Drive in Massacre (1976) User Reviews

I've seen worse...

[[e-mail] · 4/10 · 28 January 2006]

OK, just finished watching the awful transfer of this film on a $1 DVD. I prepared myself to be shatteringly disappointed by reading the reviews here before I started. And... drum roll please... I didn't think it was nearly as bad as everyone says.

That being said, let's get the really awful aspects out into the open; the music really is pretty uninspired. Think Radio Shack electronic workshop - imagine a 9 year old plugging and unplugging wires and pushing buttons on a flimsy bit of PC board. Got it? OK, bring it down a notch. There are also some awkward transitions in the plot. Consider a story you might tell a child, the kind you make up as you go along. When the child asks why the plot of your story contradicts itself, you just wave off their questions with a shake of your hand and say, "Keep listening!" This movie does that... kind of a lot. And, alas, sometimes the murdered dead look like dummies - and that never happens in any film and it should absolutely not be forgiven under any circumstances... ;) But what about the good? How about some really excellent acting on the part of Douglas Gudbye as "Germy" and his counterpart, Newton Naushaus, "Mr Johnson." Gudbye's skill on the screen made me pause the movie to check his filmography, hoping he had matured into a great success. Saddly, his role here was his first and last. Gudbye puts Dustin Hoffman to shame in acting out the role of a mentally handicapped. Naushaus, also appearing here in his only film role, was the embodiment of the anal-retentive schmuck we all endured at our first summer job. Also good? The sets - always authentic but never in the way.

Bearing in mind that the film was intended for drive-in audiences, the plot, the ending, and the characters all make perfect sense and contribute to what would have been, if seen in the proper environment, a genuinely unnerving film.

I'm sorry for those who really think this is the worst film ever. I'm always on a quest for the Holy Grail of Hokiness, the Ark of Awful... but it won't be found here.

Cheesy But Kinda Fun

[Rainey-Dawn · 3/10 · 21 October 2016]

The movie is awful, cheesy but kinda fun to watch. It's better than I expected it to be - I thought it might have been a grindhouse style of film but it's not. It's a slasher, bloody but not a lot of that going on... it's main focus is on two cops trying to solve the murders! The best thing about the film are the two cops who could pass as brothers! Really, their facial features look similar to one another and similar build to their bodies.. only real difference is one is slightly shorter than the other!! I could see these two in a spin off 1970s TV show playing the same two cops and still solving murders. LOL! It's not a film to seek out - even for a die-hard horror fan - but it is an OK watch if you happen to catch it on one night or acquire it in a film pack as I did.

3/10

Mediocre movie, but amusing

[davitalvitch · 3/10 · 23 January 2006]

I find many of the old horror movie titles as part of packaged releases from Brentwood and other companies, twelve titles for $5.99, fifty titles for $20.00, etc. Therefore, many of these films have not been remastered and have lousy sound or picture quality. This is very true for the version I saw of "Drive-in Movie Massacre". I couldn't understand most of what was being said in the opening sequence, and I had to increase the brightness of my television to figure out exactly whom was being shown at the end, and I think I know who it was -- due to the context -- but it wasn't clear.

However, despite its sound and picture problems, this film couldn't have been any better in crisp shape 30 years ago. I was only 4 and 5 in 1976 and recall only one time being sneaked into a drive-in; my understanding of drive-ins, however, is that when things on the screen got boring, people honked their horns. I read that that was why Sam Raimi kept up the pace of "Evil Dead", to prevent horn-honking. I imagine that there was much honking during screenings of this film. The ending is laughably absurd; it MIGHT have worked in 1940, or 1876, and it might scare little four year olds who are still afraid of the bogeyman and have parents who try to keep them well-behaved by using his appearance as a threat, but for teenagers or adults, it's "Oh, Jesus" lame.

