horror7777

How can anyone like this show? I'm serious! It's the most boring and utterly stupid show on television. Now I know that people may consider me partial because I am a guy and this show isn't directed towards me anyway but please! I've seen enough soaps with my girlfriend and I can tell perfectly well which shows have good acting, etc. and which don't and this one doesn't! My girlfriend used to watch `Another World' and that show was much better than this junk.

This show rips off, among other things, everything from `Dark Shadows' to `Psycho.' It makes fun of `Dark Shadows' which was a truly excellent serial and makes extreme fun of `Psycho' which should have Hitchcock fans in an uproar! However I'm sure that Hitchcock fans probably have too high an IQ for this show. I certainly do.

Now for the acting. If I'm supposed to find half the stuff in this show funny than what can I say? It's not! This show is what you get when you mix washed-up soap stars with young actors with no talent. Some of them would have talent if they quit this show and went back to acting school. And as for the washed-up soap stars it's time to retire! Nobody finds you interesting anymore!

The next `constructive' criticism is for the writers. Why do you make this show so SLOW? This is probably the only show on TV that can turn a day into a month. And that isn't a complement either! Having a slow show just adds to the complete boredom of the whole thing! The next criticism for the writers is why do you treat the audience like it's three? Some parts of this show are so bad (wait, the whole show's bad!) that you wonder why they don't play it on Saturday Mornings instead of weekday afternoons! And no offense to the undemanding audience that likes this stuff but the writers treat you like garbage! They don't want you to sit back and be amazed by what you see! Absolutely not!

And finally, the fact that they cancel a halfway decent show called `Another World' and put this on its place is rather incredible. But what's even more incredible is that this show has stayed on the air. This shows you how absolutely degrading the afternoon TV audience in America has become. My advice is to avoid this show. 0out of****I mean, you are intelligent, aren't you?

My nana started watching AW when she saw an ad for it while walking through Manhattan in the 1960s. She immediately became hooked. I started watching it in 1999 but then it was cancelled. Soon after, my nana and I began watching AW's replacement "Passions." That show was so disturbingly bad and the fact that that show replaced AW is truly a shocker. AW was a story with character and class. A story that men, women, young, and old could watch and relate to. Linda Dano was especially excellent. AW will sorely be missed and, sadly, Passions has neither the character nor the class that AW has. But then again, no soap did. I now watch OLTL and GH on ABC and they both are enjoyable though don't compare to AW. AW fans can take solace in Soap Net and when Passions is finally cancelled we eventually can take solace in the fact that we have killed the enemy.

For years I've been wanting to write a comment on this film but could never find it in on IMDb. Now I can be honored with giving this film its first good review. Now believe me, if I could major in studying low budget trash, I would. And if I taught a course on it, this would be the first film I'd mention. The characters in this film are truly realistic. Sure this has probably the worst acting, writing, directing, producing, filming, distributing, editing, sound and picture quality around but it still is NOT A BAD FILM! It has more realistic situations because the actors aren't acting. It's their first film and most don't know how to act. Most of the teens in this movie probably don't know the first thing about acting. Now I've seen two films by the now apparently obsolete "United Entertainment." The first, Blood Lake, and the second, The Last Slumber Party. The Last Slumber Party was truly awful (read my review) but Blood Lake is just excellent. I can't explain my absolute liking and respect of this film. It's just so excellent that I'd make this required viewing for film students. I mean everyone has to start at the bottom, right? Obviously no one that has reviewed this film wants to give it a chance. **1/2out of****I guarantee that you won't like this film after you watch it for the first time. But after awhile you'll grow to like it.

