this is the film for you.

What about the bad?

It depends on your point of view but this is certainly not a date movie! It is very difficult to watch at times and sets its stall with one of its first images. The image of the prostitute sitting on a toilet, naked, covered in blood with a broken bottle sticking out her mouth was so strong that the 30 second pan was completely removed by the BBFC. I can imagine some people finding difficulty getting past this particular image.

Watching a particularly nasty scene

It really is a nasty film, there is no other word for it, that’s what it’s supposed to be. McNaughton is showing us a violent serial killer, warts and all, and his equally, if not more psychopathic friend. In one particular scene, and I’ll come on to this in more detail in the next section, we witness the murder and rape of an entire family. It’s not bad in the sense that it’s not well made, that it’s out of place or that it makes the film worse than it is…far from it. It’s just that we’re talking about a truly repulsive scene that does not try to entertain or amuse in the way a slasher film might. It challenges you to ask yourself what type of enjoyment you’re getting from a film like this and that is quite a question to ask.

These two paragraphs could easily be put in the ‘What’s good about it’ section but it really is worth pointing out that horror rarely gets as challenging as this. For me it’s a plus point for the film, horror should be challenging and as an adult you should be able to watch a confrontational film, not to enjoy but to have this type of question asked of you and for you to respond internally. But for non-genre fans this would be a turn off and I would find that a shame for what is a very strong film.

Release History

VERY controversial! This film was made in 1986 but didn’t see distribution in the UK until 1991 when Electric Pictures submitted it to the BBFC. What happened next is almost as shocking and controversial as the film itself.

Around 24 seconds was cut for its limited cinema release from the (at this point I should say bloodless) family massacre scene but for home video this still bothered the BBFC, particularly the classification (or should that be censorship?) body’s director James Ferman. The bottle in the face scene was removed by Electric prior to BBFC submission, it was felt that the shot would pre-dispose the censors to thinking that this film would be problematic, but Ferman was still not happy with the family scene.

What was so problematic was that the scene was being viewed by the audience on a television set that was being watched by Henry and Ottis. The positioning of the camera was such that the violence was clearly sexual in nature and, though the BBFC as a collective body was ready to let the scene go in the same truncated form as the cinema, Ferman overruled this and demanded it be cut further. To paper over the cuts, he inserted, halfway through, a shot of Henry and Ottis watching the scene. Effectively what he did was re-edit the scene, clearly an action beyond the remit of a body whose sole function was supposed to be to classify films.

The actual gore didn't bother the BBFC

What it also did was alter the context of the scene. Initially we don’t realise that what we’re doing is the same as what Henry and Ottis are doing, watching this graphic violence, including the post-mortem molestation of one of the female victims, for entertainment. In its uncut form this only dawns on us at the end of the scene but thanks to Ferman’s meddling the rug is pulled from underneath too early and we, as an audience, are no longer complicit – we don’t question why we’re watching the scene, we’re just disgusted that they’re watching it. It’s disgraceful and Ferman had no right to do this to somebody else’s work. The film suffered a total of 113 seconds of cuts for its 1993 release.

In 2002 Electric tried again, submitting an uncut print but still failing in its goal with 48 seconds missing but at least the family massacre was no longer re-edited. Yes, it was still missing ten seconds but at least the director’s original intention was there. It wouldn’t see an uncut release until 2003.

Any Themes?

There is a lot here that challenges the audiences to question what they get out of watching violent scenes. Yes, it could be considered hypocritical to use violence and violent images to preach a high and mighty moral but I don’t think that was the intention. What they’ve done is removed the fantasy element, what makes the more traditional slashers so appealing and ‘safe’, and screamed at the audience ‘look…this is what death really looks like, what do you think of it now?’.

Take ‘A Nightmare on Elm Street’…you never once identify with Freddy but he’s the ‘hero’ of the film, the one we pay good money to go and see. In the scene where we watch the home video family murder we are complicit in what they’ve done, we’re doing what they’re doing and that’s watching violence for the sake of entertainment. The safety net of fantastical violence is removed so McNaughton is asking a very frightening and self-referential question which is just part of what makes this film so uncomfortable and problematic for the censors.

Cultural Impact

It’s a difficult one to approach. Yes it predates other serial killer obsessed films such as ‘Silence of the Lambs’ and ‘SE7en’ but it’s a stretch to say it inspired them. I think what it did do was open a few eyes to what the BBFC were doing at the time and their over-officious approach to what they saw as their role of moral guardian which wasn’t the case. They were simply there to classify but were more renowned for censorship. I don’t think it’s a massive coincidence that after ‘Henry’ was released in its cut form, censorship started to relax.