This is on top of the film being highly padded, with a minutes-long scene of one character's carnival-gazing and another set in a warehouse that doesn't make a lick of sense. However, I found this film mildly amusing, in a movie-night-with-your-drinking-buddies sort of way. It has touches of camp, sometimes intentional. The manager of the drive-in, filled with angrily-told stories of self-pity, amused me, and I thought that the actor playing "Germy" often hit some spot-on moments, his pathetic 'am-I-a-good-boy?' eagerness to help with the investigation and wounded reaction when finally being pushed too far helping to ground the film.

This is not the worst film of its genre, and I'd watch it again with friends who want to make fun of something while we get drunk.

I kinda liked it...

[J_Knox · 21 March 2001]

This was actually pretty watchable for the genre it was made in. In no way was this film intended to be anything else but B-movie fare at a drive-in very much like the one portrayed within (minus the murders we hope). A nice touch is that it contains the semblance of a storyline. Instead of following the killer around as in most slasher films, they follow the two policeman that are trying to find him as they interview potential suspects. The very novelty of seeing it told this way made it fun for me. Some other moments, such as the not-too-seamless voiceover by a character named "The Great Germy", are so awful that it's almost an inspired kind of awful.

You basically have to have gone to the drive-in yourself years ago to see how dead on some of the portrayals of the patrons are. Yes it's schlock, but it's mostly amusing schlock and perfect for a boring saturday night when you had nothing else to rent; provided of course your video store even carries a copy of this.

For those who'd like to buy this and have no idea what they're in for; just ask yourself the following: Do you like such movies as "The Prowler", "He Knows You're Alone" and "My Bloody Valentine" ? Heck, did you even KNOW these films existed ? If the answer is "yes" to both, then you'll like this film, but don't pay more than 5 or 6 dollars for it. If your only exposure to slasher films has been Scream, I Know What You Did Last Summer, Halloween and maybe a Friday The 13th film or two, then you will probably not like this film and stay far far FAR away.

Drive-in Massacre

[Scarecrow-88 · 4/10 · 18 February 2009]

A psychopath is slicing the heads off of victims in cars with a sword at a local drive-in and it's up to Detectives Larry and Mike(Bruce Kimball and Steve Vincent)to find out who it is. The drive-in theater was once a carnival and many of those who worked in it are employed. It could very well be the incredibly cranky, ornery, and all-around rude theater manager, Austin Johnson(Newton Naushaus)whose foul attitude stinks something rotten;once the barker, he has been left to take care of the entire business while his former employer sold the farm and ran off to Hawaii or some place. Another suspect is the "half-wit" janitor, Germy(Douglas Gudbye)who is an admitted former sword swallower, but seems too mild-mannered and simple-minded to be a killer. The main suspect is Orville(Norman Sherlock), a creepy peeping tom, spotted by Germy hanging around cars, spying on certain couples making out. The detectives attempt woefully to solve the case but their methods are a bit suspect(..why would you associate yourself with Germy, a possible suspect, no matter how nice and hospitable he might be?)..I mean two victims are killed in cars not feet from where they were staking out! The major problem established by a host of other users is the languid pace of the entire film. Some interrogation sequences are stretched too long and we witness the uncomfortable cast languishing with rather dire material. I did find the foul character of Johnson rather amusing in how he describes everyone he comes in contact with..never a kind word for anyone, he's quite the misanthrope. Johnson is the kind of character you yearn to see get stabbed in the throat with a sword. I also enjoyed the opening beheading..but director Seagall doesn't quite match this with the subsequent killings(..one victim's head falls off and a couple is skewered by the dreaded sword while hugging). There's a bizarre red herring set-up featuring the great Buck Flower chasing after a female victim(..actually played by his real daughter Verkina!) inside a warehouse with a machete(..he's considered a suspect, but anyone in their right mind knows that the film will ultimately end at the drive-in). The truly horrible climax at the end punctuates a rather ineptly made film..attempting to leave open the killer's identity, it only has you scratching your head. A plausible climax determining who between two obvious suspects might in fact be the real killer would've at least provided a satisfying conclusion to a rather poorly conceived horror film. The really oddball sequence where Larry and Mike are questioning Orville in his home(..with nude posters of models pinned all over his living room walls)really has to be seen to be believed..seeing Orville squirming and wallowing in misery over his sexual appetites(..he even admits out loud to "beating his meat" while at the drive-in, completely overwhelmed in embarrassment!)while the detectives appear quite appalled. A film like Drive-in Massacre only proved that in the 70's almost anyone could make a movie.

