This movie was AWFUL! The summary on the back of the cover was much more entertaining reading than watching the movie itself. This movie is about a bunch of rafters that end up stranded in an old "ghost town" that looks to me like more of a set of a cheap western than a haunted ghost town. One by one the lame characters are killed off by an unseen killer. The only characters other than the helpless rafters are two bikers and an old man riding on his horse with his dog that claims to have been a sailer from the year 1890 something. This movie is just plain awful and I do not recommend that anyone should rent this movie. It has lame killings, low gore and stupid pathetic acting and on top of all that a horrible ending!
Add a Review
-
HumanoidOfFlesh11 January 2010A group of rafters is terrorized by a mysterious killer in a small Western ghost town.As soon as they arrive and night falls the murders begin.Then a horseback-riding ghostly stranger comes into town lead by a black dog.Painfully slow,almost lethargic slasher flick with solid cast and passable photography.The music is quite atmospheric during the night scenes,but there are so many flaws in "Scream" that's it's hard to enjoy it:paper-thin characters that resemble zombies in coma,agonizingly slow pacing,amateurish editing,incompetent direction and bloodless death scenes.Should I go on?No logic.No suspense.No tension.Just boredom and the lack of explanation in the ending.Who was the killer?We will never know.4 out of 10.A bit better than "Savage Water",but not much.
-
Analog_Devotee31 December 2020Great filming location and a fun atmosphere for a slasher. Unfortunately, this one misses the mark everywhere else. A small (very, very small) portion of the score reminds me of Carpenter which was nice. All in all, though, I can't recommend this to anyone. Even die-hard slasher completionists should avoid this one entirely. It simply isn't worth your time.
-
barnabyrudge10 July 2003Long 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. -
insomniac_rod29 April 2007First of all, this movie should only be seen by die hard slasher fans. And I mean, those who can stand almost 90 minutes of mediocrity, terrible cinematography, boring plot, and stupid characters. Yes, there is a "mysterious" killer but that isn't enough.
The plot deals with a bunch of teen rafters that get lost in a Ghost Town. You don't need to know more because before we can understand what's going on; the characters start to get killed one by one in off-screen scenes! So don't expect a serious slasher flick.
The locations weren't that bad, and actually, looked creepy at some points but the horrible cinematography ruins it all.
I found a VHS copy of this crap some time ago and I can only say that it serves for historic purposes only. Otherwise, I don't see the point of watching it. -
RareSlashersReviewed1 February 2004Dull as ditchwater supernatural adventure which was obviously rush-released to cash-in on the FRIDAY THE 13TH inspired craze that swept the early eighties and gave us many a duff budgie! This was let loose in the US under the moniker of SCREAM, which of course, became the title of Wes Craven's blockbuster slasher some eleven years later.
Well it all commences creepily enough; the camera leisurely pans an old looking room until the shot halts at an ancient clock, which stands beside a small statue. As the hour hand on the timepiece reaches 12o' clock, the eyes on the small figure move and suddenly, the words THE OUTING shroud the screen Skip to 12 tourists heading down the infamous Rio Grande river of Texas, on small boats. The hapless gang of campers - who are cheerily sporting cowboy hats and baseball caps ditch their rafts and begin to hike up a remote mountain where they find what looks to be a small desolate old western' town. As soon as they've stepped upon the soil, one lassie keeps things routine by stating that she has `the strangest feeling' Hmmm, indeed! The group set up camp in the abandoned site and settle down to rest for the night. Just after darkness has filled the lonely star studded sky, one unlucky guy heads out for a midnight stroll and to cut a long story short, he ends up hanging from the ceiling with a rope around his neck, killed by an assailant whom we don't get to see! Before long, another victim has been butchered in an inexplicable way and the posse at first suspects that one of there own luckless pack may well be a psychopath. As more of the friends wander off, only to fall prey to the remorseless assassin, it becomes evident that a bizarre supernatural force is at work. Stranded on the secluded region and without any weapons, the band realise that they must somehow defend themselves against this ruthless murderer
It's a real shame that first (and last) time director Byron Quinsenberry didn't make good use of the advantages that his flick had started out with. Although there were obviously visible financial constraints to contend with, the excellent set location could have been successfully turned into a decent backdrop for a satisfying bloodbath. Instead we got a lazy inane mess of a movie that doesn't even manage to resolve itself
With 14 typically hapless cast members to cut up', you'd think that there'd be a body count to rival that of a snuff movie, but I'm afraid you wont find that hidden anywhere near here. Instead we get 5 or 6 meagre murders with no special effects or any engrossing gore at all, whatsoever. In the first, a guy gets hung from the ceiling by a rope. We only see his suspended corpse for half a second, obviously because the dummy that they were using was so unrealistic! Another gripe (and don't worry I've got loads to mention) is how we never got time to get to know any of the cast. The only one who was slightly memorable was the traditional annoying fat guy, who was more or less the star, only because he got at least three scenes to himself!
