1988 – Jiggy's Horror Corner

Hei tai yang 731 (1988)

Directed by Tun-Fei Mou [Other horror films: Xiang Gang qi an 5: Jian mo (1977), Die xian (1980), Da se (1980), Huet luen (1995), Hei tai yang: Nan Jing da tu sha (1995)]

Among one of the most disturbing films I’ve ever seen, Hei tai yang 731, better known as Man Behind the Sun, is not a movie I’ll soon forget. It’s far from a pleasurable viewing experience, and I can imagine that it’d only attract a niche looking for extreme cinema.

Much like Threads, this movie isn’t horror in the conventional sense – it follows the experiments and troops of Unit 731, a Japanese biological and chemical warfare research lab, during the Second Sino-Japanese War. In gruesome detail, we see various human experimentation and how it impacts both the victims and the perpetrators, including young boys who have been conscripted into the Youth Corp.

Naturally, whereas Threads dealt with the theoretical impact of nuclear warfare, this deals with historical material. As to the authenticity displayed here, I will fully admit to not knowing anything about this period of Japanese history, so I can’t say. This is a movie from Hong Kong, so if they show the Japanese is a more negative light than reality, that wouldn’t be surprising. I have no doubt, though, that the information displayed toward the end – that the central scientist of this facility was later acquired by the United States government after they granted him immunity – is accurate, as that’s just how the American government works.

Because of the nature of this film – possessing an almost documentary-type feel at times – it’s not an easy one to judge. It’s not easy to judge anyway, given the material they deal with here, but I can say that while it’s pretty well-made, it’s definitely not a movie that I suspect many people would want to throw on any type of annual playlist.

Let’s get to the main point. Most people who hear about this movie, or perhaps read about it online, have probably done so due to the gruesome content here. Somewhat ironically, the scene in which a cat is thrown into a pit of rats – which seems to be among one of the most distressing sequences for people – is actually one of the least disturbing parts of the film for me. Related, as disgusting and off-putting as the decompression scene in, it wasn’t as bad as I’d had built up in my mind.

When it comes to the disturbing content, there is one scene that comes to mind, and it’s a scene that I don’t think I’ll ever forget. During some hypothermia testing, a woman is bound with her arms straight out, cold water being poured over them repeatedly. The woman is then brought into a lab and her arms are placed into a vat of warm water (well, 15 degrees Celsius, which is around 59 degrees Fahrenheit). After a few moments, her arms are pulled out of the water, and the skin just sort of sloughs off.

There are a lot of disturbing scenes here – a man has his arms quick-frozen, and then shattered off, people are tied to crosses in a field for some bomb testing, and lose limbs, a baby is buried under some snow, a young boy is harvested for his organs in graphic detail – but that arm scene was among one of the most sickening things I’ve ever seen. I rewatched it for accuracy to write this review, and felt a bit sick to my stomach after having done so.

Gang Wang is the only performance that really matters. Playing a character who is committed firmly to the Japanese army, and who sees the prisoners (or as he calls them, Maruts) as merely ways to improve the efficiency of their army by perfecting biological warfare methods, Wang does well with such a disturbing role. Some of the younger kids and other military generals do fine, but this isn’t a movie where performances are going to matter that much, to be honest.

Like I said, this is far from a conventional horror movie, and in fact, I know some may even find it insensitive to label it as such. It’s no doubt exploitative and certainly, at times, tasteless, and more so, Man Behind the Sun is not at all a fun movie to watch. It’s a movie that will stick with me, but you better know what you’re getting into if you want to give this one a watch.

6/10

Scarecrows (1988)

Directed by William Wesley [Other horror films: Route 666 (2001)]

So I have two things to say about Scarecrows before writing this review out: for one, Scarecrows is perhaps one of my favorite scarecrow horror films, and two, I am highly intoxicated at the moment.