Fun Trash, and a Character Named 'Germy'

[FilmFatale · 5/10 · 24 September 2008]

Technically, "Drive In Massacre" isn't a slasher movie, because it was made a few years before the subgenre took off, but it does come awfully close. Necking couples are being done in with swords at a drive in and two cops try to stop the carnage. This movie really corners the market on sleazy character studies. And it's not much of a massacre. There's a decent decapitation of the first victim, but only a few murders occur in the course of the film. But any flick with an ex circus performer named "Germy" is worthy of a few bonus points. This would still play well at a drive in today. "Drive In Massacre" also boasts a neat abrupt ending...keep an eye on the car next to you if you ever have the pleasure of visiting a drive in theatre. Fun, but nothing special.

Maybe This Is What Started the Decline of Drive-Ins?

[BaronBl00d · 2/10 · 13 December 2005]

Dreadful film about a serial killer that repeatedly butchers his victims with a sword at a Californian drive-in. On the trail of the killer are two overweight police detectives with no acting skill whatsoever - which accommodates a cast of similar types. This film has little substance: we are given the killings with no reason at all, with no killer it seems, and with no credibility in direction, script, or acting. None of the "cast" seems like a real actor(maybe a case could be made for the guy playing Germy). The actors look like they move on cue. The script gives us nothing in terms of plot except that a couple cops are looking for a killer at a drive-in and they have three forgettable leads in solving the case. The direction is sub-par as the lighting is barely able to illuminate much of the action at night. The gore is ridiculously inept in execution, and the editing is just as flawed. The film is funny for all the wrong reasons, especially some inane dialog like the fattest police detective being warned that the ham sandwich he is eating may be his father(?) The film is framed in the same type of documentary prologue and epilogue used so much more effectively in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Here it is laughable. A truly bad film with little merit.

Would you mind lowering your sword, please?... I can't see the screen!

[BA_Harrison · 3/10 · 29 September 2009]

Drive In Massacre opens with a juicy double murder which suggests that the film might be something of a treat for lovers of outrageous 70s gore flicks: a sabre wielding maniac graphically kills a couple at the drive in, decapitating the guy whilst he is adjusting the loudspeakers next to his car, and then skewering the screaming girlfriend through the neck.

But don't be fooled by this delightfully trashy and bloody beginning, for what follows is some of the most tedious garbage to ever grace a slasher film, as a pair of bumbling detectives (John F. Goff and Steve Vincent) struggle to uncover the identify of the killer and the body count steadily rises.

With dreadful production values, acting to match, several interminably dull scenes of inane dialogue between the law and a variety of viable suspects, some equally inane chit-chat from the stupid couples who visit the drive-in (they keep on coming, despite the presence of a maniac), a totally incongruous scene where a machete wielding loon is pursued through a warehouse by the cops, an ending that fails to resolve matters (preferring instead to rely on the old 'the killer might be amongst you' gimmick), and very little in the way of gore after the first few minutes, Drive In Massacre will test the patience of even the most avid fan of grade-Z horror.

In desperation, director Stu Segall attempts to inject a little sleaze into proceedings with the inclusion of a pervy peeping tom and a brief bit of nudity from a good looking bird with a nasty perm, but a masturbating voyeur and a nice pair of tits are not nearly enough to save this film from being a total yawn.

2.5 out of 10, rounded up to 3 for the bearded cue-ball drive-in boss's tasty line in suits.