We don't even get an explanation as to who or what is killing everyone and his identity and motives are left unsolved. Towards the finale, an old, strange looking cowboy pulls up on a horse and sits down to talk to the terrified victims. I immediately thought that he would tell us a bit about the assassin or maybe even a loveable clichéd tale starting with something like `Didn't you know the story of ' However as an alternative and totally incoherent gesture, he tells the campers that he used to be a sailor and then gallops off into the gloomy midnight sky! What the hell?! And then to add insult to injury, the most brain boggling ending ever to invade my TV screen left me totally bewildered!
Even fans of eighties cheese will be disappointed; there's hardly any un-contemplated laughs, except maybe for the way that the casualties fall prey to the lacklustre killer. It's a real horseplay filled ride. Watch how one guys gets killed, another goes to search for him, and then gets killed etc. And even when the survivors are aware that there's some kind of strange evil surrounding them, they still find time to wander off into doors that mysteriously open by themselves or go out to find out just what that creepy noise was! Maybe one day I'll find a slasher where the victims actually have brains!
To be fair, I think that this attempt may have suffered some problems throughout its production. Filming began in 1981, and it didn't come out until '85. Maybe that's why there are so many inconsistencies in the story and why it looks so rushed. Still, that's no excuse to release a film as bad as THE OUTING. At times this felt like a helicopter without a propeller because no matter how hard it tried, it never managed to take off! Unfortunately this is one to be avoided. -
thevirginiareel-643-14908423 January 2010I 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.
-
Woodyanders16 April 2014A bunch of folks on a rafting expedition set up camp in an old abandoned ghost town. However, said town isn't as deserted as they initially expected and pretty soon people are getting picked off by a phantom killer. Sound good? Well, alas it just ain't. Flatly directed by Bryon Quisenberry (who also wrote the talky and uneventful script), with mild gore, no nudity, tame offscreen kills, a sluggish pace, drab and dumb characters who stupidly venture off on their own so they can be easily dispatched by the killer (serves 'em right for being so idiotic!), a meandering story, a frustratingly muddled conclusion, and a severe paucity of both tension and spooky atmosphere (things perk up a bit and get fairly creepy in the last third, but by then it's far too little much too late), this extremely stiff and static stinker proves to be quite a painfully languid and laborious chore to endure. Worse yet, veteran thespians Hank Worden, Gregg Palmer, and Alvy Moore are all wasted in lousy nothing roles. In addition, extra points need to be detracted due to the insufferable antics of irritating comic relief bozo Lou (played with an appalling lack of charm by Joe Allaine). Even the always welcome presence of the ever-awesome Woody Strode as a mysterious sailor fails to alleviate the numbing tedium. Joseph Conlan's monotonous and grossly inappropriate score sounds like it belongs in a generic 70's cop show. Richard Pepin's decent cinematography manages to wring a modicum of gloom-doom mood from the cool rundown location. A total snorefest.
-
gwnightscream28 January 2014This 1981 horror film begins with of a group of rafters heading up river and into the hills where they rest at a small, abandoned town. Soon, they're stalked by a mysterious figure who kills some of them one at a time. The others assume it's an outsider and try protecting themselves, but eventually discover it's someone or something else. This film had potential for it's bleak atmosphere, but disappoints. I'd say the first few minutes or so starts OK, but goes downhill after and the ending just doesn't make sense. The film is also very dark in many scenes and I probably only recommend a one time viewing if you like slasher/horror flicks, but other than that it's a waste of time.