This is the 155th movie I’ve seen in October of 2021, which is when this is being written. It’s been a long month, and I thought I might celebrate with some Jack Daniels whiskey that I had in my freezer for over a year. I don’t drink often, but I thought tonight might make a good occasion, and so I did.

I’ll say that Scarecrows is a decent movie, though it does possess some elements I can’t say I care for that much, such as how the scarecrows can somehow mimic other people that their victims know. It reminds me of the plants in The Ruins that mimicked cell phones – I didn’t mind it too much in The Ruins, but here, it felt sort of strange giving scarecrows some type of psychic power.

Even with that minor complaint in mind, I always appreciated the gore of this film. It’s not an overly gory film, but there are some solid moments, such as a scarecrow cutting a character;s hand off, and then stabbing his face after covering it with a burlap sack. That as perhaps the best scene, but you also someone who had their organs removed and replaced with only straw and money, which was relatively gruesome, along with someone who was stabbed through the hand with a pitchfork.

Only a couple performances really stand out here, being Michael David Simms, Ted Vernon (Zombie Infection and Bikini Swamp Girl Massacre), and Victoria Christian. Truth be told, Christian was somewhat generic, but I really liked Vernon here, as he was someone who actively partook in abducting people, but seemed to have a decent moral compass (as he took time to bury someone, and tried his hardest to help Christian’s character). Michael David Simms over-acted horribly at times, and I absolutely loved it.

Richard Vidan (also in the obscure Zombie Infection) is somewhat like Vernon’s character, only he doesn’t last near as long. Others, such as Kristina Sanborn and B.J. Turner, had their moments, but overall, it’s hard to say they really stood out all that well.

To be honest, Scarecrows isn’t a great movie. I talk a bit in my Scarecrow County review about the sad state of scarecrow horror films, so I won’t repeat it here, but there’s so few decent scarecrow horror films that a movie like Scarecrows, which definitely has some holes in it’s plot, can stand out positively.

And I think that stands true. Dark Night of the Scarecrow is perhaps a better example of the suspense that can be created within the framework of a scarecrow movie, but Scarecrows demonstrates the type of gore that could make the topic one worth exploring with a more serious attitude.

7.5/10

Night of the Demons (1988)

Directed by Kevin Tenney [Other horror films: Witchboard (1986), The Cellar (1988), Witchtrap (1989), Witchboard 2: The Devil’s Doorway (1993), Pinocchio’s Revenge (1996), The Second Arrival (1998), Endangered Species (2002), Brain Dead (2007)]

Night of the Demons has never been a favorite of mine, but it can be a reasonably fun Halloween fair. It’s a bit silly for me at times, especially once the demons start making their presence known, but it has an engaging enough story and fun characters, so it’s not a bad watch.

I always loved the opening here – an animated look into the house featured in the film, with ghosts as curtains and monsters creeping up the stairs. It’s a fun little opening, getting you in the mood for the Halloween season, and I’ve always appreciated it.

Most of the cast are decent in the roles they’re supposed to play. I personally didn’t care much about Billy Gallo (Sal) or Lance Fenton (Jay), but others, such as the lead Cathy Podewell and the lucky Alvin Alexis, were sympathetic. Hal Havins (Sorority Babes in the Slimeball Bowl-O-Rama) was quite quotable, with lines such as “Shut up and drive, bitch!” and “Eat a bowl of fuck!” along with the fascinating exclamation “festering fuckwads!” Certainly a memorable character.

Speaking of memorable, Linnea Quigley’s first scene here is a doozy. It’s a scene that, believe it or not, has stuck with me since I first saw the film, and it’s always fun to watch. Quigley (Return of the Living Dead, Silent Night, Deadly Night, Graduation Day, Nightmare Sisters) isn’t really an actress that I care that much for, but she does have her moments, and I think this movie is one of her stronger roles.