A true story about a ninja and a drive-in

[polysicsarebest · 5/10 · 10 December 2006]

This one started out promising enough. OUT OF NOWHERE, a random sword chops off a dummy's head and then stabs through a playdough neck. Then, the film focuses on fat doofy cops questioning people forever. This leads to nowhere... Then, more killing! This time, not near as gory. Then, the film focuses on fat doofy cops questioning people forever. This, again, leads to nowhere... Then, we're in a carnival, and the cops are chasing around a completely unrelated killer. They somehow make it back to the drive-in and then there's a "twist" ending (which I actually liked -- it seemed unintentionally daring in a way). And then it ends.

And that's about it. A film that pretty much does nothing and is nothing but isn't a bad time by any means. In fact, I had a pretty good time with this film, but I was disappointed by the fact that the first killing was the only one with any gore (see Unmasked Part 25 for another example..). Entertaining and hilarious but skippable. Average.... except for the film's soundtrack. Man, what was with THAT? I'm not talking about the song at the beginning of the film ("Summer nights, midnight dreams swept away, he appears without a warning, stays the night and leaves the morning..."). The rest of the score was an off-time drum machine with maybe two sounds and two really bad keyboard players playing at the same time. It seemed to evoke no response whatsoever: it wasn't terrifying, it wasn't melodic, it sounded like nothing. Weird.

Oh come on people, this isn't THAT bad

[Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki · 6/10 · 16 May 2003]

Granted this isn't a classic movie, but it can be kind of fun if you catch it in the right frame of mind - or if you've been drinking heavily. Basically the title tells all: psycho on the loose at a local drive in movie theatre killing everybody, and even the filmmakers don't know who the killer is. Lame, yes, but how can you miss gems like the title being misspelled in the trailer, (as "Drive in Masacre") The musical score is almost as bad as a record by "Jandek" - if any of you know who he is. An obvious latex dummy is decapitated in the first scene, then we see two Pillsbury Doughboy-looking cops questioning the owner of the drive in (he kind of looks like he's dressed as the devil for Halloween) The audio quality is awful during the first few scenes, so it's difficult to understand what is being said (not that it really matters, though) We get soap opera clichés involving pregnancy in between the first two gory killings, until the two cops go 'undercover' by dressing in drag just like what you saw in "The Town that Dreaded Sundown" trying to catch the killer, but just providing the audience with a few laughs instead. They interrogate a suspect 'Engleson' and the first cop obviously stutters his line while speaking to Engleson ("Do you know what that Engle ... *cough* ... do you know what that is Engleson?") A brief foot chase ensues, but leads nowhere except to an opportunity for the camera man's shadow to be visible on their backs several times here, and in the next scene. This is all good cheese ball fun for about the first 55 minutes or so, but after that, a 'so bad it's good' type of movie just turns terrible as they then try to pad out the short running time by showing that little leprechaun looking guy Germy loitering around the drive in, and then another ten minutes of padding involving the cops chasing an unrelated suspect though a warehouse - and the guy they're chasing looks like the same guy playing "Austin Johnson", only he's wearing a really crappy looking wig. If this sequence, and the lengthy opening credits scene were edited out of the film, the movie's running time would barely be about 55 minutes. This is capped by a twist ending that was probably lame even in an actual drive in, and it's even worse when you see it on video.

If you're looking to kill an hour and ten minutes, you definitely could do worse than this movie, it's better than some here have said.

Kill 'em all, please... Slow and painful!

[Coventry · 1/10 · 30 July 2006]

"What a turkey!" This is a simple line spoken by one of the characters as he's watching a random movie in the drive-in theater, but the phrase is actually much more applicable to the production he's starring in himself! This is a truly abysmal low-budget horror flick, put together by a bunch of amateurs that know nothing about cinema but simply wanted to cash-in on the success of such contemporary classics like "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". Two very UN-heroic police detectives investigate a series of murders that all took place in a Californian drive-in movie theater. It looks like some nutbag is practicing his sword-swashbuckling techniques on the horny customers there. The suspects include the theater's owner (who used to be a carny), the simple-minded janitor and the local pervert that spies upon young couples. Apart from some filthy gore (the best bits occurring in the opening minutes already), there's nothing to see here, unless if you're an admirer of bad acting, bad directing, bad editing, bad photography and even worse music. I couldn't understand half of the dialogs because all the moronic characters were mumbling, and the other half just didn't make any sense. The "red herring" climax is overlong and, despite its short running time, there are still way too many boring moments in the script. The concept and set pieces easily could have resulted in a much better (pre-slasher?) horror movie, if only some talent was involved. Incredibly bad film, avoid like the plague.