-
A lot of people who did a lot better films and television in their day wasted their time on this one. Hope their paychecks cleared.
A bunch of folks on a whitewater rafting tour beach their craft and spend a night at an old western ghost town. But it ain't no ghost who's busy hacking and slashing the cast. It's the usual with these films, try and figure out who dies next.
It was sad to see the credits read 'introducing Ethan Wayne' as one of the rafters. As a kid he appeared in two of his father's films Rio Lobo and Big Jake. Couldn't you give him a decent western to make an adult debut in. I'm sure the Duke wouldn't done a film like Scream. Some players who did appear with John Wayne like Hank Worden and Gregg Palmer and Woody Strode were in this one. I doubt any of them bragged on this piece of trash.
Unless you're a hardcore slasher fan, skip this one. -
Coventry14 July 2015Let's talk about wasted potential, shall we? Because Byron Quisenberry's "Scream" is one early '80s slasher that literally bulks with great potential and possibilities, yet it somehow ended up as one of the absolute worst genre films of the entire decade; - and that means quite a lot since we all know there was so much junk made in the eighties! Everything starts out promising, and the prologue sequences – with eerie and blood-soaked wooden marionettes of which the eyes spookily move – even had me wonder for a second that I encountered a genuine hidden horror gem. Subsequently, the setting and introduction of the characters are also very interesting. We meet a group of people on a rafting trip somewhere in Texas, and for once they're not horny teenagers on a camping trip or sorority sisters during a college initiation night, but fairly normal and middle-aged people. Unless I missed something, we never even find out what their connection is. Are they friends, colleagues or complete strangers that just individually signed up for a rafting trip? I think the latter, as I did the same thing once when I participated in a rafting trip on the Colorado River in the state of Utah. Anyway, night falls and the group sets up camp in a ghost town by the side of the river. You'd expect a tense and atmospheric slasher feast from here onwards, but this is where things start to go horribly wrong. There's a killer wandering about in the abandoned little town and the number of survivors quickly decreases, but as a viewer you actually haven't got the slightest idea what is going on. Everything is dark and blurry, the characters are unidentifiable and the murders either occur off-screen or in a dull and bloodless fashion. It's fairly obvious that the killer shouldn't be sought among the group members, but there's a lame attempt to link the murders to a kind of folklore myth about a vengeful sea captain. Or something like that, at least, I have to admit that I dozed off a couple of times already at this point in the movie. Fact remains that "Scream" has an intolerably slow pacing and severely lacks in the blood, gore and sleaze department. In the trivia section, there's a little anecdote that states: "Director Byron Quisenberry did not give his actors the ending to the script". Personally I think he didn't even have an ending for his script. In fact, he probably never even had a script to begin with
-
SCREAM is one of those movies that everyone hates, and it's perfectly understandable why (this is one of the only slashers I've seen where, so far, every single review on IMDb has been negative). However, I managed to find the good in this movie that everyone else is overlooking.
A group of people (it's never explained if they're friends, coworkers, family members, or what) are on a rafting trip down the Rio Grande when they decide to spend the night in an abandoned ghost town miles away from civilization. Soon, one of them is killed. Then another. And another. Could it be someone in the group? Or is it an outsider? Or could it even be something that isn't quite human?
Yes, SCREAM is indeed one of the slowest slashers of the decade. It is also one of the least bloody. But still, there's a certain charm under all the crap that doesn't quite make its way through to the audience. First off, SCREAM is a slow-burn in every meaning of the term. The film sets its own pace (that of a snail) and follows it all throughout. But you know what? I like that. It's a nice, mellow movie that I would pair with THE PREY (1984) as far as movies I would want to watch at three in the morning go. You fall asleep during HALLOWEEN? You miss plot points! You fall asleep during SCREAM? You miss absolutely nothing!