The special effects here are all reasonably impressive. Night of the Demons isn’t a gory movie, generally, though there are some solid scenes, the best one being someone’s eyes having an unfortunate meeting with someone else’s thumbs. There’s also the somewhat bizarre ending, but it’s all in the spirit of Halloween.

And I think that’s perhaps the best thing about Night of the Demons – the Halloween spirit. Early in the film, we see a rather dark cartoon (The Cobweb Hotel from 1936) playing on TV, we have the animated opening, we see some pumpkins, we have costumes. This film has a solid Halloween vibe, and while it’s nowhere near as good as movies like Trick ‘r Treat or, well, Halloween III: Season of the Witch, it’s still not shabby.

Night of the Demons has never been a favorite, and for as much as it can get right, some of the humor toward the latter half of the film doesn’t do it for me. It’s just a bit goofy at times. It’s never overwhelming, but it’s there, and because of that, with as many times as I’ve seen this, I find the movie just around average. Worth watching for the Halloween vibe, though.

7/10

Slugs, muerte viscosa (1988)

Directed by Juan Piquer Simón [Other horror films: Escalofrío (1978), Misterio en la isla de los monstruos (1981), Mil gritos tiene la noche (1982), Los nuevos extraterrestres (1983), The Rift (1990), La mansión de los Cthulhu (1992)]

Slugs, muerte viscosa, commonly shortened to Slugs, is a pretty fun movie. There’s not many mollusk-based movies out there, and this Spanish addition probably does as much as can be done to make the plot palatable, and it’s worth seeing.

This is a movie I’ve heard about for years (though I never knew it was based on a book from 1982 titled Slugs, written by Shaun Hutsun, until I watched this one), and reception tends to be positive, which I can understand. It’s a quick-paced movie, it doesn’t take long at all to get into the slug action, and there’s more than a few enjoyable sequences spread throughout the film.

The finale here, for instance, had a pit of water filled with slugs which, of course, someone unfortunately fell into. A bedroom floor was covered with slugs, which led to some more deaths. A greenhouse blew up – quality explosive sequence, and in fact, there’s a lot of explosions toward the end, and it’s just a lot of fun.

While I wouldn’t call the movie overly gory, there are a few sequences which might be more disturbing, such as a man’s lunch being ruined by some parasites because he accidentally ate a slug. It’s a glorious sequence. The special effects throughout are all quite strong, actually, so Spain definitely came to play when they made this.

Most of the performances aren’t particularly noteworthy, though. Michael Garfield and Philip MacHale were fine, but they didn’t make that large an impression. John Battaglia was amusing at times, and Santiago Álvarez came through at the end, but again, no real lasting impressions. I did think that Kim Terry was a bit weak, but she didn’t appear too often, so that’s not a problem.

Oh, and a character wanted to declare a health emergency, and the reply he got was “You ain’t got the authority to declare ‘Happy Birthday.’ Not in this town.” I laughed quite a lot at that, and there were a few other humorous moments (“And what exactly do you do?”), but a lot of the film is played straight, which you might not necessarily expect from a killer slug movie.

As I always say, if it’s not mollusk, it’s not right, and Slugs is mollusk. It’s not a great movie, but it does have a lot going for it. I personally prefer the wormy goodness of Squirm, but Slugs is a solid movie worth experiencing at least once if you’re a fan of 80’s horror.

7.5/10

Streets of Death (1988)

Directed by Jeff Hathcock [Other horror films: Victims! (1985), Night Ripper! (1986), Fertilize the Blaspheming Bombshell (1992)]

Another of the many SOV horror films churned out in the 1980’s, Streets of Death may be among the most palatable of them. It’s not a half-bad story, and while I still think it’s a little below average, it’s a movie worth seeing if you’re into shot-on-video horror.

The plot is like a mix of Stripped to Kill and The Last House on Dead End Street, with prostitutes being killed by a serial killer for snuff movies, and so there’s a cop who goes undercover as a sex worker in hopes of drawing the killer out. So the plot’s not the most original material, but throw in some fun performances, and I think the film goes down somewhat easily.