When it truly is so bad its good.

[abduktionsphanomen471 · 8/10 · 30 May 2021]

Drive In Massacre - 1976 ( This film rates a B ) Oh, the nostalgia of it all. If you havent been to one of these old skool drive in's, you are missing out on a big piece to this movie. The feeling it brings. This film presents cheap kills with decent but fake looking gore. The build up to the kills was a little to hasty and lost some impact, but the film didnt waste any time getting to the killing. Silly and nonsensical day time soap opera script, with sub par and unconvincing acting from everyone. "You got the brains of wet liver". However, this is super entertaining on so many levels. It is exactly what you'd expect from a 1970's horror film on a $30,000 budget which was filmed in four days.

Throughly watchable slash and gore.

[KennethEagleSpirit · 7/10 · 11 January 2007]

For the type of movie this is, given when it was made, and a total lack of big name stars ( or small name stars for that matter ) this film is very watchable. The players, none of whom are great at their craft, are worth the effort and make the movie. The special effects aren't bad given '76 standards and low budget. The plot is typical and functional. My favorite part of the whole thing? The cops. They actually come off like cops. Coupled with the premise its like Dragnet does Freddie Kruger. I liked this film. Of course I liked Dragnet and Nightmare on Elm Street too. Its certainly not great art, but thats not what this type of film is meant to be. Its meant to be cheap entertainment, and thats exactly what it is.

Lingers like a bad fart.

[Zeegrade · 2/10 · 9 March 2010]

Do you like movies about questioning two losers? How about a couple of fatass cops sleepwalking their way through a film? What about endings that confirm the last 74 minutes of your life were totally wasted? Well then you'll love "Drive-In Massacre". Someone is murdering patrons of a Los Angeles drive-in with a sword. That's it. Yet this movie treats you to the minutiae of police work including extended questioning scenes of functional retard Germy and creep Orville who just wants to "beat his meat". Sound like a blast so far? Well hang on to your hats as Det. Mike and Det. John also talk to the world's biggest azzhole drive-in manager Austin Johnson who hates, and I mean HATES, everyone. The plot stumbles in circles like a drunk on a tilt-a-whirl with one meaningless scene after the other. This movie becomes fixated on the most mundane nonsense like a stupid argument between a philanderer and his girlfriend that wears a curly wig or questioning (again?) Germy at the "police station" with both the detectives desks next to each other like a couple of grade schoolers. Stu Segall hyper-focuses on these scenes like he's filming the return of Christ. Another major complaint is the various evening shots are so dark you might as well close your eyes and imagine whatever you want. I pretended that I was watching a better movie. Partially written by George "Buck" Flower who appears late in the movie as a machete wielding nut that bears no connection to the plot. He just sorta pops in to fill up running time like a carnival scene with Germy recollecting what the detectives have said to him. Woo hoo! Buck and John Goff (billed as Jake Barnes because he was probably embarrassed) worked together in Bill Rebane's "The Alpha Incident" which looks like "Raiders of the Lost Ark" compared to this crap. Mr. Flower even manages to cast his daughter Verkina in the crucial role of girl in warehouse somehow getting billing over Newton Naushaus who has far more screen time as the prick drive-in manager. This is the fiftieth and last movie in the "Chilling Classics" collection and boy did this thing end like it began. Appallingly awful waste of time.

