MovieChat Forums > Slumber Party Massacre II (1987) Discussion > Why does everyone take this film at face...

Why does everyone take this film at face value?


You know, I had heard so many bad things about this film going in, but I actually found it incredibly fascinating, if obviously flawed in some respects (pacing is a big one). It strikes me as a pretty obvious parody of both 1980s horror films, particularly the supernatural slasher that Nightmare on Elm St. popularized, as well as male sexual potency in American pop culture. I mean, come on - a greaser singing rockabilly songs and playing metal solos on a giant guitar-drill? That's so utterly brilliant that I can't believe people are missing what's going on with it. It's pretty much a continuation of the themes the first Slumber Party Massacre worked with; notice that near the end the camera's viewpoint is from the perspective of a victim rather than the killer like in most other slasher films - it's completely deconstructing the genre.


"If you knew how I felt now, you wouldn't act so adult now." - The Replacements

reply

People are seriously missing out, this is honestly one of the funniest and most entertaining movies i have ever seen.

reply

Re spartanpass' comments
It's always nice to see when someone in the audience totally "gets it."
It's a purposely deconstructed, very black parody of the whole 80's slasher flick phenomenon.

reply

I just discovered this movie a few days ago....where has gold like this been my whole life!

You ask why, I say because just buzz

"My mind is a machine gun, my body is the bullets and the audience...is the target." - GG Allin

reply

Agreed, truly a great movie.

reply

I loved it. I loved it so much that I paid $39 for a copy on DVD. It's such a ridiculous movie yet it's very entertaining. If people go into this movie all serious, they're going to hate it.

http://www.maniaccopfans.com
http://commandofans85.proboards45.com/

reply

Notti, that you? (GOT here in case you wonder)

Honestly, Ijust rewatched it for the first time in half a decade, and I did like it quit e abit more than I remember. I think it's main flaw is that the story is just so.... I dunno. I'm still having trouble figuring what the hell was going on, if the guy was real, why he was suddenly real that time, what happened at the end.... it's just wierd.

reply

Yeah, if you take it straightforward, it's pretty bad. It's ultra low-budget and mega cheesy, but kind of interesting, if you view it metaphorically.

reply

I don’t think most of the viewers missed the more than obvious fact that this film was a parody of horror films – as were many other horror films of that period, including The Return of the Living Dead, the Night of the Demons series, etc. That the film was a parody, however, does not in itself make it a good film. I regret to say that in this regard, those IMDb users that gave an average rating of just over 3 points might have been more perceptive than some of the posters in this thread.

The film was poorly scripted and the characters were poorly acted too. Until the killer came out – which meant all but the last 20 minutes or so – you simply see Courtney having one dream or hallucination after another. All these have been done in numerous horror films – and much more effectively. Also, those scenes gave away rather early the fact that (regardless whether there was a real killer or not) Courtney was clearly nuts.

The Elvis lookalike with the guitar-drill was fun for a while, but it got tiresome soon when we see him chasing his victims for some fifteen minutes and all the while singing rock maniacally.

reply

Agree with everything you say. I love cheesy movies, but this one just bored me. I did like the killer though. He was the best part of the movie.

Poorly Lived and Poorly Died, Poorly Buried and No One Cried

reply