Scream

Long before Wes Craven used the title "Scream" to launch his successful horror trilogy, little-known director Byron Quisenberry made this "Scream". An inept, boring, badly acted and totally unconvincing slasher movie that many deem to be the worst of its type. Indeed, this film makes the whole Friday the 13th series look like a work of genius.

You know with these movies that the plot is going to be unoriginal, but the film makers usually have enough about them to wring out some shocks. Yes, The Burning is a bad film but it occasionally makes you jump. Just Before Dawn isn't anything special, but it is punctuated by the odd jolt here and there. Amazingly, Scream manages to miss every single opportunity for a shock. It takes an overused but reliable formula, and proceeds to muck-up the potential for terror in every conceivable way. Anyone studying how not to make a film might find this an ideal guide.

Heading the cast is Pepper Martin (he was the guy in Superman II who beat up the weakened Clark Kent in a diner, only to be beaten up in return by the rejuvenated Superman at the end of the film). It's a good indication of how unambitious this film is that someone who had such a miniscule role in Superman II can be entrusted with the leading man label here. Woody Strode is also in the film, but his character is undone by bizarre scripting.

Martin and his fellow vacationers are rafting down the Rio Grande when they pull in for the night at an isolated ghost town. One by one they are picked off by a lurking psychopath. They try various things, like setting traps, but the killer seems to evade them every time. A strange stagecoach driver turns up and starts mumbling on about an old sea captain that got the town up-and-running many years earlier. By the end, it looks as if the violent ghost of the old sea captain may be the killer (it's not clear if this is so, as the ending is dreadfully muddled).

It's hard to imagine how bad Scream is without experiencing it for yourself. The plot could be made serviceable. Some of the cast members are well-known. Even if the film isn't very good, it should have enough mileage to be tolerably bad. But no... this film is something beyond bad. It reaches such depths that you begin to think that everyone involved must be trying deliberately to make the worst film possible. It feels almost as if Quisenberry's intention is to win the worst film of all-time contest. The end result is a truly awful horror movie and, therefore, one of the most irresistible films that a collector of bad films could ever hope to find.

A low budget movie. Though this movie was released in 1982, it is definitely a very 1970's type movie.

'Scream', is supposed to be a thriller, but I didn't find it very thrilling. It lacked, in that the suspense lead-ups to the "scary parts" were exaggerated to a point where I lost interest, and the gory parts were very quick with minimal viewing. In my own personal opinion, if the viewers were given more clearly graphic scenes to wet their appetites, it might not have been such a bad or boring movie. Sorry, but I rate this movie from 1-10 as 1. "Awful".

I have to agree with the other reviews. And I LIKE bad horror. I especially get a kick out of bad 70's and 80's horror. I will take The Mutilator, Slaughterhouse Rock, or Don't Go In the House any day! Ever seen Inn of the Damned? Yeah, it's a piece of dung, but nowhere near as bad as this. This movie has no plot, little dialogue, awful pacing, just boring as hell. The whole movie is like a power-outage, all dark and lanterns, and NOT scary. I don't need things spoon-fed to me, but the movie does not explain anything! Where did any of the characters come from? Where is this set? Why is everyone a useless wuss... oh wait, I guess that applies to most horror. But seriously, I was eagerly awaiting all these folks to die just so it would be over. One of the most infuriatingly inane movies I have ever seen. Don't do it.

Scream (1981)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

A group of people pay $100 each to take a raft down a river and spend the night at an old ghost town that was used during the gold rush. Pretty soon each of them is getting picked off so is the murdering someone from the group or an outsider?

There are two ways to look at low-budget filmmaking. You can praise it that sometimes the directors manage to make something special and they end up with a cult item on their hands. You can also bash it because the lack of money usually means there are going to be all sorts of problems with the production and the finished film. SCREAM was one of many slashers that were made after they started to make a ton of cash at the box office but sadly it's certainly not among the most memorable.

Going back to what I said, the biggest problem with SCREAM is the fact that it's obvious they didn't have enough money to do anything. I say that because all of the death scenes are either off screen or shot in a way that you really don't get to see any good stuff. The special effects are what made slashers so popular so when you're watching one without any good effects it almost seems pointless. Of course, gore wouldn't be needed if scares or some sort of tension was delivered instead but that doesn't happen either.

The performances certainly weren't the greatest but at the same time it was a nice group of characters and I thought they were entertaining. It's just too bad that there really wasn't anything around them. The mystery really isn't that interesting and in the end it's easy to see why SCREAM has pretty much been forgotten.

The best and only real good thing about Scream is the creepy ghost town setting. Even with a very familiar concept, Scream could have been promising but was spoiled by terrible execution to the extent that important components were almost non-existent. The movie is very badly made from a visual standpoint, you can't enjoy the setting properly because the photography ranges between haphazard and indulgent the entire time and the movie is far too darkly lit that you cannot see what is going on properly or work out who's who and who's been killed. The music had its atmospheric moments, but that is a big emphasis on moments, much of it is pretty much one speed and mood which is ponderous and over-bearingly monotonous, doing nothing to enhance what's happening. The dialogue makes next to no sense and sounds very random and improvisatory, almost like an incomplete rough draft, while the execution of the story is most likely the worst thing about Scream, it starts bizarrely in an opening sequence so strange and almost irrelevant it makes the jaw drop. It's also completely predictable and moves at just one pace which is excruciatingly dull, it doesn't explain anything(the ending can't even be called an ending for reasons that have been covered in previous reviews who explain the movie's problems very well), there's no suspense, scares or fun whatsoever, and for a slasher the deaths and the gore are incredibly tame in a way that it doesn't feel like a horror in any way. The characters are underdeveloped ciphers and some of them, especially Lou, are irritating too(the most rootable is actually the unseen and never revealed killer), while the direction is barely competent and the acting is atrocious, the annoying Joe Allaine being the biggest offender, making the most bored-looking zombies imaginable seem more animated. Woody Strode is the least bad and has a decent introduction but that's not saying a lot, his character is far too weakly written for him to count as a saving grace. In conclusion, a real clunker, whether it's the worst slasher is debatable but it's down there. Not to be confused with the 1996 film of the same name which actually is a great film. 2/10 and that is only for the setting. Bethany Cox