SCREAM is also a movie completely drenched in atmosphere. Any serious-minded horror flick featuring a ghost town is bound to be creepy, and this is no exception. The film opens on a rather creepy note with the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker wax figures all in row. The camera zooms in on a clock striking midnight, the camera pans back, the butcher's cleaver has blood on it, and the other two figurines' heads have been lopped off. Then the butcher's eyes move! Another standout scene is when one character finds he is trapped in a room with something in one of the sleeping bags and breathing heavily.
Both a good and a bad thing is that the characters are really stupid! They constantly go by themselves into dark rooms after people have been killed, and it is a good thing because it does manage to generate some suspense. I guess we're supposed to assume supernatural forces are making them do this, but it is never fully explained.
Another complaint people have is that nothing is ever explained in this movie. I'm guessing the audience is supposed to assume that the ghost of a pirate is killing off these people. Also, the film sets up a huge body count in this large group of vacationers, yet most of them survive, including every single female! That's certainly a rarity in the subgenre, and I liked how they at least mixed things up a little bit (as well as making a lot of the characters middle-aged).
The acting was a mishmash of good and bad, with some actors looking really invested in the film and others looking like they're reading their lines off a teleprompter. Some of the bad writing does lead to some pretty unintentionally funny moments (one character screaming is head off and running away when a spider crawls on his hand, then just standing there in a state of shock when one of the characters is murdered just one or two feet away from him), and some funny dialogue ("I won't let anyone tell me what to do, especially a FEMALE!")
This isn't really an accomplished film (it's obviously made by a first-time director, actors, and, well, basically everyone) by any means, but I found it to be an alright timewaster, especially if you're feeling drowsy but you need to watch a movie before you go to bed. Or if you have insomnia. Take your pick, but just watch it no matter what the case. Unfortunately, both of this film's titles (SCREAM and THE OUTING) have been taken by later and better films (THE OUTING was a great 1987 killer genie flick). -
Starts off with a slow pan across an old room, with a painting of a ship rolling in rough water, and over to a mantel. The mantel has three figurines on it, a butcher, a baker and (I'm guessing) a candlestick maker. Above the mantel is a painting, which we don't get to see, and on the mantel is also a clock that is striking 12 o'clock.
The camera then pans back to the figurines, and the baker and candlestick maker have lost their heads. Both heads are at their feet, and the latter's appears to have blood on it, while the former is still rocking. The butcher has blood on his apron. Then in a close-up, his eyes move.
From here, there's a rafting trip. They stop in a ghost town to stay the night. None of the people are given any identities. Some people get killed offscreen. The only time blood is seen is when one of the weapons is shown, since the killer apparently can't be bothered to clean the blood off them. The rafts disappear. The people decide to stay in the town, rather than walking to a real town, or just floating down the river without the rafts. A few other people show up, but they're not much help.
At the end of the movie, the room from the opening scene is shown again. We see the painting, and also the butcher has also lost his head, and there's some voice-over, but I couldn't understand what it was saying at all. Bad. -
Michael_Elliott29 October 2017Scream (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. -
bfan8328 February 2009*POSSIBLE SPOILERS!* Don't get me wrong, I love bad movies. But this was just inexcusable. The entire film consists of long, continuous and pointless padding, a very undeveloped plot and horrendous acting by some of the most annoying characters to ever grace a slasher flick.
The plot concerns a group of friends on a rafting trip down the Rio Grande River in West Texas. Inexplicably, they come across a deserted, old ghost town. During the night, a few of the friends are murdered by an unseen killer that we never get to see, even at the film's conclusion. The rest of the film consists of the remaining survivors yelling and bickering at each other, and trying to stay alive. Yet, they still wander off by themselves and are murdered by the unseen killer. The ending offers no resolution to who is doing the killing and why and half the cast survives which really irritated me.
If you are a die-hard slasher fan, than yes seek this rare and (thankfully) forgotten slasher flick. For curiosity seekers, however, please avoid like the plague! -
acidburn-102 October 2009I watched this recently and noticed that it has the same title as Wes Craven's horror smash hit "Scream", but don't fooled this has absolutely no connection to that Wes Craven masterpiece.
The Plot = A group of holiday makers go on a rafting trip down a river stop in at an old ghost town to spend the night. Soon their rafts disappear, and then they begin to be eliminated one by one by a mysterious killer.
