When you see an artifact like this film (call it by any one of its three titles, most of which are splashed on the static title card that is the hallmark of all true grindhouse fare) it reminds you of a sad truth. Namely, the only way a bunch of people with no money could make a film back in the day was to make some schlocky pseudo-horror nonsense filled with blood the color of orange juice and liberal splattering of freeze frames.
I mean, technically, this film sucks. There really isn't any redeeming merit in the story, the acting, the photography...even the sound and editing are hackneyed. it is truly, as others have confirmed, a disaster. But is it scary? Lots of sub-par movies have had a genuine creepiness factor. Unfortunately, today...unless the sight of kids with weapons on screen, assaulting adults, is new to you...the answer is sadly no. The assault on a doctor earlier in the film is so badly set-up, edited, lit, and shot, that its hard to tell what is even happening on the screen (even in supposed "cleaned-up prints"). This makes the extended four minute attack just mind-numbingly tedious. Not sure why this got to some people.
In 1974 that was probably very different. Aside from "Village of the Damned," "Who Would Kill a Child?" et al, kiddie carnage wasn't common place. And given the era...when many parents were in fact becoming afraid of their kids...this movie would have been far more disturbing. The archaic quality of the script really renders it as nothing more than a freak show curiosity, and it does deliver on that count. The cat fight in the beginning of the film is hilarious in its staginess and the ineptness with which its shot --- and this is how these zero budget flicks got financed, remember? You can almost see the plaid leisure suited executive taking the stogie out of his mouth and saying "Ya got two broads in a room together, dontcha? CATFIGHT!" I will give screenwriter John Durren, who plays Ralph one nod, though. In addition to having the energy to inject topicality into the script (it does have a moral indignation that is a tad refreshing compared to anything being written today --- at least it attempts to TAKE a position) he does give us a couple of very unsettling tableaux, mostly in scenes he embodies: Ralph semi-flirts with the young psycho "nun", Leif Garrett (in "BAD SEED to the MAX" mode) cross dresses and flirts with Sorrell Booke, and the femme fatale of the bunch sexually degrades and mocks Ralph, who is obviously disabled.
Pretty daring stuff. A pity that daring couldn't have been laced with a tad more competence. Still, true checking out for a truly BAD (as in Dan Ackroyd's Leonard Pimpf Garnell character on SNL) CINEMA.
I mean, technically, this film sucks. There really isn't any redeeming merit in the story, the acting, the photography...even the sound and editing are hackneyed. it is truly, as others have confirmed, a disaster. But is it scary? Lots of sub-par movies have had a genuine creepiness factor. Unfortunately, today...unless the sight of kids with weapons on screen, assaulting adults, is new to you...the answer is sadly no. The assault on a doctor earlier in the film is so badly set-up, edited, lit, and shot, that its hard to tell what is even happening on the screen (even in supposed "cleaned-up prints"). This makes the extended four minute attack just mind-numbingly tedious. Not sure why this got to some people.
In 1974 that was probably very different. Aside from "Village of the Damned," "Who Would Kill a Child?" et al, kiddie carnage wasn't common place. And given the era...when many parents were in fact becoming afraid of their kids...this movie would have been far more disturbing. The archaic quality of the script really renders it as nothing more than a freak show curiosity, and it does deliver on that count. The cat fight in the beginning of the film is hilarious in its staginess and the ineptness with which its shot --- and this is how these zero budget flicks got financed, remember? You can almost see the plaid leisure suited executive taking the stogie out of his mouth and saying "Ya got two broads in a room together, dontcha? CATFIGHT!" I will give screenwriter John Durren, who plays Ralph one nod, though. In addition to having the energy to inject topicality into the script (it does have a moral indignation that is a tad refreshing compared to anything being written today --- at least it attempts to TAKE a position) he does give us a couple of very unsettling tableaux, mostly in scenes he embodies: Ralph semi-flirts with the young psycho "nun", Leif Garrett (in "BAD SEED to the MAX" mode) cross dresses and flirts with Sorrell Booke, and the femme fatale of the bunch sexually degrades and mocks Ralph, who is obviously disabled.
Pretty daring stuff. A pity that daring couldn't have been laced with a tad more competence. Still, true checking out for a truly BAD (as in Dan Ackroyd's Leonard Pimpf Garnell character on SNL) CINEMA.