For a low budget picture, I didn’t mind most of the performances. Both Guy Ecker and Larry Thomas (Terror on Tour, Night Ripper!, Doctor Spine, and Untitled Horror Comedy) worked great with their somewhat manic, somewhat suave, personalities. I didn’t love portions of Susanne Smith’s story, and how she fell for Lawrence Scott’s (Night Ripper!) character, but she was good. Simon de Soto (Night Ripper!) had some strong moments, and I especially liked his scenes with Tommy Kirk (The Ghost in the Invisible Bikini, ‘It’s Alive!’, and Blood of Ghastly Horror), who had a surprisingly decent character arc.

I was sort of hoping the gore would be better here. We got a few good scenes – a woman was killed by a drill, a few people got stabbed with a knife, and someone got their throat slit – but for the most part, these were all pretty tame. There was someone who had their body dismembered – we do see a dismembered hand for a little – but that’s entirely off screen. The concept is playful, though.

Some of the film was decently amusing, such as a portion when the killer is dumping a body, but has to kill not just one, but two people who happen upon the scene, and another has a prostitute saying one of the more classy lines I’ve heard in a while: “Let’s discuss it over a cocktail. Your cock, and my tail.” I laughed at that.

There is a small area of the film that bothered me. It was partially amusing, to be sure, but it still felt problematic. While going undercover as a prostitute, the officer makes some arrests on those who proposition her (which seems to me like entrapment, but I may be wrong). Now, it’s funny to see an older, naked man (still wearing a hat) being chased down by some cops, but I don’t have a problem with prostitution, and arresting people who are interested in some intimacy just rubs me the wrong way. Legalize prostitution, please, and give sex workers a safer environment, and I’d be a happier guy.

Overall, though, Streets of Death is a much better film than I honestly thought it would be. It was directed by Jeff Hathcock, who directed some other SOV films (though I’ve only seen one, Night Ripper!, which was decent), and I think this was quite good for a SOV entry. It’s not a movie I’d watch often, but I do think it deserves some respect.

6.5/10

Satan Place: A Soap Opera from Hell (1988)

Directed by Scott Aschbrenner [Other horror films: N/A] & Alfred Ramirez [Other horror films: N/A]

A rather low budget anthology horror film, Satan Place: A Soap Opera from Hell is certainly an experience. It’s far from a good movie, but it can be reasonably entertaining, if you’re into SOV horror from the 1980’s.

Of the four stories (‘Disposable Love’, ‘Say Goodnight, Sophie’, ‘Too Much TV’, and ‘Sally Satan’), the most entertaining is either ‘Disposable Love’ or ‘Too Much TV.’ Both have decent special effects (or what passes as decent for a film of this quality), and while the first story may be more quotable (“What the FUCK is for dinner?”), ‘Too Much TV’ has some amusing performances and is a wild story.

Now, to be sure, this isn’t a good movie. The framing story is a bit of a mess, and the conclusion to the sequence, being ‘Sally Satan’, is probably the weakest of the bunch (though it does feature an okay-looking demon). There’s still fun to be had overall – in the third story, both Psycho and Texas Chainsaw Massacre are referenced (the latter from an in-universe short called Missouri Mop Massacre – “You can’t stop him, and he doesn’t do windows”) – but it’s definitely not a movie most people would go into and have a good time with.

For some of the better performances (or perhaps more apt, most amusing), you have Warren Andrews, Hollis Wood, Mark Rackstraw (as classy TV host Dick Slasher), and Lisa Hatter. It’s a campy and low budget movie, so expecting any real great performances might be unrealistic.

The gore isn’t too shabby. It stands out most during the first story, ‘Disposable Love’, a big portion of which is about a husband who accidentally kills his wife, and so chooses to cut up her body and put it down a garbage disposal. There’s okay gore here (such as a zombie-type thing cutting open their stomach and feeding their organs to a poor hombre), especially toward the story’s finale. Also, in ‘Too Much TV’, there’s a decent throat-slitting.