The film that gave us the moody Michael Rooker

What it did do was launch the career of the brilliant and reliable Michael Rooker. Now a veteran of 114 film and TV credits, including prominent roles in Oscar winning films such as ‘JFK’, Hollywood blockbusters such as ‘Clliffhanger’ and the upcoming ‘Guardians of the Galaxy 2’, this film gave the world a great character actor.

Final Thoughts

A breath of foul air in a decade where horror became very stale, it’s a shame, and probably a touch ironic, that the world didn’t really get to see it until the 90s. Gritty, nasty, dark and morally bankrupt in tone it is incredibly difficult to watch (hence my relatively low ‘entertainment value’ rating) but if you can manage to stomach it you are rewarded with a bold, brave and stark example of a film that goes against the trend. This is no typical 80s slasher film, in fact its anti-slasher if there is such a thing, an affront to what horror films, enjoyable though some of them were, had become and a throwback to the days of ‘Texas Chain Saw’, ‘Last House on the Left’ and ‘The Hills Have Eyes’ where raw film making and genuine terror were on show.

Memorable Quotes

Henry: “Yeah…I killed my Mama.”

Ottis: “I’d like to kill somebody”
Henry: “Say that again.”
Ottis: “I’d like to kill somebody.”
Henry: “Let’s me and you go for a ride.”

You’ll like this if you enjoyed…

‘The Texas Chain Saw Massacre’, ‘Deranged’, ‘Peeping Tom’

Shogun Assassin (1980)

Tagline: ’The Greatest Team in the History of Mass Slaughter’
Running Time: 80 minutes

Film Quality: 4/5
Gore Content: 4/5
Entertainment Value: 5/5
Originality: 4/5

Introduction

Marking another diversion for ‘The Horror Video’, this is NOT a horror film but has garnered quite a reputation amongst genre fans, largely thanks to its appearance on the DPP’s ‘Video Nasties’ list and popularity as a long running Manga in the 70s. How this ended up causing offence is anyone’s guess, it’s a hugely entertaining samurai film that is breathtakingly pacy, full of memorable characters, highly moral in its storytelling and also, thanks to how it came to be, utterly unique. Yes, it’s very gory and blood splatters under, over, across and even onto the screen with surprising frequency but it’s rarely gratuitous until the final few minutes and now, thankfully, is being recognised as the great film it is rather than for its notoriety as being banned in the UK.

In a Nutshell

Lone Wolf is the Shogun’s decapitator but when the Shogun becomes fearful of his power he orders his assassination and that of his wife and child. Succeeding only in killing his wife, Lone Wolf becomes an assassin for hire, walking the roads and righting wrongs like a one man ‘A-Team’, knowing that one day he will be able to exact his revenge on the evil Shogun.

So, what’s good about it?

This film has a strange history in that it is a hybrid of two other films. Put together by director Robert Houston (who stars as one of the teens in Wes Craven’s ‘The Hills Have Eyes’), the first 11 minutes is taken from re-edited sections of ‘Sword of Vengeance’ with the remaining hour or so lifted from ‘Baby Cart on the River Styx’. What you get is  the best of both films with very little exposition and a whole fleet of lorries loaded with action, swordplay and fight scenes that are utterly relentless. I honestly can’t think of another film with a background like this but it works. Lone Wolf moves from intense situation to intense situation, the only two pauses being a moment of tension when he and his son Daigaro have a bath with Ninja ready to pounce and a lovely scene where Daigaro tends to his injured father.

The relationship between Lone Wolf (known through the film as ‘Assassin with Son’) and Daigaro (left) is wonderfully done. In fact this is one element that Houston added to the original’s mix by placing Daigaro as the heart and soul of the film with him ‘narrating’ the movie, essentially telling the story through his very young eyes. Daigaro isn’t just a toddler who sits in pram eating whatever passed for jelly babies in feudal Japan, he’s part of the action. With a flick of his hand his cart sprouts knives which decapitate Ninja at the ankle, or knives fly out of the front. There is a truly classic scene where we find out Daigaro’s destiny is to walk the road of vengeance when, as a baby he is asked to ‘Choose the sword or choose the ball’.

"O, Mad One"

The characters are just wonderful. You have the evil Shogun, the Donald Trump of his day who has the audacity to refer to Lone Wolf as “O Mad One” when his own stairs clearly don’t reach the attic. We have the ultimate female Ninja who has her own code of honour and thinks nothing of cutting off the nose, arms and legs of the male Ninja’s strongest man…yet she is revealed to be far from callous. Of course there is the unforgettable ‘Masters of Death’, each with his own personalised gloved weapon and we’ve already covered Lone Wolf and Daigaro, the most dangerous father and son act since Harry and Jamie Redknapp (that’s one for you UK footy fans!).