Oh my god this has to be the world's most boring-est slasher movie ever, talk about a total waste of time, I usually can find the good points in bad Slashers but not in this one, there ain't any redeeming features what so ever, everything in this was bad, badly acted, badly lit, non interesting characters that I couldn't tell apart, the music score sounds completely ripped off from other movies, deaths off-screen which I hate when they do that and stupid subplots (like the bikers turning up and that black guy on the horse and carriage and dog) who neither offer nothing to the movie and that pathetic ending which made this pile of crap even crapper.
All in all this pile of rubbish makes movies like Don't Go Into The Woods Alone decent, this should stay dead and buried and never see a DVD release, if u come across this stay well clear. -
TheLittleSongbird4 October 2014The 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
-
GOWBTW-5STARreviewer8 November 2021I've seen a lot of slasher films, but this one really takes the cake. It got more questions than answers. "Friday the 13th" solved more problems than this film. You have a group of people on a rafting trip that rests up in a ghost town for the night, and people start dying off one by one.
They meet up with a couple of dirt bike riders, one gets killed by a mysterious person. Then a mysterious man arrives and explains his story on his life at sea.
Still, nobody knows who the killer is. No plot, all mysterious. This movie is a total head scratcher.
The title makes sense, but the action of it was very weak.
1.5 out of 5 stars. -
drownsoda9023 April 2016Indubitably one of the most hated slasher films of the eighties, "Scream" (not to be confused with the Wes Craven classic that would come fifteen years later) follows an arbitrary group of rafters who are traveling on the Rio Grande through Texas. They decide to get off the waterway and camp out, but find an abandoned ghost town to make use of. Bad idea.
I had heard nothing but bad things about this film for years, which is part of why I took so much time getting around to finally watching it. A lot of horror movies from this period get the "worst movie ever made" declaration from some people (mostly those who don't understand the aesthetic appeal of these films that genre nerds love), but most of the time, there is still a fanbase who defends these films. "Scream" is one of the rare exceptions where you will find more or less nothing but awful things said about it.
Let's be clear: "Scream" is not a good film. It's artless, bloodless, poorly-acted—its script meanders without purpose, while its characters and their relationships to one another are indistinguishable, and coherence never comes into the equation. Basically, it is a by-the-numbers slasher flick with the singular distinction that it has one single on-screen death. Despite what the DVD cover may lead you to believe, this is not a splatter flick by any stretch of the imagination.
So, what then? Well, under the pile of slasher sins this film commits, I can say it has one thing going for it, and that's its atmosphere. The dusty ghost town setting is simply fantastic—it's obviously a studio lot, but the fact that it's obvious makes the film even weirder. The camera pans around the town in darkness, and ominous music really establishes a legitimately creepy atmosphere. It's a strange setting for a horror film that is explicitly non-Western, but again, it just adds to the film's weirdness. The finale is weak and the killer's "revelation" (if you want to call it that) really just further complicates matters, especially as the film is bookended by panning shots of an old living room, a painting, and a trio of "the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker" figurines. This is probably symbolic, given that they have zero bearing on anything else that occurs in the film, but who knows? Yet another instance of the mysteries that are "Scream."