Much like the 1982 film The Toxic Slime Creature, this is a film that popped out of nowhere for me. Until about a month ago (which would be September 2021 – this is being written mid-October 2021), I’d never heard of this. And it’s not great, of course. It is, however, entertaining at times, and though it’s a movie I have a hard time imagining I’ll see again anytime soon, I can’t hate it. I don’t love it, but I can’t hate it.

5.5/10

Amsterdamned (1988)

Directed by Dick Maas [Other horror films: De lift (1983), The Adventures of Young Indiana Jones: Masks of Evil (1999), Down (2001), Sint (2010), Prooi (2016)]

Hailing from the Netherlands, Amsterdamned is a pretty impressive and unique addition to the slasher genre. While the story can occasionally feel plodding (due more to it’s run-time than anything else), there’s a lot in this Dutch movie to enjoy.

A big part for me would be the setting, taking place in, you guessed it, Amsterdam. Now, I will admit that I know very little about the Netherlands, and related, Amsterdam, but I do know that what with all of the canals and unique city design, it definitely stands out, and focusing strongly on that with a serial killer in a diving suit finding victims on the canals – it’s just a great idea, and leads to some very memorable sequences.

Of course, Dick Maas, the director, isn’t new to great ideas – he’s also the one who directed the 1983 classic De lift (The Lift), which is a movie I’ve only seen once, but it stood up just as strongly as this film did. With some fantastic sequences (the speedboat chase scene, for instance, or the underwater struggle one character had with the killer) and great suspense, Maas knew what he was doing when he made this.

As far as downsides go, the fact that this is an hour and 54 minutes is a bit grueling. A lot of it can go pretty quickly, but there are times when things feel a bit bogged down, and while there’s not a lot that seems filler, I can’t say the almost two-hour runtime didn’t hurt. Related – though luckily, not the fault of the film – the copy I saw was dubbed, and I don’t particularly care for dubbed films. That won’t impact my rating, but next time I seek this out, I’ll aim for a subtitled copy, if such exists.

Most of the central performances here were good. I enjoyed Huub Stapel and Wim Zomer’s relationship, and I sort of wish Zomer’s character stuck around longer. Serge-Henri Valcke’s character was great (and quite amusing – when he falls off the speedboat right at the beginning of the chase sequence, that’s what I call good fun), and while Hidde Maas’ character could have been fleshed out a bit more, I still thought he did well. Monique van de Ven did well as the love interest, and she did get some licks in at the end, but for most of the film, out of everyone, she may have been the most lukewarm.

Gore isn’t that important a part to the movie near as much as suspense was, but we do see some decapitation, solid stabbings, and a slit throat. Oh, and that opening, what with the body dragging across the top of a tour boat, was ace. The suspense alone is great, though, and it’s helped that the diving suit the killer wears looks, as the kids say, hella beast. It’s a great design and idea for a killer, and I think they pulled it off well here.

I don’t think Amsterdamned would appeal to everyone, but it’s a nice mix of slashers and crime movies, with a beautifully unique setting. The finale might feel a bit on the generic side, but it’s still a movie I enjoyed both times I saw it, and I’d definitely recommend giving this one a look if you want something a bit different.

8/10

I Saw What You Did (1988)

Directed by Fred Walton [Other horror films: When a Stranger Calls (1979), April Fool’s Day (1986), Trapped (1989), Homewrecker (1992), When a Stranger Calls Back (1993)]

This television movie, a remake of a 1965 William Castle movie of the same name, is surprisingly decent. Television horror films can be a mixed bag, especially outside of the early 70’s, but this one is quite solid, and though maybe the build-up does take a bit of time, I was quite satisfied come the conclusion.