You can’t talk about ‘Shogun Assassin’ without mentioning the incredible electronic score by W. Michael Lewis and Mark Lindsay. There is no way that 80s electronica should be within 500 yards of a film set somewhere around the 1300s but it works astoundingly well. They’ve been bright enough to leave in some of the music from the original movies and build a pounding electronic score around it, including the unforgettable end credits theme and a Jean-Michel Jarre-esque, beatless piece that accompanies the scene where the Masters of Death are reunited with Lone Wolf.

Finally, one of the things that often lets down a film such as this is the dubbing, but not here. As the film is edited together from two films and dubbed, there has never been a subtitled version so purists can untie their knickers and wind their necks in…that version does not exist. Secondly, a lip reading expert was drafted in to construct dialogue that would conveniently fit with the movement of the actors mouths. The end result is that, far from having dialogue wrapped around mouths which flap about like a school of distressed salmon, they more resemble synchronised swimmers with speech and dialogue unerringly aligned. Again, this is a first and they can get away with it because, essentially, this is a different film from ‘Sword’ and ‘Baby Cart’ so there is no story, plotline or dialogue that they have to stay truthful to.

What about the bad?

We’re talking about two films edited together so it does come across a little bit like a ‘best of’ compilation of both films. Essentially taking the best bits of both films and ditching the ‘talky bits’ we’re left very light on plot but heavy on action. It is a little episodic, almost like an anthology of short stories edited together and there are some loose ends that aren’t tied up in a satisfactory manner. But does it really matter when the end result is such a ride? Perhaps not, and the ‘Lone Wolf and Cub’ film series, which stands at six, has certainly benefitted from the popularity of ‘Shogun Assassin’ but some purists dismiss it as low grade ‘Grindhouse’ rubbish, disown the film as an abomination and not part of the series.

My personal take on it is that they’re very different films. I’ve seen the originals and the adaptation is reasonably faithful. Yes, the source material is more fully formed and contains more character development but that doesn’t detract from what a fun film ‘Shogun Assassin’ is. There is room in this world for all seven films and my only surprise is that those six films didn’t become a trilogy of ‘Shogun Assassin’ films.

Release History

The film suffered around 10 seconds of cuts by the BBFC before this cinema version inexplicably ended up on the banned list! VIPCO were then very naughty in the mid-90s, as they did with ‘Zombie Flesh Eaters, releasing an ‘Uncut Cinema Version’ which still contained those cuts alongside a widescreen version. The film was finally released completely uncut (a machete in the head, blood pouring down a man’s arms and a particularly gory eye-gouging were put back where they belonged) in 1999. Since then it has played uncut on Film4 and released as part of the ‘Lone Wolf and Cub’ boxed set on DVD.

Any Themes?

The film has a lot to say about honour and how power corrupts. The Shogun is an evil man and the Ninja, though physically powerful are weak, wimping out of attacking Lone Wolf and instead raping and killing his wife. Contrast that with Lone Wolf who, when confronted with the injured female ninja leader who is vulnerable and freezing, spares her life and tends to her. Who is the stronger man? She initially resists his attempts to keep her warm by saying ‘You’re trembling…more afraid of peace than war?’. She eventually lays down her sword and lets him go, realising he is not the monster the Shogun has portrayed.

Even the Masters of Death show elements of honour. They explicitly say they will not attack unless Lone Wolf makes a move against them, again honourable up to a point and they respect the power and skills Lone Wolf possesses.

Cultural Impact

Haven't we seen this somewhere before Mr Tarantino?

The film has been championed by Quentin Tarantino who cited it as a major influence on his two ‘Kill Bill’

films, including a clip of it within the second film as The Bride watches TV. It’s difficult to watch the ‘Crazy 88s’ scene in the first movie and the geysers of blood without bringing to mind one of the many fight scenes in ‘Shogun Assassin’, particularly the vertical head slice which is so spectacularly performed by Lone Wolf.

The Lone Wolf and Cub Manga was hugely popular in its native Japan, running for six years from 1970 and an estimated 8,000 pages over 28 volumes, selling around 8million copies. When finally translated into English for the American market in the 80s with Frank Miller doing one of the covers. Unfortunately the run was never completed and only around a third were ever translated. Thankfully Dark Horse picked up the baton and released a full set in the noughties.