Overall, I'd only recommend this film for die-hard slasher fans, who even then will be divided. As a slasher film, "Scream" is definitely one of the downright strangest offerings of the eighties. Many have condemned it, and I don't blame them—it is a classically bad movie. But in spite of its shortcomings, there is something to be said for its spooky atmosphere and the idiosyncrasies and peculiarities that it is peppered with. It feels like the writer/director literally had no clue what he was doing making the film, and while that certainly makes it nearly unwatchable in some respects, it also renders the film a marginally eerie anomaly. 5/10. -
poolandrews24 March 2005Scream, or the Outing as it's known in the UK, has one of the most bizarre opening scenes I've ever seen. A slow moving camera shot over some horrible wallpaper revealing a painting of a boat in an incredibly cheap wooden frame, eventually the camera comes to rest on an antique looking clock (considering the films budget it's probably a fake) which is striking 12 O'clock. The camera then moves along to three doll like figures, two of which are decapitated & the third has splashes of blood on it, then the film cuts to the opening credits & three rafts travelling downriver. At this point I was confused about the painting, clock & figures. Unfortunately the filmmakers don't really care & it never becomes clear what the opening was all about, although I will return to this opening scene later. Anyway, three rafts stop ashore and the passengers get off. They are all on a $100 each tour. The guides, two cowboys called Stan (Etan Wayne) & Rudy (Joseph Alvarado) lead them to a deserted ghost town for the night. Just think of an old western set & your pretty much there. Everyone starts to bed down for the night, in sleeping bags on dusty floors no less. Great holiday choice. While outside on his own having a cigarette an old man named Allen (Alvy Moore) is hung. Some woman whose name is never mentioned finds him. After everyone has finished discussing the situation and decided that there is a killer running around a fat guy with a beard named Ross (Gregg Palmer) thinks going outside on his own in the dark to fetch a can of beer is a good idea, hey this guy deserves to die. Luckily the killer does his job and Ross is dead within minutes. The next morning the rafts are gone, the remaining tourists are trapped. Luckily two bikers show up, Rod (Bobby Diamond) & Jerry (John Nowak). Unluckily their soon both dead, along with another couple of our main group. And that's about it as the film plods along as they try and survive the night, half way through which a man on a horse named Charlie Winters (Woody Strode) and his Rotwieler turns up, tells them a story about how he used to be a Sailor & then rides off again! I really don't want to discuss Scream anymore so if you want to find out how it all comes together and ends then you'll have to track a copy down & watch it for yourself, although I'd strongly advise against it! Executive produced, written & directed by Byron Quisenberry this is one sorry lame excuse for a horror film. First lets talk about the script, most of the characters are never given a name & absolutely no personalities or background. This makes caring and emoting with anyone almost totally impossible, none of the characters are given any human qualities. Nor do we discover anybodies relationship with anyone else. Logic, or a lack of it to be more precise, why do people insist on splitting up all the time when there's a psycho killer running around? The killer or their motives are never revealed, hell we don't even know whether their a man or woman. The film as a whole is also very slow, boring & ultimately frustrating because nothing is explained or revealed to keep anyone unlucky enough to be watching this interested, & I haven't forgot about that opening scene which still baffles me even now! Almost the exact same shot is repeated at the very end of the film too, only this time all three figures are decapitated and the camera zooms in on the painting and reveals the date which is '1891' & then the film finishes and the end credits roll, what the hell is all that about?! Forget about any decent murders or gore, there's a meat cleaver with some blood on it and a decapitation from a really bad camera angle that basically shows the viewer nothing. That's it, I can't remember anything else that might keep you awake. On a positive note, hey I'm trying to be generous here OK, there is a cool shot where the camera moves along a wall with the killers collection of weapons, an axe, a meat cleaver & a scythe which as I said is quite a cool shot, unfortunately the killer doesn't really use them to any great effect. It is also competently made, not brilliant but at the same time not too bad, & that's about it for good points I'm afraid. Scream is absolutely terrible & doesn't deliver anything that a slasher film should, avoid at all costs. Trust me you'll be glad you did.
-
BA_Harrison5 May 2019Fifteen years before Wes Craven would make it his own, writer/director Byron Quisenberry used the title 'Scream' for this rural slasher with a supernatural twist, a film so inept that it makes Craven's worst efforts look like cinematic gold by comparison. Yes... even My Soul to Take (2010) and The Hills Have Eyes Pt. 2 are better than this.
After a truly perplexing pre-credits scene featuring decapitated statuettes with moving eyes, the film switches to a group of people on a river-rafting trip coming ashore to set up camp at an old ghost town. When night falls, an unseen killer begins to bump off members of the party one-by-one.
And that's pretty much it in terms of plot for most of the film, the group slowly whittled down to a handful of survivors over the course of 82 minutes, which feels a whole lot longer thanks to the poor performances, weak script and amateurish direction. Much of the film is shot at night, with the camera meandering aimlessly through the shadows of the ghost town, rarely settling on anything of interest, while the deaths - when they happen - occur off screen, meaning that there is no gore to speak of (not that the terrible lighting would have enabled us to see it anyway).
