Cave Dwellers (1984)

- Ator l'invincibile 2
I never knew Miles O'Keeffe was from Tennessee?, 5 December 2008

Another in the long line of Conan wannabes that tired to cash in on that movie's success, this Italian monstrosity is about as bad as they came. You know it's a bad sign when your heroes fight invisible enemies because the movie was made so cheaply there wasn't money for either adequate special effects or to hire real people. I won't even bother going into the plot as I defy anyone to follow it and make sense of the storyline. Maybe it's the television cut I watched, but I can't imagine any version being that much better. It all seems so random to me. Evil sorcerers, cavemen, giant snakes, medieval castles, grenades, and hang gliding – none of it fits together. It's as if director Joe D'Amato had an epileptic fit while making Cave Dwellers (or any of the other half-dozen names the movie goes by) and threw everything he could think of onto the screen regardless of how unrelated it was or how it fit into the film's already puzzling plot. The acting is sufficiently bad. Miles O'Keeffe could never act his way out of a wet paper bag and he proves that once again in this movie. The rest of the cast is equally atrocious. Then there's the . . . well, you get the idea. It's late, I'm tired, and I've already wasted more than enough time writing about this piece of garbage. Take my word for it – avoid Cave Dwellers (or whatever you want to call it) at all costs.

2/10

Devil Fish (1984)

- Shark: Rosso nell'oceano
"You filthy rotten bloody shark", 29 November 2008

I wish I had something more positive to say about Devil Fish, but I honestly can't seem to come up with much. I can't even come up with many of those "so bad, it's good" kind of moments. Devil Fish is just plain old bad. The plot is completely derivative (Jaws, anyone?), the acting is wooden, the characters are uninteresting, the special effects are beyond bad, and the score is annoying. Add to that the seemingly inept direction of Lamberto Bava and you've got one stinker of a movie. I think, however, that the film's biggest sin is its lack of a budget. It doesn't appear that Bava had much to work with. By 1984, the Italian film industry was in full decline – especially as far as genre films go. The funding available to Bava was most probably very meager. Film's like Devil Fish that rely on special effects just never had a chance to be good. It's not the only Italian film to suffer this fate. There are a number of Italian movies made in the mid-80s whose ideas and concepts far exceeded what anyone could realistically have expected given their budgetary limitations.

However, having said all that and noting the film's many weaknesses, I can't bring myself to rate Devil Fish lower than a 3/10. I've even considered rating it higher but can't because I realize how bad a movie it is. Why don't I rate it lower? Well that's hard to explain. Despite the many problems found in the movie, there's something about Devil Fish that I inexplicably enjoy. It could be as simple as my love for low-budget, cheesy, Italian movies. Maybe my taste in movies is horribly skewed, but I enjoy what I enjoy.

The Mystery Science Theater 3000 treatment of Devil Fish is actually very enjoyable. I rate Devil Fish a 4/5 on my MST3K rating scale. The guys do a fine job of poking fun at the movie's many flaws. One very astute observation comes very early in the commentary when Tom Servo notes, "Just because you can edit, doesn't mean you should" – highlighting yet another of the many weaknesses to be found in Devil Fish.

3/10

Murder Rock (1984)

- Murderock - uccide a passo di danza
"You've got to grit your teeth and dance, even when a friend dies.", 20 July 2006

For those Lucio Fulci fans who only know him for his films like Zombi 2 or The New York Ripper, I can easily see how Murder Rock could come as something of a shock and disappointment. It has more in common with his film One on Top of the Other than it does the throat-gashing, chest-ripping, eye-gouging films Fulci is famous for. Murder Rock is virtually bloodless. It's odd that during the early to mid-80s, which are arguably Fulci's most violent and lurid period as a filmmaker, he reverted to a relatively tame film like Murder Rock.

That's not to say Murder Rock isn't enjoyable. There are enough Giallo elements in the plot involving a series of murders at a New York arts academy that I was reasonably entertained throughout. Murder Rock plays it straight and doesn't bring up some vital piece of information or suspect in the last minute that can sometimes make these films frustrating. However, and I realize that I may sound like I'm trying to have my cake and eat it too, but it's this straightforward approach that is also the film's biggest weakness. It was far too easy for me to spot "who done it". There are red herrings, but all of them are easily dismissed. I kept waiting for a plot twist that never materialized.

One area where Murder Rock excels is in its look. Fulci created a highly stylized world to set this Giallo. There are some interesting camera angles down corridors and through doorways that add a lot of suspense to the film. I was at first put-off by the lighting Fulci used in much of Murder Rock. I began to wonder if all of New York was lit by a slow pulsing strobe. But then I realized how effective this lighting was to Fulci telling his story. A lot can happen in the total darkness between the blinding flashes of light. Technically, I would rate Murder Rock as one of Fulci's best films.