Ghost in the Shell producer Steven Paul has expressed a desire to remake the movie with a largely Japanese cast, whether or not this comes to fruition is another matter but it displays the film’s growing popularity amongst the ‘edgier’ elements of Hollywood. It has been developed into two TV series, one released in the 70s that ran for three series and a second in 2006, neither have seen western dvd releases.

You can’t talk about the Shogun influence without mentioning the hip-hop community, specifically Wu-Tang Clan who have sampled the movie many times. It plays an intrinsic part in GZA’s album ‘Liquid Swordz’ with a number of audio samples of movie dialogue and music cues. The album sleeve as well is reminiscent of Manga covers with prominent blood spurts and swordplay linked to ‘Shogun Assassin’.

Final Thoughts

Not one for the purists and definitely not a horror genre film but is has been embraced by the horror community for its imaginative bloodletting and cult status. If you’re not familiar with Japanese samurai films then the ‘blood from a hosepipe’ nature of the gore will come as a massive shock and the pace at which this film rocks along is as relentless as any action flick you’ve even seen come out of Hollywood. There’s a great deal of fun to be had watching this with a few like-minded mates, a crate of beer and a pizza which, great though the individual ‘Lone Wolf and Cub’ movies are, you just don’t get from the original movies. A unique one off to be savoured and enjoyed.

Memorable Quotes

Master of Death: “When cut across the neck a sound like the wailing winter winds is heard they say. I’d always hoped to cut someone like that someday, to hear that sound. But to have it happen to my own neck is……..ridiculous.”

Voice of Daigaro: “I don’t remember much of this myself, I only remember the Shogun’s ninja hunting us wherever we go. And the bodies falling…and the blood.”

Voice of Daigaro: “I guess I wish it had been different….but a wish is only a wish.”

You’ll like this if you enjoyed…

‘Lady Snowblood’, ‘Battle Royale’, ‘Kill Bill’

Scanners (1981)

Tagline: ‘Their thoughts can kill’
UK Running Time: 103 Minutes

Film Quality: 4/5
Gore Content: 3/5
Entertainment Value: 4/5
Originality: 3.5/5

Introduction

Following up on some underground hits with ‘Shivers’, ‘Rabid’ and ‘The Brood’, Canadian director David Cronenberg was carving out a reputation as a bit of a horror auteur. His particular brand of horror had an unnerving element of the sexual, his film were interesting with the female characters being the ones to cause danger, terror and harm to their male victims. With this in mind ‘Scanners’ marked something of a shift towards more conventional storytelling, blending elements of political intrigue, science fiction and horror that he would elaborate upon in his later films ‘Videodrome’ and ‘The Dead Zone’. Including one standout scene that threatened to trump the rest of the film, ‘Scanners’ was far less ‘dirty’ but caused people to take Cronenberg seriously.

In a nutshell

An underground movement of human beings born with powerful telekinetic powers known as Scanners become a threat to a large company, ConSec, who want to use them as potential weapons. It soon becomes apparent that the renegade leader is recruiting Scanners to bring down ConSec, killing any of them, or anyone else who gets in his way. ConSec recruit a Scanner who has slipped under the radar, starting a battle between the two as they try to learn the truth about each other and ConSec’s motives.

What’s good about it?

This is an offal scene!

I don’t think it’s much of a spoiler to talk about the exploding head! Cronenberg originally wanted to use the scene at the beginning of the film, going so far as to edit it that way but it was so powerful that audiences struggled to connect with the rest of the film. As a consequence it arrives around 15 minutes in to introduce us to Revok, played by the impressive Michael Ironside and what a powerful weapon he could turn out to be. You can wax lyrical about the barriers that have been broken by CGI but give me analogue effects any day, especially when done like this. Cronenberg filled a plastic head with offal and had someone shoot it from behind with a shotgun and the result is astounding!

I’ve already mentioned that Cronenberg’s previous films showed a fascination for the power of female sexuality. Sexual violence in horror has always proved to be problematic for many and it was wise for Cronenberg to try something different, creating his most accessible film up to that point. Despite its reputation and exploding head, it’s nowhere near as visceral as his previous films and plays more like a political thriller at times. It’s the first Cronenberg film where you don’t feel like you need a shower after having watched it, and that’s not necessarily a criticism of his previous films.

That said, most of Cronenberg’s tropes are very much in evident. It can certainly be categorised as body horror, characters are able to change and control the body against the host’s wishes. We’ve got the shady governmental corporation behind what appears to be either a conspiracy or a cover up in ConSec. There is some ambiguity about the villain, is he really evil or is he just looking to preserve his own kind, seeing it as an evolution of man. Then of course there’s the distrust and misuse of science and technology and how its influence can affect the course of mankind. It’s all there.

