Satan's Blade

Well I saw the film...no wait I was in the film...Well wait again ..I "starred" in the film. Yes 25 years later the severely impaled "Tony" (Tom B) lives to tell about his tale.

First of all. No illusions here then or now. The film is absolutely one of the worst ever made. LOL. From the moment I got on set in Big Bear I knew the film was doomed. The only thing that surprised me is why they shot in 35mm when 16mm would have been much less expensive affording more funding for special efx. I thought if they were going to make an exploitation film there should be blood blood blood, No they did not cut out the blood ...there was none. The rental Police car had a blown transmission (thanks to the guys who picked it up in LA and screamed up BIg Bear Mountain lights a flashing) so that beast had to be pushed scene to scene by the grips some of whom may have given up their younger sisters to be on a 35mm film shoot.

OK There was never any finished script. Nor any appreciable direction for the "back story." The filler between killings. The drunk scene was totally improved as a way to get to the girls cabin. (The Jack was real, the acting not, go figure).

We were handed daily pages of dialog to shoot that day. We never knew what was coming next or what just happened! LOL, But we had the time of our lives up there as it was a 6 week long continuous party. And for that I am glad to have participated.

I myself walked out of the "premiere" showing in San Diego embarrassed to the max . The only saving grace was that if the film was as bad as I thought it was no one would see it.

Yet 25 years later some are still writing about it here LOL. That I would have NEVER predicted. Well there's the phone......MAy be Scott looking to shoot the sequel......oh thats right I died.

Having read the reviews on here I wasn't really sure what to expect with this film, but I'm glad I watched it. It's certainly no masterpiece, but not every film needs to be and considering what must've been a very low budget, it's a solid effort. The acting is hit and miss with some people putting in a pretty good performance, while others are quite frankly terrible. But that's often part of the charm with films of this sort and anyone who has seen a low-budget slasher won't find it too distracting.

What surprised me most perhaps is the look of the film, which is very nicely shot in places. It's all straightforward and there's nothing particularly spectacular, but it didn't look bad and one shot in particular next to the lake really did catch my eye. The score most certainly deserves a special mention, as I thought it was brilliant and fit the movie perfectly. More generally the film has a somber feeling and isn't fast-paced, but personally that has never bothered me with slasher flicks - I tend to watch them for the fact they aren't going to work my brain too much at the end of a tough day. The gore levels aren't particularly high, but there are some good screams. There's also not enough struggling from the victims for my liking (the mark of a decent kill!), but much better than a lot of other slasher flicks I've seen. So all in all, for me it's a 5/10. If you enjoy slashers and like a film with charm then it's probably worth a watch. Fans of Notting Hill and superhero movies should probably steer clear though.

A lot of movies try to replicate that 80s horror schlock aesthetic, but they never quite capture it. If you want the real thing, you have to go to actual 80s horror schlock, and this movie is it.

The visual style is so alluring. The film stock, the framing choices, the fashion, the sets, the hair styles. It's also aided by the really haunting soundtrack. The acting is appropriately horrible.

What I like most about this movie is its tone. It may sag at times, but once it gets going, things are just so grim and nihilistic. The combination moved me way more than most bigger budget productions.

Thanks to the enormous success of rudimentary teen slasher flicks like "Friday the 13th", and low-budget gore movies like "The Evil Dead", many horror-crazed amateurs during the first half of the 1980s thought it was also their true calling to become directors. This resulted in several titles written, directed, edited, and produced by one single person. Mostly, though, that one movie remained their sole effort. This review is a tribute to all those "one-hit-wonder" horror directors.

In fact, "wonder" is a wrong term to use, since practically all the titles I'll mention are terribly bad and poorly accomplished movies. Still, though, they are great fun. The one-hitters I spontaneously think of are Joe Giannone's "Madman" (1981), Buddy Cooper's "The Mutilator", Fabrice-Ange Zaphiratos "Blood Beat" (1983), Skip Schoolnik's "Hide and Go Shriek" (1988), and - of course - our mean feature for today, L. Scott Castillo Jr. And his 1984 masterwork "Satan's Blade".

L. Scott Castillo Jr. Didn't necessarily have any bright or innovative ideas, nor did he have any money, but he assumed it was his duty to make a slasher movie anyway. And believe it or not, but the first ten minutes are even quite enjoyable. Two female bank robbers run off with their loot (after gratuitously killing a few bank employees) to a cabin resort in the snowy mountains. They strip off their clothes, obviously, but don't live very long after that. The next day, while the local-yokel police officers are still cleaning up the bloody mess, two groups of tourists arrive at the same holiday resort. My favorite part of the entire film is how, after hearing the bloody details of the murders that occurred the previous night and a disturbing local legend, both groups still carelessly (and unanimously) indicate they want to stay.

It's mainly pointless padding footage after that. One of the males receives the opportunity to cheat on his wife with a woman ten times more beautiful, but he resists. The men drink. The single women strip. The married women complain. 40% of "Satan's Blade" is composed of footage of people randomly walking through the snowy landscape whilst wannabe ominous piano music is playing. Suddenly, the assailant from the opening sequences returns and eliminates everybody quite quickly with a blade. Is he a supernatural creature, like hinted at by the elderly resort owner's mother, or an ordinary flesh & blood killer?

Yes, it's one of the most pitiable slasher movies of the decade, but I have a weakness for this film (and other sole-effort-slashers of the aforementioned directors) and enjoyed the amateurism and pointlessness a lot!

Satan's Blade (1984)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

A mysterious robbery is followed by an even more mysterious double murder that leaves a couple cops not knowing what to think. At the same time two groups of people show up at a mountain resort where they plan on having fun but they're also told about an evil spirit that is said to haunt the place.

L. Scott Castillo Jr.'s SATAN'S BLADE is a film that was shot in 1980 and was meant for a theatrical release but it never got that. In fact the movie wouldn't be released until 1984 and that was straight to video where it was sold as a slasher movie. The film certainly isn't a slasher, although some of those elements can be seen here. For the most part this is another possession film and it does have a few memorable qualities to it but one major flaw as well.

I was really surprised at the opening ten or so minutes of this film because there's actually a lot that is happening. I'm not going to ruin everything that happens but there's some nice action, a couple murders and a few twists that really get the film off to a good start but then everything hits the wall. The next fifty-minutes is when absolutely nothing happens at all. And I really mean nothing. We get to the mountain resort and we spend all of this time with the two groups and they're boring, not interesting and we have to sit there while they talk and do very little else.

Finally the final fifteen-minutes pick up and we get to some actually stalking and killing. You know, SATAN'S BLADE has a pretty good opening and closing but sadly it's the middle section that just kills the entertainment value. It's really too bad that the writer and director didn't put more stuff in the middle of the picture because this could have been even more memorable. The performances are mostly bad but there is plenty of blood and nudity.

SATAN'S BLADE is getting a pretty low rating from me but I'd still recommend it to fans of these types of movies. Again, the middle portion is really bad but the start and ending make it worth watching.