There is no doubt in my mind that the writers of this film were trying to make an enjoyable slasher film to entertain teenagers and attract fans of "The Phantom of the Opera" at the same time. What gives this away is the casting of Robert Englund. It shows that they wanted to attract teenagers by casting Freddy Krueger. However, at the same time the writers include lots of technical stuff from the novel to try and get fans of "The Phantom of the Opera." The result can be one of two things. You can either have teens screaming saying they were fooled because they thought they were going to see Freddy Krueger kill a lot of people and you can have "Phantom" fans screaming saying they thought they were going to see a real "Phantom" film rather then some stupid teenage slasher film. Personally, I am a slasher film fan and not a "Phantom" fan. Not because I don't like the "Phantom" films, but just because I've never seen any of them. My initial reaction to this film was a positive one. It's stylish, has great acting and directing, and it's something different. It's not your typical slice and dice film but rather an interesting look at the "Phantom" and his life. Die-hard "Phantom" fans probably won't truly enjoy this as I think at the end the makers of the film quit trying to please everyone and the film degraded into the typical slasher genre. I really enjoyed this one and personally I think that it's wrong that die hard "Phantom" fans give this film negative comments. If you were expecting to see the 1925 version all over again with Robert Englund as the "Phantom" then you're way off. Die-hard slasher and horror fans as well as "Phantom" fans should find this at least marginally enjoyable. ***out of****This film is fun and really cool especially when you watch it for the first time and late at night

Now I've read all the negative comments here including the "girl gets decapitated by basketball" thing and I have to say-all of you are missing the point. Wes Craven has you all fooled! The only TRULY EXCELLENT horror film that Wes Craven has ever made was THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT. He made this before he was "Hollywoodized" and turned into a strictly formula director. I mean come on! The Hills Have Eyes was a pretty good effort but it then it became formula. A Nightmare On Elm Street was good but that also became a slasher film. Deadly Friend really isn't a bad movie but it's just to all over the place and at some points I just got so lost. I recommend that die hard horror fans give this a look but everyone else should just stay away from this. And no, to my knowledge no one has and ever can be decapitated by a basketball. **out of****Wes Craven once commented that "every film I've ever made is better than Last House On The Left." That's pretty sad, because if Wes Craven thinks that films like this are better than that truly excellent and disturbing horror tale then he should retire now.

How can anyone like this show? I'm serious! It's the most boring and utterly stupid show on television. Now I know that people may consider me partial because I am a guy and this show isn't directed towards me anyway but please! I've seen enough soaps with my girlfriend and I can tell perfectly well which shows have good acting, etc. and which don't and this one doesn't! My girlfriend used to watch `Another World' and that show was much better than this junk.

This show rips off, among other things, everything from `Dark Shadows' to `Psycho.' It makes fun of `Dark Shadows' which was a truly excellent serial and makes extreme fun of `Psycho' which should have Hitchcock fans in an uproar! However I'm sure that Hitchcock fans probably have too high an IQ for this show. I certainly do.

Now for the acting. If I'm supposed to find half the stuff in this show funny than what can I say? It's not! This show is what you get when you mix washed-up soap stars with young actors with no talent. Some of them would have talent if they quit this show and went back to acting school. And as for the washed-up soap stars it's time to retire! Nobody finds you interesting anymore!

The next `constructive' criticism is for the writers. Why do you make this show so SLOW? This is probably the only show on TV that can turn a day into a month. And that isn't a complement either! Having a slow show just adds to the complete boredom of the whole thing! The next criticism for the writers is why do you treat the audience like it's three? Some parts of this show are so bad (wait, the whole show's bad!) that you wonder why they don't play it on Saturday Mornings instead of weekday afternoons! And no offense to the undemanding audience that likes this stuff but the writers treat you like garbage! They don't want you to sit back and be amazed by what you see! Absolutely not!

And finally, the fact that they cancel a halfway decent show called `Another World' and put this on its place is rather incredible. But what's even more incredible is that this show has stayed on the air. This shows you how absolutely degrading the afternoon TV audience in America has become. My advice is to avoid this show. 0out of****I mean, you are intelligent, aren't you?

I'm a slasher fan like most of you reading this, but I can tell you, I have not seen totally inane cr*p like this in a long time. I mean, let me just number it so it's easy for you to read and understand:

1) From United Entertainment/VCI, the VERY small 1988 distributor in Oklahoma, who gave us the legendary home video, no budget hit BLOOD LAKE, which IMDb doesn't even have in its database and that doesn't surprise me. That one had the same no-budget atmosphere and completely unknown teen actors that, like in this film, only starred in one film.

2) No budget doesn't necessarily mean no film. BLOOD LAKE was actually pretty good. But in this one, oh my God, it was just awful.

3) The dialogue. Is this really the way people are in Oklahoma? I sincerely hope not. Sample dialogue: `I'm loaded and I feel like throwing up, could you please pass the Jack Daniels?' `There's a party tonight at my house, would you mind if I invite myself?' `I THINK he's schizophrenic, why don't we give him a partial lobotomy?' And the science teacher that looked exactly like one of the science teachers that I had in high school. And he started talking about how he got laid at the prom. Oh my God.