Now, I have seen this one once before, but like other films I’ve seen recently, it’s been a long-ass time. If I had to guess, it’s been at least eight years since I’ve seen I Saw What You Did, but twelve years certainly isn’t out of the question. All of this is to show that while I had some vague recollections of this one, I didn’t know exactly just how enjoyable I’d find this one.

A large part of my enjoyment has to come from the performances, especially those of Shawnee Smith and Tammy Lauren. Smith (The Blob and Saw) was fantastic as the goody two-shoes type, and playing the opposite personality was Lauren (who pops up nine years later to star in Wishmaster), who also does a fantastic job. I really liked the growing relationship between these two, and though I’d have liked a bit more on their friendship at the end, I still dug it. Also, as far as Shawnee Smith is concerned, I loved her facial expressions in this film. When surprised or shocked, her eyes and mouth really sell it, and her expressions alone were enough to crack me up at times.

Playing Smith’s little sister was Candace Cameron (now Candace Cameron Bure), who many might recognize as D.J. from Full House. Now, I’ve never watched Full House, but I guess I caught an episode or something once, because I also thought Cameron looked familiar. She’s a little sister, so she is sometimes annoying, but she’s got some amusing zingers and emotional lines in there.

The antagonist here is played by Robert Carradine, and he does a pretty good job playing a character with undefined mental issues (I think it’s some form of schizophrenia), and I definitely felt for him. Playing his brother was his actual older step-brother David Carradine (of Children of the Corn V: Fields of Terror and Sundown: The Vampire in Retreat fame – oh, and Kill Bill), and he also did well as a concerned brother. I bought their relationship, though the final scene was a little silly.

Quality performances aside, I also felt that the dialogue in the television movie was pretty tight. Dialogue isn’t something I notice all that often (unless there’s a lack of variety, such as Gutterballs), but here, it seemed pretty snappy. I loved the teacher’s pompous statement early in the film (his exact quote being: “You are a distinguished addition to our school, Miss Fielding; however, when you shine you expose the dullness of the rest of the students. Like Gatsby’s sight across the bay, a shrill reminder of our own mediocrity”), and there’s a decent amount of lines that I found quite amusing (such as “I hope you liked it,” and “He had teeth, Julia”). Just made for a funner experience.

Being a TV movie, there’s not much in the way of violence or special effects here. Some of the attacks are decent – the first slow-motion one perhaps more amusing than anything else – but this isn’t the movie to go to for that type of stuff. There was a fire toward the end, but this movie is more the set-up than the action.

Which I can imagine wouldn’t enamor some people, and I couldn’t blame them if they left this one feeling disappointed. For me, though, given I loved the central performances, I can’t really complain about too much here. I’m not saying that this remake is amazing (and to be fair, I’ve not even seen the original Castle version as of yet), but I did really get a kick out of a lot of it, and that’s all that matters to me.

8/10

Al filo del hacha (1988)

Directed by José Ramón Larraz [Other horror films: Whirlpool (1970), Deviation (1971), La muerte incierta (1973), Scream… and Die! (1973), Emma, puertas oscuras (1974), Symptoms (1974), Vampyres (1974), Estigma (1980), La momia nacional (1981), Los ritos sexuales del diablo (1982), Descanse en piezas (1987), Deadly Manor (1990)]

Most commonly known as Edge of the Axe, this Spanish slasher was an interesting movie to revisit. I generally thought it was okay, though I have to admit that I think the finale was a bit on the weak side.

For the most part, I find the story here somewhat strong. I mean, don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing special about it – a mysterious bout of murders is plaguing a small town – but there’s a plethora of suspects and characters, and a decent mystery. Problematically, the conclusion doesn’t use these elements to the best of their ability, but at least the set-up was solid.

Barton Faulks was okay as a central character, and I actually felt his budding relationship with Christina Marie Lane’s character was sort of cute. Fred Holliday as the Sheriff took a little bit to grow on me (especially as he really seems like a dick in the first half of the film), but I ended up enjoying him during his appearances.