Speaking of the villain, the performance of Michael Ironside (right) as Revok is sensational and he steals every scene in which he makes an appearance. He’s charismatic, inspirational and ruthless, in fact he reminds me very much of ‘The Joker’ in Christopher Nolan’s ‘The Dark Knight’ in that he is clearly unhinged and evil but you very much warm to his character out of sheer energy and presence. For me Ironside is, alongside James Woods in ‘Videodrome’ and Jeff Goldblum in ‘The Fly’, the standout performance in a Cronenberg movie.

What about the bad?

Quite literally the only time Lack lit up a scene!

It’s far from a perfect film. First of all the performance of Ironside contrasts starkly with Stephen Lack who doesn’t so much phone in his portrayal of good Scanner Cameron Vale as send it by courier pigeon. Unfortunately this does change the dynamic of the film for me because I found myself rooting for Revok who is far more electrifying and worthy of survival (although this may be a good time to reference that terrifically ambivalent ending…watch it and decide for yourself!).

Also, it’s certainly tense but by eschewing a lot of the visual splendour the film does feel kind of colourless. The exploding head highlights this fact all the more so because that scene is just about all that anybody can remember which is a shame because, under the surface, this has something to say about big American pharmaceutical companies and the nature of power. It’s an intelligent film but one almost completely without humour which does make it a bit of a slog to get through, especially after the breathtaking first 20 minutes.

Any themes?

I think it has a very interesting subtext and mirrors, to some extent, the Thalidomide scandal. Scanners are mutations caused by the taking of a drug called Ephemerol by pregnant women, a clear reference to what happened with the aforementioned drug being linked to babies born with malformed limbs in Germany in the 1950s. The fact that the plan is to market Ephemerol to pregnant women who will give birth to Scanners for Revok to recruit only serves to underpin Cronenberg’s distrust of large Pharmaceutical or medical firms, something that will resonate today. It wasn’t the first time his films featured a faceless corporation within the healthcare industry using experimental methods that went awry and it wasn’t his last.

Release History

Despite the BBFC’s ambivalent attitude towards exploding heads (excised from Romero’s ‘Dawn of the Dead’ and the Bond film ‘License to Kill’ but allowing similar scenes in ‘To Live and Die in L.A.’ and the PG rated ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’) ‘Scanners’ has never concerned the censors. There does exist a cut US TV version but in the UK it has only ever been screened uncut.

Cultural Impact

This is where it gets interesting for me…was ‘Scanners’ an inspiration on Brian Singer’s ‘X-Men’ movies? There is a backstory to Revok’s character where old footage (left) shows that he tried to drill a hole in his head to ‘let the voices out’, a story that is repeated by one of the female characters in ‘X-Men 2’ to release her mental images. The Scanners are rejects from society in a very similar way to the mutants in ‘X-Men’, forcing the insane Revok to rise up and try and preserve his kind whilst also wiping out any of them who stand in his way. I think there was even an X-Men comic character called Scanner who was able to astral project.

There were two sequels, neither featuring characters from the first movie, and there was a spin off series of films called ‘Scanner Cop’. None of them are in the same league as ‘Scanners’ but neither are they so terrible that they sully the reputation of the first one. Most genre fans prefer to regard ‘Scanners’ as a standalone film and simply disregard the sequels. Thankfully talk of a remake have gone away although there were rumours as recently as 2012 about turning it into a TV series but this has also failed to materialise.

Final Thoughts

A mature horror/Sci-fi thriller this was Cronenberg’s most mainstream film at the time and you get the feeling he needed a hit to be able to do what he wanted with the magnificent ‘Videodrome’ and then commanding bigger budgets for movies like ‘The Fly’, ‘The Dead Zone’ and ‘Dead Ringers’. It perhaps wouldn’t have had the notoriety without the famous exploding head but there’s a lot else to admire in this film and is still very highly regarded within Cronenberg’s impressive body of work.

Memorable Quote

Vale: “I can hear myself…I think I’m a bit afraid.”

Revok: “We’re gonna do this the Scanner way, I’m going to suck your brain dry”

You’ll like this if you enjoyed…

‘Videodrome’, ‘The Fury’, ‘The Dead Zone’, ‘X-Men’.