Cheap but effective psychotic thriller

[lor_ · 12 January 2023]

My review was written in January 1982 after a Manhattan screening at Anco theater on 42nd St.: Filmed in 1976 but just gradually making the rounds theatrically, "Drive-In Massacre" is a very low-budget, gory terror thriller that boasts more ingenuity than the bulk of the many similar pictures on the market. Producer-director Stu Segall's care in delineating the drive-in movie milieu (and consciously self-reflective material) marks the picture best suited for exhibition at ozoners.

Plot consists of west coast local cops tracking down a mad killer who first strikes in a stylish sequence cutting off a drive-in patron's arm as the victim reaches out his window for the car speaker. A sympathetically-handled subplot has the cops interrogating a lonely young truck driver who is a voyeur at the drive-in.

Amidst the usual fast-cut gore scenes, pic spotlights the disgruntled theatre manager (a nice performance by Newton Naushaus), who bad-mouths his lowlife customers and concisely expresses the whole catalog of beefs of a small exhibitor. Main drawback is observing the nondescript cast is pic's poorly-recorded direct-sound dialog.

Final murder is flamboyantly staged with the victim in enormous silhouette projected on the screen, superimposed over the Western being played. Open ending is delightful, with all of the suspects having been killed and the drive-in's p.a. System warning of a killer at large giving way to a pretend manager's voice from the actual theatre giving the same warning. Gimmick of planting a voice-over interruption on the film's soundtrack (later used humorously in the unsung Bruce Davison-starrer "French Quarter") is a special delight of drive-in pictures.

Awful

[Thorsten-Krings · 1/10 · 10 April 2008]

This has to be one of the worst films I have ever seen in any genre. The acting is absolutely pathetic. Are the cops supposed to be clever? Or dim? We may never care. It's probably just bad acting. The story isn't much of a story to begin with. Guy slashes people in a drive in. And I never even understood who the killer was. The timing is completely off- so the director adds a long scene about a shoot out in a warehouse that has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual case. Directing- non existent. There are one or two interesting scenes but that is about it. The whole film has an air of shabbyness and dirtyness about it. You don't really care about anyone because no one is really interesting. One or two attempts at humour fail abysmally. And the soundtrack sounds like John Carpenter on a bad day- a really bad day.

Why Drive In Went Out of Business

[bkoganbing · 1/10 · 16 April 2011]

There's somebody who is slashing to death a whole lot of the patrons of a particularly drive-in theater in the Los Angeles area where no doubt films like this are being shown. Before a couple of spoon sharp detectives solve this series of crimes a lot more couples get themselves hacked and slashed.

In this no name cast with acting on the level of my junior high school dramatics,the two detectives discover that the land that the drive-in is on was once a carnival and the drive-in employees are all former carnys. You've got knife throwers, sword swallowers and some general all around hard cases working at this drive-in with the various implements ready and available.

Drive In Massacre is the kind of film shown at drive ins so people who were there for something else could rest assured they were missing absolutely nothing of any redeeming artistic value

Have some beer and watch this with your friends!

[josephjanz · 3/10 · 27 July 2021]

What the hell was this? There are only 16 people in the entire cast! OK, so the basic premise is there is someone killing people at the local Drive-In. Two cops go to investigate. There are 3 suspects. And they can't seem to figure it out. Ever. This movie was shot in 4 days and the entire script was written in one week! Part of the film was shot at an actual carnival without a permit. The cast used pseudonyms because the movie was made non-union and they didn't want to get fined from SAG.

All that being said, why the hell was this movie even made? It is only 74 minutes long. It makes absolutely no sense. In majority of the promotional material for the film, the title was misspelled, as, Drive In Massacre. Think in this small California town that the only requirement for being a detective is to be chubby. They even try to throw a "twist" ending at the end of the film that is nothing but a red haring. This is a movie that is destined for the Satellite of Love. After the entire 74 minutes of watching I still really don't know how to pronounce the main suspects name "Germy".

UGH!