4) The killer knows where the doctor's house is, that's strange, but also in one hilarious scene he attacks the doctor but it looked like he pulled the doctor on top of him in a sort of sexual position. Anyone that has been unfortunate enough to see this film knows that that's what it looked like. Aren't I right?

5) The deaths aren't original. PLEASE SOMEBODY INVOLVED IN THE MAKING OF THIS AWFUL FILM TELL ME WHY THE KILLER HAD TO KEEP HOLDING THAT KNIFE UP TO THE CAMERA?

6) The blood looked fake.

7) The acting is bad.

8) The writing is bad.

9) And just about everything else is crew wise is awful.

10) Really, I'd prefer it if I didn't have to continue. If you don't get the point by now, you never will.

Honestly, I just wasted 90 minutes of my life watching this film; I don't want to waste 19 more telling you about it. Absolutely, sheer stupidity. One of the worst pieces of inane, illegitimate, pitiful pieces of trash ever made. The IQ of the makers of this film truly must have been BELOW zero. Reportedly made in Alabama though I can't believe their budget got them out of Oklahoma. God, that was awful!

It took me awhile to appreciate this film as it was supposed to be appreciated. I hadn't liked this film for a while because I thought it was some overrated midnight garbage that was good for one or two viewings. In other words, I put it in the same category as PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE. But I was wrong. Still, I had to view it three or four times to REALLY view it. It's such an excellent film that it deserves its place along with other cult classics like DAWN OF THE DEAD and THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE and that crowd. From start to finish, we're taken on an eerie trip through the Pennsylvanian backwoods and into a horror that could only be imagined. Why are they coming back to life? Is it radiation poisoning? What is it? It's just a haunting trip that, though not nearly as entertaining as its sequel, is still very deserving of its 7.5/10 user rating. NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD was made on a shoestring budget, and it shows, but who REALLY cares? Distributed by hundreds of video companies because not one company had the license to distribute it, in other words, there was no copyright proprietor. And in 1986, Hal Roach Studios released a colorized version which I own but I'm scared of seeing because it probably looks like cr*p. The 30th Anniversary released by Anchor Bay wasn't as bad as people say and it was also enjoyable. ****out of****Bring this film to your Halloween Party this year, I guarantee you won't be disappointed!

I was in Italy over the summer. Naturally, after reading on IMDb that some Full Moon films, including CASTLE FREAK, were filmed in the Umbrian town of Giove, Italy, I had to stop there. Giove was about forty minutes from Rome, so on my way to Rome on the Autostrade, I got off at the Giove exit. I hadn't seen CASTLE FREAK yet, so naturally when I saw in the beginning of the film that they were driving up that hill, looking at the castle, it just felt special for me. I had to drive up that same hill, and do the same things the characters did. It's just special to be in a place where a film is filmed, and then see that film. The church, the bar, and the castle are all the same now in 2001 as they were in 1995. I walked up the castle steps and looked around to a point where the locals threatened that the carabinieri (local police) might come after me. The locals also explained to me that the producer of the 1980's series `The A-Team' now owned the castle and on occasion leased it to Full Moon.

As for the movie, Jeffrey Combs gives yet another good performance as John Reilly. Barbara Crampton, from nearby Levittown, gives yet another good performance. And newcomer Jessica Dollarhide is also very good. This is a very good Full Moon picture that is freaky and enjoyable with great special effects. You definitely need to see the unrated version like I did to get the full aspect of what Stuart Gordon was trying to show you. This picture comes at a time when Full Moon was adjusting to a new distribution system. The Paramount/Full Moon distribution venture was now officially over (you can notice this especially when you don't see any coming attractions for Full Moon films in the coming attractions portion of the Videozone.) All in all, CASTLE FREAK gets a definite recommendation from me. ***out of****I enjoyed it, although you have to realize that in the end, it's just another slasher film. The locally scenery is great, the acting is fine, and best of all, the gore factor is number one. As always, get the unrated version over the R-rated one any day. Review based on unrated video version.