I also appreciated most of the potential suspects (not that the Sheriff wasn’t a potential suspect, or Faulks’ character, but these were more ‘appear a few times to arouse suspicion’ types) such as the priest, played by Elmer Modlin, or the random organist Jack Taylor. Joy Blackburn and her relationship with Page Mosely seemed just thrown in there, but both of them were fine. Patty Shepard (who probably has the most experience of the cast) was nice to see.

The kills were honestly just okay. The opening scene in a car-wash was probably the most memorable, but there’s a character later on who gets a few fingers cut off, which may have been one of the better spots of gore in the movie. That said, for being named Edge of the Axe, there’s not a whole lot of violent axing here. Most of the kills were competent, but not really anything that’d come across as too memorable.

Where the movie truly falters, though, would be in the finale. Throughout the film, we’ve been given plenty of different potential suspects who could be the murderer, and when we find out who’s behind the crimes, I have to admit that it just didn’t feel right. I sort of liked the idea of it – I mean, I’ve seen this movie before, but I forgot who the killer was, and I was 100% surprised by the identity – but the execution seemed a bit weak, and it was followed by a conclusion that feels somewhat cliché (at least nowadays; maybe back then, it was fresher).

Despite the weak conclusion, though, I did like a lot of this. It had quality atmosphere, and though the movie definitely takes some missteps, I dug the vibe. It’s not a movie that’s fantastic, nor is it really good, but I liked it well enough, so rating it around average strikes me as fair.

7/10

Cheerleader Camp (1988)

Directed by John Quinn [Other horror films: The Secret Cellar (2003)]

Though certainly a flawed movie in some obvious ways, I found Cheerleader Camp (sometimes known as Bloody Pom Poms) an enjoyable experience, which I think is where this movie excels, though whether that makes up for the failures, well, that’s an interesting question.

The tone of this movie seems all over the place – the opening sequence is a dream, complete with a nice dream-like atmosphere and unique angles. It’s not a particularly silly dream either, but once the character awakens, and we meet the cast, there’s plenty of silly scenes to come. A few other dreams pop up throughout, to be sure, though I think they qualify as more ridiculous than they do atmospheric.

Betsy Russell made for an interesting lead. Russell (who later went on to play Jill Kramer in some of the Saw sequels) doesn’t really have a lot of agency herself, and generally reacts to her nightmares and the horrors surrounding her at camp without fighting back, but hey, she tries. I don’t know Lucinda Dickey (aside from this, she was only in five other films), but I did like her low-key style, and toward the finale, she became even more fun.

Leif Garrett (a singer that apparently my mother listened to in her youth) didn’t make much an impression. He did okay as a dickish character, I guess, but I preferred him in the underrated Peopletoys (better known as Devil Times Five). Lorie Griffin was fun as the sterotypically dumb blonde, Travis McKenna was extremely fun as the likable weighty boi, and George ‘Buck’ Flower (who has appeared in quite a handful of random horror films, such as Skeletons, Spontaneous Combustion, Pumpkinhead, and The Fog) got a bit more screen-time here than he usually does, and I enjoyed it. Lastly, while her character was #awful, Vickie Benson was decent.

I called the conclusion pretty early on (and to be fair, I have seen this movie before, but it had been so long that most of the story and mystery was unfamiliar to be), but it was still an okay surprise, especially since a few red herrings were strewn throughout. On the flipside, the kills here are mostly weak (I think the best one was a pair of scissors stabbed through someone’s mouth), but if you’re having fun already, that may not make too much of a difference.

Personally, I don’t think Cheerleader Camp is great, and I definitely think the movie had potential to be more than what it ended up. That said, I did find Cheerleader Camp a pretty fun movie, and while I do think it ultimately ends up below average, it’s not a movie I’d consider an altogether bad time at all.

6.5/10