That out of the way, this film is hilarious! MST3K should be all over this film. If you are sitting around with a bunch of your buddies, get some alcohol and watch this film together as a group. I have assigned this movie as homework to some of my friends. They all hated it, but laughed hysterically and then turned around and recommended it to their friends. It is so bad it is good.

Not good, but not that bad.

[TokyoGyaru · 4/10 · 6 February 2021]

Watching it, I definitely could see this as a drive-in film, so the grime and basic "plot" made sense for such a setting. The main characters weren't offensive in their acting; they were passable to authentic, and there was an unexpectedly fun chemistry between the two cops. The audio suddenly cut out or became so low at times that I couldn't understand what was said (and the streaming platform I watched it on commonly has mistakes in their captions, so I guess I'll never know). The effects weren't impressive, and the music wasn't good, but I don't know why this film didn't irritate me. I expected the ending, but I'm not mad about that either. It fulfills its promise as a low-budget drive-in film. Overall, it's fine to let play in the background while you do other things.

Only for the most hardcore genre fans and even then you should reconsider...

[markovd111 · 4/10 · 30 April 2023]

During the first two thirds of the movie it seems that all the people involved are giving their best and despite it's evidently low budget, movie does resemble a real movie, has some decent practical effects, makes you interested in it's story and undeniably has a certain interesting atmosphere. However, in the last third of the movie whole thing breaks apart with a try at a comedy and a filler warehouse sequence which drags on for too long and is painfully boring to watch. If it continued like it's first two thirds, the movie could have been a nice mediocre movie for the fans of the genre, but like this, it's not very good. I give it 4.5/10! If you do decide to watch the movie, do keep your expectations really low!

You Have Got to Love This Kind of Trash

[CMRKeyboadist · 6/10 · 4 January 2007]

Drive-In Massacre is one of those movies that many people call the worst film ever made. For one, those people are mistaken. They obviously haven't seen Criminally Insane 2 or Lunch Meat. This movie goes into that category of being "so bad it's good". We have clumsy and dark filming, horrible editing, atrocious acting, and some of the most hilarious set-ups for a massacre. What isn't there to like?

The story is one of the things that adds the charm to this disastrous film as it never really makes any sense or comes together. The movie starts out at a drive-in theater with two teenagers making out and then getting horribly butchered by a maniac with a sword. Well, this starts the movie and brings in our two main bumbling characters, two over weight detectives. As they bumble around the case more people end up butchered at the drive-in. What will happen next?

I have to say that some of the lines in this film are almost to much to take. A particular scene in which the two detectives are drilling a man who they think might be the killer. In a crying state the man says out loud "All I wanted to do was beat my meat!". This movie is filled with one liners like that and I don't know if they were intentional or not. Another great scene is when the two detectives are undercover and one of them is dressed like a woman.

This is one of those movies that just needs to be seen by a specific crowd as it is obviously not for everyone. 6/10

An inept, worthless, wretchedly-made piece of ludicrous trash

[Afracious · 1/10 · 17 February 2000]

I watched this film on the belief that is was notoriously gory, what a mistake I made. I can't begin to describe how mediocre the film is, it has so many wretched traits. It starts off OK with the first killing of a couple, albeit a cheaply staged one. Then we are introduced to the two cops on the case, a portly, inept and tactless duo who couldn't catch the killer if he/she was trapped in a phone box. They start the investigation at the drive-in where the owner is a foul-mouthed and acerbic character, and also interview a janitor there named Germy, a dozy but amusing simpleton who is possibly the only slightly redeeming character involved. Needless to say there is a lot of appalling acting, some of the worst I have seen, most of the cast seem to have their minds elsewhere throughout the entire film. But just when you think it can't get any worse it does, with an utterly ridiculous and infuriating ending. Avoid this film like the plague. The video cover is good, though.