Though at times MANDROID can be talky and tame, it's worth sticking around if just for the awesome action-packed finale. MANDROID also features good acting, okay special effects and interesting back alleys of Romania. The whole plot of MANDROID is also pretty cool. And, as far as I know, pretty original. When we watch Full Moon Productions, we don't always expect much. But once in awhile, rather interesting Full Moon Productions are created. Films like PUPPET MASTER were okay. But films like MANDROID are a bit more interesting and better made. ***out of****It would have been a bit better if it wasn't too talky, but all in all a very enjoyable Full Moon effort.

SHADOWZONE was, I believe, Full Moon's first picture. It's well done on a low budget and I was satisfied with most of it. I actually first got interested in this film when I saw the coming attraction for it on the FRIDAY THE 13th PART VIII video. The deaths were cool, the acting was good, and the plot was commendable, especially considering what we're getting from Full Moon nowadays. This film was not an ALIEN rip-off. I read somewhere that this was an ALIEN rip-off and was surprised as I found really no similarities. Also of note, there is no Full Moon Videozone included with this film. No. Instead, we have a "talking" full moon! **1/2out of****I watched this at about 12:00AM, and then watched it again at 7:00PM. I can definitely tell you that this film is more effective if watched late at night. It's more fun too.

MONKEY SHINES is a film that unfortunately only works in spurts, which makes it minimally enjoyable. The premise is really good and Romero should've made it into a really good film. But instead, it was alternatively tedious and dull. Romero fans should give this a look as well as casual horror fans, but don't expect much. *1/2out of****A bit less than we've come to expect from Romero.

(Includes Spoilers) Let's see. An insane man gets caught, is reformed, and then becomes insane again. Yeah, back in 1971 when A CLOCKWORK ORANGE came out, this was an innovative plot. But now, in 2001, over 30 years later (STRANGELAND was made in 1998, 27 years later), this plot is about as recycled as 100% recycled paper. And yes my friends, that's pretty recycled. In other words, this is not an original horror film. But I have to say that I liked it. I mean, this is truly a message for teen girls. I'm gonna even go out on a limb and say that this is A CLOCKWORK ORANGE for the Internet Generation. Dee Snider, from Massapequa-about 40 minutes from New York in Long Island, manages to make this a disturbing film. And I only saw the R-Rated version. Dee Snider might not be an original writer, but he knows how to make a stylish rip-off and he certainly knows how to act. Pretty much every costume he wore was over the top, especially as Captain Howdy. **1/2out of****Though effectively grisly, it sends a message out to be careful who you deal with online and in chat rooms.

I expected STAR TIME to be yet another "expired" early nineties horror film. And the box cover and tagline suggests that too, unfortunately. BUT I WAS VERY WRONG! STAR TIME is a perfect example of what a lot of eighties slashers wanted to be. It's more of an adult slasher, as it really wouldn't appeal to a teenage audience. This film, most of all, is very atmospheric. I agree. A lot of it is boring. But the whole idea behind it is ingenious. ***out of****STAR TIME is a pretty good horror film that I think horror fans, even casual ones, should see.

(Includes spoilers) Yup, that's the plot. A rich old woman wants to become young again. So she takes a serum to make her young again, even though the doctor warns her that it's not been tested yet. THE REJUVENATOR really isn't a bad film, but it's ruined by silly acting. Variety was right. The film does have elaborate (to say the least) make up effects but it lacks down to Earth characters. I hardly felt for the old woman after her many transformations. But still it's a fun effort to keep slasher films going. **out of****For a mostly fun ride. Most hardcore horror fans should be at least mildly entertained.

CASSANDRA is a solid, suspenseful film that all horror fans should see. It has some wonderful, suspenseful moments that are very effective. Its main problem is that it suffers from being boring and muddled at times. I understand that the director couldn't do nonstop action/horror scenes in all places throughout the film, but I just wish that at times I didn't feel like I was watching Daytime TV. I mean, the relationship between the mother and the daughter. And the husband was having an affair. But putting that aside, everything else about this film was very well done and very effective. I was actually introduced to Austrailian Horror by mistake, only because my friends are so big on the MAD MAX series. Anyway, CASSANDRA is not really cliche-ridden, and that is good. It has some effective moments that will make you look over the muddled ones. **1/2out of****Worth at least one or two looks.

