Scream

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

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

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!

Scream (1981)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

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

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

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

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

Let'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

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

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

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

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

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