Ghoulies (1984)

Tagline: ‘They’ll get you in the end’
UK Running Time: 81 Minutes

Film Quality: 2/5
Gore Content: 1.5/5
Entertainment Value: 2/5
Originality: 2/5

Introduction

I can only imagine that this was inspired in some way by the smash hit Joe Dante movie ‘Gremlins’ with its mix of comedy, horror and little monsters that go “Grrrrrrrrrr” a lot but somewhere along the way they forgot to put in the horror, comedy and replace it with lots of little monsters that go “Grrrrrrrrr” a lot, terrorising some of the most irritating teens ever to plague the screen. That said it was a massive hit on home video and spawned no less than three sequels so it must have something about it, no?

"Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr"

In a nutshell

A twenty something teen moves into his father’s house and becomes obsessed with some spiritual, ritualistic stuff that he finds with his friends in the cellar. Believing he can summon up supernatural powers and find the truth about his father he dabbles in the demonism and unwittingly releases the titular ‘Ghoulies’ and a couple of dwarves. By the end of the film he (and most of the audience) were asking themselves the question ‘where did it all go wrong?’.

What’s good about it?

Well, it’s only 81 minutes long which, given the quality on show, is a bonus. So far on this blog I’ve reviewed films that I’d seen before and enjoyed so this is something new. I only watched it a few days ago after it appeared on Netflix UK and I vaguely remember seeing the video cover way back in the 80s and it stuck in my mind. As a consequence I have no nostalgic bias so I can see how a film such as this would have gained some affection. It certainly ticks a lot of the boxes I would have looked for back then. It was accessible, not too scary or gory so as to be a threat to my young sensibilities so it would have been a neat little introduction to horror movies.

The ‘Ghoulies’ themselves are quite funny, to start off with. One of them in particular looks a bit like a smaller version of the giant turd that ‘Chet’ turns into close to the end of ‘Weird Science’! I suppose they are quite menacing in a ‘Yorkshire Terrier’ sort of way and they are grotesque but they don’t really do much other than go “Grrrrrrrr” a lot.

Not a winning look...

What it does have during one standout scene is a wonderfully sexy turn from Bobbie Bresee who, a quick glance at IMDB will tell you, is a former Playboy Bunny. She plays a demonic temptress who seduces one of our moronic teens before turning into a monstrous being which strangles him with her tongue. Most of the rest of the threat in the film comes from our lead moronic teen overacting during his satanic ritual but that doesn’t take away from what, for me, is the standout moment of the movie!

What about the bad?

Any film where the makers felt that adding a scene involving a Ghoulie jumping out of a toilet was necessary during post-production to improve the final cut really doesn’t have a lot going for it. The acting is less convincing than a Scot trying to kick his drinking habit and the special effects make ‘Bagpuss’ look like ‘The Return of the King’. It’s as frightening as a summer meadow, as funny as a kick in the happy sacks and the production values are as low as a snake doing a limbo dance wearing a top hat. To put it into context, this is a poor man’s ‘Critters’…does that sound good?

Any themes?

Some things are best left well alone and anyone who’s ever seen an 80s horror movie really should know that if you find a load of satanic ritualistic paraphernalia left in a basement, it’s probably been left there for a reason! Also, if your Dad was hell bent on becoming an all-powerful overlord by using your youth as a vessel then he probably isn’t worth knowing.

Release History

Nothing too contentious, it was originally cut by around 12 seconds in the US to achieve a PG-13 rating. It’s likely that this was the same version passed in the UK as ‘15’ and has had blu rays releases with a director commentary from Luca Bercovi and a short retrospective making of. It did spawn three sequels, certainly the second one seems to have garnered much better reviews, set in a theme park and featuring much more carnage than the very tame first one. I can see how that would work better as the grotesque and funny/sinister, almost clown like nature of the Ghoulies would be a more natural fit to a carnival or fairground setting than the mansion we get in the first film.

Cultural Impact

Apparently, it received a number of complaints from parent groups upset that the poster put their children off going to the toilet! The artwork for the poster is a great example of the VHS era where the promise of the trailer, poster or video cover was often far better than the actual pay off of the feature, so much so that I was convinced I’d seen the film before I sat down and watched it but clearly hadn’t. I refuse to believe that my brain had blocked out the memory on purpose…even my own mind wouldn’t force me to watch this twice!

It’s worth saying at this point that the original plot was that of the main character going back to stay with his grandfather to find that the little beasties (the original title was ‘Beasties’) that were the subject of his stories were actually real. I find it a real shame that they didn’t go with this idea as it has much more scope for scare and humour whilst still appealing to a younger audience. The plot they went for is just too hammy for me and doesn’t work.

"You're fired!!!"