Finally, a lot of the reviews I've read on Murder Rock tend to over-focus on the soundtrack. Sure, it's cheesy, outdated, and, at times, inappropriate. I won't deny that. At one point in the movie, I half expected to see Irene Cara pop up to do a song or two. But you've got to consider the timeframe this movie was made. Fame and Flashdance were very popular and Fulci was trying to cash-in on their success. And in that light, I think he was somewhat successful. Keith Emerson's score is a reasonable representation of the music used in movies of this type in the early 80s. Like it or not, it fits the film. I really wouldn't want to change any of it.

6/10

Poison for the Fairies (1984)

- Veneno para las hadas
I don't know when I've ever disagreed more with an IMDb rating, 20 June 2006

As I sit and think about Poison for the Fairies, I realize that I may not being fair with the film. My rating of 3/10 may have more to do with my disappointment with the film than its actual quality or entertainment value. Based on the plot description, reviews on IMDb, and the 7.6 IMDb rating, I would sure that I had stumbled on a little known gem. Sadly, it just didn't do much for me. For whatever reason, Poison for the Fairies all but put me to sleep.

Poison for the Fairies is the story of two young girls in 1965 Mexico City. One of the girls, Veronica, is a compulsive liar and tells her friend that she, Veronica, is a witch. The other girl, Flavia, is so gullible that she believes and is frightened by everything her friend tells her. That's really about it. In reality, nothing much happens and the film drags on and on as Veronica attempts to terrorize and dominate Flavia. One commenter on IMDb described it as "the scariest film in 80's Mexican cinema". My comment – if that's the case, there must not have been many horror films made in Mexico in the 80s. Another commenter wrote, "Watch it if you wanna get scared." My comment – are you sure we're talking about the same movie? My opinion is diametrically opposed to these examples I've given. To me, it was dull, uninspired, and poorly acted. The scene framing is especially annoying as director Carlos Enrique Taboada doesn't ever show the faces of any of the other characters. Veronica and Flavia carry-on long, drawn-out conversations with members of their families and their teacher, but we never actually see these peoples' faces. It's an annoying gimmick.

3/10

Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter (1984)

"Jason's body has disappeared from the morgue.", 14 May 2006

I know there are fans out there that feel the fourth installment in the Friday the 13th series is the best. I don't happen to agree. While the first three movies weren't necessarily groundbreaking in their innovation, there were moments in each that we had not seen before – at least in a Friday the 13th movie. By the time Paramount rolled out Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter in 1984, the 80s slasher-boom was in full swing. It was all but impossible to do anything new. Chapter 4 is one big cliché of the slasher genre and a rehash of everything that came before. This one follows the standard formula to a T - A group of idiotic kids go to the woods and for the first 2/3 of the film, we watch them behave like complete morons. Suddenly, and with very little build-up or suspense, Jason shows up and kills everyone in sight. In the end, the one person who seems most incapable of doing so "kills" Jason. The End. I think I wrote something just like this for the other Friday the 13th movies I've written about.

So far, all I've done is blast Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter. To be fair, it's actually not that bad as far as these films go. Most of the credit for this should go to Tom Savini. His special effects are top notch and worth the price of admission. One of my favorite kill scenes in the movie occurs early on with the hospital attendant in the morgue. That head snap is nicely done.

6/10

Frankenstein (1984) (TV)

Warner makes a good monster, 4 February 2005

Frankenstein (1984) is yet another of the seemingly endless versions of the Frankenstein story. This one was apparently made for British television. The director, James Ormerod, has put together a nice little movie given the obvious limitations to his budget.

I won't go into the basic story as most already know it by heart.

The cast is good. The movie stars Carrie Fisher, Robert Powell, and David Warner. Although listed as the 'star', Fisher's role of Elizabeth has little screen time. She is, however, good when on screen. As for Powell, other than looking like a 1970s porn star, his portrayal of Dr. Victor Frankenstein is also good. But, the real star is David Warner as the monster. His portrayal of the monster is one of the better I've seen. In a very believable performance, Warner plays the monster as a very sympathetic creature. For example, I really felt the monster's pain when his only friend is killed. I would easily rate it as on of the top three performances of Frankenstein's monster I've seen. Of note in the supporting cast is John Gielgud as the blind hermit.

The make-up is also good given the budget. Instead of the scars and neck bolts we're all familiar with, this creature looks more like a burn victim. It's understandable given the high temperatures generated from the electricity that brought the monster to life.

While not the best Frankenstein I've ever seen, the movie held my attention throughout. At the start of the movie, I was ready to hate it, but ended up having a great time watching the story unfold. Warner's monster was a treat.

6/10