The arrival of a pair of dirt-bikers adds nothing to the film, save for another pair of victims to die bloodlessly out of frame, and an encounter with a mysterious man on horseback, who is presumably a ghost, only serves to leave the viewer not only extremely bored, but confused as well. -
Chainsaw Slasher15 December 2003This movie is just plain boring. You have a group of hikers stop at this ghost town, where there is a slasher. But the picture of the movie is soo dark that you can barely make out anything. Film has horrible lighting. And the deaths weren't all that special. Had a few knifings, but the blood dosage was very small. I'm all up for slashings, but it's meaningless without the lots of blood. I guess it wouldn't matter anyway because the picture was so dark. Not worth watching, maybe worth adding to your 80's slasher collection just for the reason it being the first slasher film to be called Scream before the more updated blockbuster "Scream."
-
Sunshine711 September 1998A 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". -
Stevieboy66627 July 2019Released on VHS in the UK as The Outing this slasher from the Golden Age is certainly among the lesser known entries from this boom period. And this is probably down to the fact that it is a rather dull movie. The pacing is slow, there is very little bloodshed, some of the acting is very amateur and the plot confusing, let down by a disappointing ending. However, it does have some merits. It's set in the Great Outdoors and there is some stunning scenery to be seen. I liked the setting of an atmospheric ghost town with it's spooky, rolling fog. Among the non actors are a few recognisable faces, e.g Pepper Martin and Woody Strode. And this group of people in peril are of ages from teenage to mature, so it breaks from the teen norm. Many of the kills are off screen but there are a few on camera, plus a decent jump scene. This is an early example of the supernatural in a slasher movie, so credit for that. Overall there is no disputing that Scream is a BAD movie, but to those of us horror addicts who can't get enough then it is worth watching. One of the characters says "I need a drink - where's the beer?" Well, I made sure that I had my own supply watching this, it probably helped!
-
Climinator2 November 2014Scream, also known as 'The Outing', is the only film where I've seen pretty much every review pan it. I decide to check it out of curiosity. Oh the horror! The horror when the cameraman slowly pans over to a lantern for the third time! The shock when a man wakes up to find...A DOOR OPENING SLOWLY!
'Scream' is so bad, yet oddly enjoyable in my opinion, it deserves at least a remake. If that happens maybe all the mistakes could be corrected.
Anyway the plot sees a bunch of rafters sailing down the Rio Grande river. Only they get lost along the way. They then decide to camp in a nearby deserted town (which looks like a set from Blazing Saddles). However when night falls they start to get killed off one by one by an unseen killer.
The premise itself is interesting so what can go wrong? Everything. Nothing is explained. It's never explained whether the rafters are family or friends or work colleagues. This defeats any kind of characterisation, making it difficult to care for the victims. Veteran actor Woody Strode enters the film as a sailor (who looks more like a 1940's noir Detective! lol)called Charlie. His performance is the most interesting and still has bad dialogue. The cast are mainly lead by Pepper Martin (the guy who beats up Clark Kent in the diner in Superman 2). Why give somebody with such little experience in acting the lead? Add to that the lighting is bloody awful. There is no gore and you can tell that there are no stunt doubles. This is because you can blatantly tell when the actors are doing the stunts! A scene that I find unintentionally hilarious is when a woman runs across town at night and obviously JUMPS ACROSS THE WIRE-TRAP THE CHARACTERS SET MOMENTS BEFORE!! Lol. The titles theme is god-awful. It sounds like it came from Starsky & Hutch.
The opening and ending sequences have hardly any links to the main plot at all. I only had a rough idea but what they consist of is a mantel piece, clock, three porcelain figures. The opening ends with the Butcher having decapitated the Baker and the Candlestick Maker. Then when Charlie shoots the killer the Butcher is decapitated too!!! Dumb dumb Dumb! There's also a painting of who the killer is at the very end.
When the end credits rolled I had become so excited I fell off my seat.
My advice...Stick to Wes, Neve, Courtney and David.