Final Thoughts

My last blog featured ‘Bad Taste’ which cost around $200,000 once the New Zealand Film Commission grant is taken into account. This one was $1million and you really do wonder what on earth they spent it on! It’s not a good film but then I approached it as a an adult who grew up in the VHS era rather than a teen (or even pre-teen) during the VHS era so missed out on the effect it might have had on me before I’d seen much better films. I can see the appeal, I really can, as there are lots of bad films that I would happily watch again because of the nostalgia. Unfortunately you can’t get that innocence and ignorance back and it just didn’t connect with my present day self in the way it might have in 1984.

Memorable Quote

Dick: “They call me Dick, but you can call me……..Dick.”

You’ll like this if you enjoyed…

‘Troll’, ‘Munchies’, ‘Critters’, tearing out the fingernails from your own hands

Bad Taste (1987)

Tagline: ‘One thing the aliens hadn’t counted on was Derek, and Derek’s don’t run’
UK Running Time: 92 Minutes

Film Quality: 4.5/5
Gore Content: 4.5/5
Entertainment Value: 5/5
Originality: 4/5

Introduction

There’s probably a whole generation of film fans for whom Peter Jackson is the man that made ‘The Lord of the Rings’ and ‘The Hobbit’ films…for the rest of us he’s the guy that made ‘Bad Taste’! Jackson’s first feature probably took him longer to make than those six films combined, taking the best part of four years from first picking up that 16mm camera to wrapping up in the editing suite. Whilst the ‘Rings’ movies boasted hundreds of SFX artists, the alien masks in ‘Bad Taste’ were baked in his mum’s oven…the budget for ‘Rings’ was $300m and took $2.2billion at the box office, ‘Bad taste’ cost $30,000 and made $150,000. They couldn’t be more different yet there is so much affection for this low budget effort that it’s screaming out for a re-appraisal and long overdue a remaster and blu-ray release.

In a nutshell

Giles soaking in Reg's eleven secret herbs and spices

Intergalactic food manufacturers Crumb’s Country Delights are determined to make human flesh the next taste sensation and set down in the Kiwi town of Kaihoro with the intention of turning its population into the first sample dish. The Astro Investigation and Defence Service (“I wish we’d change that name!”) get wind of their plan and send ‘The Boys’, four clueless imbeciles in anoraks armed with machine guns, Magnums and chainsaws, to stop them.

What’s good about it?

This a seriously funny film! Channelling elements of Monty Python, Spike Milligan and The Three Stooges to create some gloriously slapstick humour the film is laugh out loud funny. Of course, it’s not for everyone because as well as being side splitting, a lot of sides are literally split on screen as the blood, gore and brains fly across the screen, into characters faces at regular intervals. There is blood everywhere and it’s certainly not for the faint hearted but if you can stomach the on screen offal then you’re in for a treat.

"Put all the bits of brain in a plastic bag Barry...

we'll need them for analysis."

Speaking of which, gore hounds are in for a treat! Among the gory highlights we see heads shot in half at the nose, brains falling out of heads, arms severed, guns pushed graphically through stomachs, machetes rammed through feet and that’s just in the first 20 minutes. But it’s all very inoffensive and if you’ve seen the black knight scene in ‘Monty Python and the Holy Grail’ then you will get a flavour of what to expect from this. It’s all played for laughs so rather than repulsed by the blood, brains, nasal fluid and vomit (to be fair that particular scene does make you feel a little queasy!) you find yourself chuckling…this may be the one gore film to sit down and watch with your mum!

Considering this film started out as a ten minute short, edited together into a 50 minute film, at which point Jackson decided to go the whole hog and turn it into a full length feature, it is a very coherent movie. Yes hair styles change, one of the character loses weight at various parts of the film and the weather changes very quickly but the tone of the film is consistent. Jackson makes the most of the ‘budget’ (for that read ‘goodwill of his friends and family’ and a modest grant from the New Zealand Film Commission) with some excellent DIY special effects including the aforementioned masks, miniature houses, fake guns and ‘shots’ that raises this well above what you might call a ‘backyard movie’.

Let’s take a moment to talk about the acting. The bulk of the film was filmed without sound and overdubbed and a lot of humour can be found in the amateurish nature of the delivery which definitely adds to the film. Most of the actors play two parts, most notably Jackson who plays Derek and alien ‘Robert’ which gives him the chance to show off his editing chops during a scene where the two characters fight each other halfway down a cliff face. Jackson has a great time hamming it up as Derek who, due to the fact that he takes a dive off the cliff face after losing that particular fight, spends the rest of the film trying to keep stop his brains falling out of a newly formed flap in his head. He consequently grows more insane, finally going “ape-shit” after finding out what happens when he puts a bit of the alien brain in his own head!