Don't go to the dismally dingy drive-in of death and doom

[Woodyanders · 8/10 · 29 March 2006]

A choice cheesy chunk of wonderfully rancid and wretched two-cent 70's grind-house garbage about a putrid Califonia passion pit that's beset by a shocking series of gruesome murders perpetuated by some mystery maniac. It's up to a couple of bumbling and portly homicide detectives played by ubiquitous B-movie bit player/screenwriter John Goff and fellow perennial schlock film regular Bruce Kimball to catch the crazy kook before he kills again. Boy, does this alarmingly abominable and mind-numbingly moronic bilge strike out something stinky in every conceivable department: We've got uniformly awful acting, dire dialogue, flimsy plotting, no tension or suspense to speak of, poky pacing, ragged editing, ugly, eye-straining cinematography, wafer-thin characters, a horrendously redundant and annoying score, tacky gore, and flat-footed (non)direction by Stuart Segall, who also helmed such hard-core porn classics as "Teeny Buns" and "Insatiable" under the unlikely pseudonym of Godfrey Daniels(!). Still, there's a certain blatantly crummy, filthy and scroungy deep-seated rattiness and all-out unapologetic ineptitude to this thoroughly foul'n'fetid feature which makes it both strangely endearing and hugely enjoyable. The late, great, sorely missed George "Buck" Flower (who co-wrote the trashy script with Goff) has a hilarious cameo as a deranged machete-wielding lunatic who chases his real-life daughter Verkina around a mangy warehouse while repeatedly exclaiming, "I'm gonna cut all that poison out!" One of my all-time favorite so-horrible-it's-downright-happening sleazoid slasher flicks.

It's not THAT bad!

[Hey_Sweden · 6/10 · 1 October 2016]

This sleazy thriller is cruder than Hell, and in truth it doesn't offer an over abundance of sordid thrills. It functions more like a police procedural at times, albeit one that's not terribly interesting. Two detectives, played by Bruce Kimball and John F. Goff, are on the trail of a sword wielding psychopath terrorizing the same drive in theatre over and over, usually offing just one couple a night. Among the suspects that they interview: bald headed, hulking theatre owner Austin Johnson (Robert E. Pearson), and the skinny, quivery creep Orville (Norman Sheridan).

Veteran character actor Goff, a veteran of LOTS of B level and exploitation cinema, also co- wrote the script with his friend and frequent co-star George 'Buck' Flower. The cast includes other familiar faces such as John Alderman, Jacqueline Giroux, and Janus Blythe. Flower himself turns up, uncredited, late in the tale as a maniac with a machete, and the girl *he's* terrorizing is played by Flowers' own real-life daughter! Since there are some experienced actors on hand, the performances are a shade better than one might ordinarily see in such a movie. Both Pearson and Sheridan are extremely amusing, especially the latter given that he plasters porn all over one wall of his house. The same goes for Douglas Gudbye as slow witted theatre custodian "Germy"; this guy is a hoot.

Since this picture is in the public domain, one will need to be prepared for somewhat less than ideal audio quality, rendering some dialogue unintelligible. (Not that this is any great loss.) The lighting by Ken Gibb is appropriate to the material, and the music score is hilariously crummy. That song that opens the movie is pretty catchy, though. The gore may be of the dollar store variety, but it suits its purpose. The first kill is a pretty cool decapitation.

The ending is quite unsatisfying, however.

Six out of 10.

This one is classic, but it not worth to see!

[Gunnar_Runar_Ingibjargarson · 2/10 · 20 June 2008]

A restless crowd and a cheesy double feature lead to two brutal killings at a drive-in! Detective Koch and O Leary assemble a mixed cast of suspects that would make even Charlie Chan cringe. Is it the deranged knife-thrower the foul-mouthed bigot the projectionist the janitor or the pathetic voyeur? Cold razor-sharp steel slices through warm flesh and hot blood squirts over the screen as patrons are splattered across the hoods of cars and even dismembered at the concession stand! Starring BRUCE KIMBALL ADAM LAWRENCE DOUGLAS GUDBYE and VERKINA FLOWER. Executive Producer ROCHELLE WEISBERG. Story By STU SEGALL Written By GEORGE 'BUCK.