(Includes Spoilers) We all know what the French are known for. And we know that that certain something ISN'T horror. Anyway, HONEYMOON deals with a woman who comes to New York from France to be with her boyfriend who's been arrested for drug possession. To keep from being deported, she goes to The Honeymoon Agency and gets a "husband" so that she can stay in America. A good plot is given plodding treatment, which isn't good. John Shea is fabulous as the "husband". He really is menacing and really gets into the role. Nathalie Baye is okay. I felt that she could have given a better performance. All in all, the film basically goes from one step to the next with about three deaths and very little, if any, action. I actually purchased this film in the Montreal Underground Mall. It had a New World (U.S.) box cover with a Malofilm (Canada) video. It was in English, which surprised me because it was originally in French, then dubbed in English. But since Montreal is a French city, why wouldn't they have the original French version? Oh well. **out of****Okay movie. I think that the best thing was the boxcover, showing a skeleton in a wedding gown that includes a supposed fact that so many women will get married a year and that 1/3 of them will die. I doubt that that's a fact. Anyway, see this film only if you're a hardcore horror fan. Hardcore horror fans should at least find this mildly entertaining.

(Includes Spoilers) How many movies can actually say that they had George Kennedy playing a sadistic Nazi? Not any, but DEATH SHIP. DEATH SHIP is yet another Sandy Howard/Harold Greenberg Canada/UK production. When I found DEATH SHIP for $3.00 in a video store, I was attracted to it because I enjoyed the previous Howard/Greenberg production of TERROR TRAIN. Then throw in the Derek Gison (II), executive producer of THE RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD one of my favorites, and I figured we would have a fabulous movie. Not to mention it had a great plot. But when the movie finished, I was disappointed. This film could have been SO MUCH MORE! I mean, the goofs are terrible! The Death Ship is attacking the cruise ship, but where the cruise ship is at, it's night and where the Death Ship is at, it's day. So basically you have a Death Ship coming from 2:PM attacking a cruise ship where it's at 12:AM, except they're about ten feet from each other, so... We go from night (cruise ship) to day (Death Ship) and back and forth. Then the collision which was LARGELY LIFTED from other films. Even when the below-deck crew is talking and trying to escape, you can tell that it's a 1950's film. INCREDIBLE! Some scenes are fun, like the shower of blood. And just about every word out of Kennedy's mouth is funny (some intentionally, but most unintentionally). I loved when Kennedy kept yelling: "The ship needs BLOOD Marshall! Your BLOOD! The BLOOD of your wife! The BLOOD of your daughter! The BLOOD of your son!" There are also very chilling moments in this film, which make it effective lots of times. I even noted the striking resemblance between this and 1999's VIRUS with Jamie Lee Curtis. Except, here you have Nazis and there you have machines. **1/2out of****To pass the time by or if you want a B-Movie to laugh at: go ahead. If you want top, class act entertainment: skip it.

(Includes Spoilers) Get this: a demented man who wears a mask is murdering people. He wears his mask during the day because he's deformed. Now, someone gets killed so naturally the doctor's daughter has to have a party. But first she has to take a shower and show us some gratuitous nudity. More people are getting killed at Charlie's barn, but that isn't good enough for the sheriff so Charlie is let go. More people die, I fell asleep only to awake and find the ending to be the typical slasher ending. In 1990, if producers hadn't gotten a clue that slasher films were as in as bell bottoms then they obviously needed as much help as Charlie. This is one cliche-ridden movie that's extremely laughable. I even remember *serious* dialogue like "there's a killer loose so I'm gonna walk home from your party Jamie." The killings are laughable, like a man whipped against a car, that I kinda though that Charlie might've been sexually deformed too. Really awful, I'm glad I only paid $2.00 to buy it. It's really boring too. *1/2out of****I'll give it the extra 1/2 just because I still can't look at the box cover without laughing hysterically.

(Includes spoilers) OFFERINGS is the biggest and best HALLOWEEN rip-off to date. You see, love is a many splendored thing and an unforgettable one for our killer. As if the killer knew what love was when he was 8 or so. The plot: a young boy is pushed off into a well when he's 8. He escapes 10 years later from an insane asylum and murders those who bullied him. He presents his "offerings" or their guts to the girl he loved. Well, Christopher Reynolds should've gotten an Oscar for turning a laughable plot into a damn fine movie. In fact, the pizza sequence alone puts this over HALLOWEEN. But because it's not John Carpenter and it's from South Gate Entertainment this film probably won't be re-released until I'm 30. And believe me, no one looks forward to that day. All in all, this is one pretty good movie that is enjoyable and fun! **1/2out of****Watch this one after HALLOWEEN and you can tell Reynolds even ripped-off Carpenter's music score. Carpenter probably could've even sued. Oh well, it's still worth a view or two.

