ViewGuide

Created May 08, 2008 11:01AM PST • Edited May 08, 2008 11:01AM PST

1. Quality

2. Summary

   Good 3.0

   Anyone who finds themselves a particular fan of horror and more so Wes Craven, will find this film quite good. But in saying that, there seems to be no other reason to give it a higher score as the overall atmosphere and story presented in this 1972 horror shocker, is one of those rare films where the actual plot and horrifying scenes make you not want to like it.

4. Acting

   Good 3.0

   Despite the immorality that predominates this film, in order for it to be genuinely perceived as having a filmic purpose, the acting needs to be good. And the mix of terrified and shocked parents, brutal and sadistic killers and rebellious yet innocent victimized girls provides some surprising performances.

5. Male Stars Good 3.0

   David Hess and Fred J. Lincoln provide the main male performances. They take on the brutality of the film with great conviction. You actually finish watching this film thinking if you ever saw them on the street you would be terrified. Any downfall in performance was dialogue based, but let’s just say it was some perfect casting. However, although they were good, the main female teens provided the best.

6. Female Stars Very Good 3.5

   Mari Collingwood and Phyllis Stone are the two characters that try to sneak out to a metal rock concert and try to score marijuana and end up in the clutches of a maniacle “Family” if you will. And Sandra Cassel (Mari) and Lucy Gratham (Phyllis), lend us a great acting performance especially in scenes of the film that one would have thought too grotesque to be thought of considering 1972 and the age of it’s censorship laws. These two girls took the helm in acting abilites during this horror flick.

7. Female Costars Very Good 3.5

   The film was not only a shocker for its far less than sugar coated story, but the fact that a large amount of reality seeped into it. Part of this “family” was dominated by an insane female played by Jeramie Rain, her character name – Sadie (which seems perfectly fitting!). She is just as excited and perverse as the male characters, if not missing more cards from her full deck and speaking with a lash of vulgarity. And in the age of serial killers, women were beginning to pop up as some of the most deviant with or without partners in crime, linking this movie more and more to an ambiguous world. The only other female co-star was the mother, Mrs Collingwood but her performance was lacklustre at best. (Cynthia Carr)

8. Male Costars Good 3.0

   One of the male trio of rapists and murderers was Junior Stillo, (Marc Sheffler), who provided that sense of innocence, however not the same as the victims. He was in toe with the others and even led the girls into being snatched, but at the same time doesn’t want to be doing it. Fact is, the dominant male played by David Hess, weaned him into submission with cocaine and any other drug going, since he was a little boy. The performance given bu Sheffler, isn’t the best, but definitely gets the point across and gives the story a tangent to work with.

10. Film

    OK 2.5

    Quality of the overall film is poor. Again given the year as 1972, it does its best however even the cleared up special edition is hard to watch too much!

11. Direction Good 3.0

    Direction is good, Wes Craven has proven himself a master in horror over the years and although this film was one of his first in a long line, he manages to pull back the overall film into a tight niche of horror rather than letting the outrageous storyline dominate and go over the top with actors and scenes. In saying that however, there is not a lot left to the imagination of the audience which has proven a better trick in recent years.

12. Play Pretty Bad 1.5

    Not great really. Its the case of “omit needless words”. Parts of the film would’ve had more impact without silly lines or remarks running through it. And for the most part, the things that were said weren’t punchy, or witty or any of those particular aspects that make lines readable and audible.

13. Music OK 2.5

    It was okay, relative in some part to the shocker scenes however slightly unnecessary in others!

14. Visuals Good 3.0

    A lot of the brutal scenes take place in the woods and for visual sake works out quite well. For the type of film it turns out to be, it may have been better to show less from a blunt and horrific point of view.

15. Content

16. Edge

    Horrid 3.7

    It is definitely crude. From dialogue and visual points of view. The two girls getting raped not only by the men but the woman aswell, the likes of killing with a chainsaw and using teeth to dismember parts of the body. Overall, not one for the kids!

17. Sex Lewd 4.0

    Of course it is deemed lude in this film, any film that deals with rape to the extent where it is not only discussed or we know it takes place, but we are shown the scenes where it happens, then it can’t really be seen as anything different from a blunt, realistic point of view.

18. Violence Brutal 3.2

    Very brutal, from beginning to end, in fact right from the beginning, to the very end!

19. Rudeness Nasty 3.9

    The dialogue is probably the most rude out of anything, watch out for Sadie, and if you pick up the special edition, read parts of the script that were supposed to be said but got the cut in the end. (Again, keep the kids away!)

21. Reality

    Surreal 2.7

    The film does seem slightly surreal, despite its tendencies to reach out into reality. Yes, rape happens in real life but to the extent we are shown here, you finish the film slightly believing that this sort of thing musn’t really happen. The age old comfort of “It’s only a movie, it’s only a movie…” which funnily enough is the film’s tagline.

22. Circumstantial Surreal 2.7

23. Biological Surreal 2.7

24. Physical Surreal 2.7