Go ahead and spoil it for me; that's the only way I'll be able to seek it out and compare it with this one. It won't spoil it anyway since that element isn't what determines whether or not I like a movie.
The superlative 2009 remake of "My Bloody Valentine" included the "it was all in his mind" concept but, in contrast to this film and "American Psycho," he actually slays everyone while experiencing his delusions. (I have yet to catch the original 1981 version, which I heard wasn't as good as the remake).
scenes like the zit, kinda just pushed it too far over the top.
I feel the same way, generally speaking, since I prefer realism and seriousness, but in this case the movie is depicting Courtney's delusions, which changes everything. If what the viewer is seeing is the creative misconceptions of a character's mind then nothing is really over-the-top since they're delusions
and not actual reality. This is how the Elm Street flicks got away with all those imaginative nightmare sequences.
But I can understand preferring to see reality as opposed to illusions or overdone non-horror, which is the very reason I can't stand "The Serpent and the Rainbow" (1988) where there are so many dream/hallucination/over-the-top sequences that they become tedious. Director Wes Craven obviously included them to up the ante with horror props and – hopefully – jolt the audience, but they failed because, after a while, you suspect that what's going on isn't really happening and it's hard to be scared by illusions.
I suppose this very argument could be used against "Slumber Party Massacre II," but (1.) in the last act the viewer is not certain that what's happening ISN'T reality until the very end; and (2.) the story & characters are actually interesting/entertaining, unlike in "Serpent" (for me at least).
I haven't seen the third "Slumber Party Massacre" yet, but I plan to when I come across it.
The third one is more like the first one and very forgettable in my opinion. I think I've seen in twice since I came out, and I really couldn't tell you anything about it. I don't remember it being awful, just nothing special.
Just out of curiosity, when did you first watch SPM II?
Last Saturday night.
Perhaps timing had something to do with it for me. I saw it in about 88, and it really didn't feel that different from other movies at the time.
there was one where no one died that came out 2 years before
Do you mean "April Fool's Day"
and "Slaughter High,"
both of which came out the year before "Slumber Party Massacre II"?
***SPOILER*** (for anyone who may not want to read further)
At the end of "Slaughter High" the "killer" -- the nerd, Marty -- wakes up in the hospital having been unconscious since the prank accident; his revenge on his fellow classmates at the dilapidated school turns out to be just a dream.
The difference is that in "Slaughter High" the slayings start almost immediately once the youths are stuck in the defunct building even though it all turns out to be just a dream. Plus the cast, story and production values aren't as good as "Slumber Party Massacre II," not that the latter is a great slasher by any means, but it's entertaining and ballsy.
Meanwhile the badly-paced "April Fool's Day" came out in early 1986 and was the first to implement this interesting slasher twist, i.e. no one actually dying. But "Slumber Party Massacre II" is all-around more entertaining, better paced and has a superior female cast, although "April Fool's Day" gets points for an outstanding location -- a mansion on a remote island in the Great Northwest -- and the revolutionary twist.