(Includes spoilers) Clive Barker must've been Pinhead when he wrote this film. Nope, my friends, there was no "luck of the Irish" involved in this film. I'm half Irish, half Italian and let me tell you, my Italian side makes better films then my Irish. I mean, the monster looks INCREDIBLY cheesy and fake. I mean, if James Earl Jones were a monster he'd look like the one in this film. It has rolling eyes. I'm actually laughing right now when I think about it. Rolling eyes that move counter-clockwise and hypnotize people (and believe me, every time RawHead Rex hypnotizes someone you will be laughing hysterically). Yep. It works with the help of a Catholic Priest that gleefully lets RawHead Rex pee on him in one scene of this film that was as funny as some scenes in HOWLING II. The Reverend is the good guy mind you which tells me right away that this was filmed in Protestant Ireland. The back cover art on the original Vestron Video box will show you the Irish variation of the French kiss between the Catholic Priest and RawHead Rex. Never has a Catholic Priest been so funny (well, in Dead-Alive Father McGruder was funny but that was intentional). Take my word for it, RawHead Rex's bathroom scene was serious, or suppose to be. The priest even says something to the extent of "let it go Master". Oh and by the way, I didn't know a big plastic monster could-. Oh anyway, there are some scenes that are serious but they were so few and far between that by the time this laugh romp was over I just forgot that this was supposed to be a *SERIOUS* movie. Yeah Clive, don't worry because you hit it big with HELLRAISER. Someone told me that Clive Barker wasn't satisfied with this movie. That surprises me VERY LITTLE. *out of****If this film was supposed to be funny, it would have gotten ***out of**** for the reasons mentioned above. By the way, "RawHead Rex". Really creative title Clive, it's just so stupid that it adds to the humor.

FUTURE SHOCK is complete garbage although it definitely had potential. Certain scenes are great but I was turned off by the whole virtual reality thing and by some of the incredibly bad acting. The actor that played Dr. Langdon looked like the late actor Michael Landon and I thought that the character name was actually Dr. Landon. Coincidentily, Michael Landon died in Malibu, California where some of this movie was made. The best actor in this sad film had to be James Karen who gave yet another hillarious performance as Kefka, the mute boss. Overall, not BAD BAD, but not as good as it could've been. I strongly believe that it was the whole virtual reality thing that sunk FUTURE SHOCK into future schlock-**1/2out of****.

BAD DREAMS is an okay horror that has a premise that pretty much tries to cash in on the Elm Street success. BAD DREAMS tries hard to be an original and stylish rip-off of the ELM STREET movies, but instead turns into garbled tedious rubbish. Richard Lynch, however, is perfectly cast and as usual makes for a sturdy villian. The deaths were cool, the special effects pretty cool, and the plot passable at best. The plot was a bit heavy handed though and was given too much plodding treatment. Though no one could deny that this is an ELM STREET clone, one could argue at best whether it was a stylish one or not. **1/2out of****For a not bad film that is worth at least one viewing.

Don Barrett is certainly one of the funniest actors in history. Just about every word that comes out of this man's mouth is a perverse joke. As for the plot, it was a typical slasher that had pretty good acting, great music, and a sadistic killer in Buddy. The opening credits scene was absolutely beautiful. It'll probably reassure all the vegans out there that they're doing the right thing, though it didn't bother me one bit. ***1/2out of****This film has to be one of my personal favorites and is worth a couple of looks. It certainly deserved the DVD treatment that it got.

I liked ALICE, SWEET ALICE a lot. I liked the variation on the slasher films and enjoyed cute little Paula Sheppard's performance as Alice. For a twelve year old, she was a great actress. The movie in general can be tedious and uneven, but in the end it's a rewarding little gem that's worth at least one look. ***out of****Very well done. I consider it the slasher before the slasher craze, though I do believe the whole fact that Brooke Shields was in the movie was exaggerated. Oh well...