to Horror High (1987)
from Tuna and Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)
Tuna's comments in white:
Return to Horror High (1987) is
probably intended as a comedy parody of teen slasher films, but is too
bad to work on even that level. As the film opens, we are led to
believe that a movie crew has been slaughtered filming the story of a
massacre that occurred in the same High School years before.
|Then we spend a confusing
95 minutes switching between flashbacks of the original crime, making
of the film, the film being filmed, and the present investigation.
Most of what we learn ends up not being true. I see my share of films,
and have some skill in following them, and this one had me
wondering which time period we were seeing about half of the time.
|There was some nudity,
including a couple of unknowns, and Breasts from Darcy De Moss
and Joy Heston.
|Scoopy's comments in
I agree completely.
It goes off on tangents which may be part of the film they are making,
or the present, or the past. The tangents are not only
confusing, but very long - long enough to make you forget the
rest of the story. Amazingly garbled movie. Tries to be funny, tries
to be scary. Fails miserably at whatever it attempts.
film-within-this-film is about a series of unsolved murders, and it is
being filmed in the same place where the murders occurred. Remember,
the killer was never found. Tell you anything? I know it sounds a lot
like the Scream films, but it just isn't worth your time.
||I enjoyed seeing a
very young George Clooney (above) as the first victim in the
"present", and I enjoyed the first five minutes, in which
Alex Rocco was pretty much the only main character - a sleazy,
insincere, penny-pinching producer. After those first five minutes, it
was as bad as a movie can be. Look for many washed-up TV actors in
various parts. My favorite was Vince Edwards. I suppose this marked
the only film in which famous TV doctors Clooney and Edwards worked
together, given that Clooney ruled the virtual hospitals in the late
90's, and Edwards in the early 60's.
guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of
excellence, about like three and a half stars
from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm
watchability, about like two and a half stars
from the critics. The fives are generally not
worthwhile unless they are really your kind of
material, about like two stars from the critics.
Films under five are generally awful even if you
like that kind of film, equivalent to about one
and a half stars from the critics or less,
depending on just how far below five the rating
guideline: A means the movie is so good it
will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not
good enough to win you over if you hate the
genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an
open mind about this type of film. C means it will only
appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover
appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you
like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if
you love the genre. F means that the film is not only
unappealing across-the-board, but technically
inept as well.
Based on this
description, this film is a well-deserved F. (Scoopy adds: I
echo that. Completely incomprehensible after a fairly good
first five minutes.)
the Movie House home page