Exploding Sheep!

That’s just one of many inspired sight gags which includes a fine homage to the Monty Python ‘not being seen’ sketch, exploding sheep, cardboard cut outs of The Beatles, a decapitated man defending himself by throwing pine cones, one of The Boys literally trying to mop up the mess during a bloody exchange and an utterly insane climax that has to be seen to be believed! It just goes to show that imagination and drive can go a long way in compensating for a lack of dollar and it’s obvious from watching this film that Jackson was meant for bigger things.

What about the bad?

What some people love about the film will be a real turn off for some. The film really does have the look of a cheap and nasty horror flick, probably because at the end of the day that’s exactly what it is! Taken at face value the acting is poor, the effects are inventive but you can see the joins and production values are low. It’s a shame that some people won’t be able to see past the film’s shortcomings because there’s a lot of enjoyment to be had in the sheer enthusiasm and drive that got this film made in the first place. Did you know for example that for the scenes that took place on the top of a cliff, rather than face having to lug the camera equipment up there each weekend (due to work commitments they were restricted to weekends, sometimes less frequent!) they buried it up there and dug it up when they were ready to film! That’s commitment for you!!!

Any themes?

Not really, it’s only reason for being is to make you laugh, throw up and churn your stomach in equal measure!

Release History

Just like the Australian censors, Derek has no brain

Released in the UK at a time when censorship was strict, it’s perhaps a surprise to note that this has never had any trouble getting past the BBFC uncut and has never suffered from censorship on these shores, even during several TV screenings on BBC2 and Film4. However, that’s not been the case elsewhere. The most extreme example was in Queensland where the film was banned in its uncut form until 2004! It’s also been heavily cut in Germany where a FSK-12 version was released missing 10 minutes alongside a FSK-18 version cut by 7 minutes. There has been talk for some time that Jackson intends to release his first three films as special edition blu-rays but we’re no closer to those remastered movies. At present the only known extras are trailers and a 20 minute documentary ‘Good Taste Made Bad Taste’.

Cultural Impact

Enormous given that it gave the world Peter Jackson. When Christopher Lee read the scene in ‘Fellowship of the Ring’ where a severed head fell into a well alerting the cave dwellers to the Fellowship’s whereabouts he said “I knew that this was the guy that made ‘Bad Taste’”. Some of the shots you see in the Rings films are there in ‘Bad Taste’ such as the extreme facial close ups, the Orcs are incredibly elaborate versions of the ‘Bad Taste’ aliens and as for the Wraiths…well they’re straight out of the horror genre. Also, would we have had the same stunning scenery in those films had Jackson not been adamant that they should be filmed in his home country.

Jackson’s supernatural comedy ‘The Frighteners’ also owes a huge debt to this movie, being his first shot at a big budget production with a star name (Michael J Fox). It was also filmed in the Wellington, New Zealand area. Had this little slice of schlock not been made we would have missed out on a number of wonderful films as well as one of the greatest cinematic trilogies of all time.

Final Thoughts

It’s a low budget masterpiece that shows you don’t need to chuck millions of pounds at a horror film to make it entertaining. The horror genre is full of examples of horror movies that benefit from having a low budget, ensuring that talent conquers all when it comes to inventive ways to get around problems. In a way ‘Bad Taste’ typifies this approach to film making in that Jackson and his friends slogged away at this for four years with a single vision of making an entertaining slice of schlock that they would enjoy watching themselves. It’s a fan’s film and they know more than any studio exec what pushes other fans’ buttons and for this reason ‘Bad Taste’ deserves its place in cult film history.

Memorable Quotes

Derek: “I’m a Derek…and Derek’s don’t run.”

Ozzy (After pulling alien’s head off): “Jeez, they come to bits easy.”
Barry: “I’ve just cleaned that bit.”
Frank: “Get rid of it.”
Ozzy (drop kicking the head out of the window): “The old magic’s still there

Derek: “It wasn’t me…Barry shot his head off, he had the Magnum.”



Frank: “We have to remain faceless at all times.”
Ozzy (caressing the Magnum): “Oh I get it, just in case we kill a lot of innocent people.”

Barry: “Why can’t aliens be friendly?”
Derek: “There’s no glowing fingers on these bastards.”

Derek: “Well, this has buggered your plans for conquering the universe.”

Frank: “Well I guess we’re going to have to issue a gun to Ozzy.”
Barry: Yeah, but don’t forget about his personality disorder.”

You’ll like this if you enjoyed…

“The Evil Dead’, ‘Re-Animator’, ‘Braindead’, ‘Death Warmed Up’