Parásito

I saw this movie in the theater and still have the funny little 3-D glasses with the creature's face printed on them that came with the movie. Maybe that gives me a soft spot for the film, which was totally forgettable in almost every other way. I have written in my 1982 notes to avoid the 3-D version unless you like double vision - so maybe those stupid glasses weren't very good. Poor editing made the movie a bit hard to follow - not that it really has anything worth following, though. The most notable thing about the film is the queasy feeling that you got from the monsters, which gave me the creeps in the same way that I get when I see leaches. I suppose that means that the movie did at least something right. I rated it a "5".

Good times, you'll think. One of my friends lent the DVD to me and expressed they didn't understand the hate towards the film. I've had my chances to grab it, but the not-so-flattering comments left me to pass it up, but after hearing it wasn't that bad (and I seem to share the same thoughts about particular horror films with this friend). I dived right in to it. As it stands it wasn't great, but nonetheless it was entertainingly simple b-grade fun in a post-apocalyptic backdrop.

Charles Brand in only his third feature paves the way for outrageously ham-fisted splatter effects and make-up artist Stan Winston formulates a nasty, icky looking slug-like parasite with a mean looking grin. The criticism against his design is unfair… sure it isn't first-rate but with budget associated (as this is truly low-rent feature produced by Embassy Pictures) it's an acceptable effort. Trying to be different around that time was adding a new gimmick that it would be in 3D for movie-going audiences. Sadly the DVD doesn't come with the 3D version. Anyhow it didn't destroy the mood in any way. What can really hurt it though, was that the script is slipshod and it never truly gets in any sort of groove and comes up being a little too sparse and repetitive in its actions. The atmosphere remains non-existent and tension doesn't come by easily, but Brand (unintentional or not) engraves a grimy edge to it all (with Mac Ahlberg's well-executed panning of the camera) and throws about some graphic diversions. It's hard to forget Broadway siren Vivian Blaine's encounter with a parasite and some slow-motion passages are rather funny. Richard Band's shivering score feels like it's on a loop, but seems to suit it.

There are earnest performances from the likes of Robert Glaudini, Luca Bercovici, Al Fann, James Davidson, Cherrie Currie and a quick show-in by Cheryl Smith. Demi Moore in her first on-screen role doesn't make much of a dent, but it's far from awful.

In the end it's immensely forgettable, but lately watching these modern (and sometimes leaden) Sci-fi original TV features is making me appreciate this schlock far more.

No, this is not a very good movie at all. However, I saw it when it was first released in 1982 in 3D, and not once since then, and I still remember some creepy scenes. The big gross-out in the movie -- when the dripping parasite falls down on you from the ceiling in 3D!! -- had me squirming in my seat in 1982.

I saw a number of films during the short-lived 3D revival of the early '80's, and, believe me, there were very few kick-ass uses of the 3D effect anywhere, but Parasite had one of the better ones. (Most of the other good 3D moments are in House of Wax with Vincent Price. Even Hitchcock couldn't figure out what to do with the gimmick.)

By the way, in 1982 no one had ever heard of Demi Moore. Did we predict big things for her after seeing her in this? Yeah, right.

Problem with this movie is that it's being a quite boring one to watch. It picks a totally serious approach, while the story is just far from interesting or well written. There is hardly anything spectacular happening in it and as a science-fiction/horror or post-apocalyptic movie, it's a severely lacking one.

It's funny how this movie is supposed to be a post-apocalyptic movie. Once the movie starts off there is nothing to indicate that this movie is supposed to be set in a near future, in which the entire world has supposedly gone to waste, due to some kind of atomic war, presumably. But the movie simply looks like an 1982 movie set in 1982. There are only some lasers featured in it, to indicate that this movie is not being set at present time.

But to be frank, there are far more movies like that out there, that are still not being half as bad as this one though. Problem really is that this movie takes itself far too serious and tries to be more of a realistic movie, though the story has absolutely nothing clever or original in it to justify this approach. The movie really doesn't work out too well because of this. It instead makes this movie work out as a boring one, also since it doesn't have any redeeming characters or some fun or good tense horror-like moments in it.

It's actually quite amazing how bland and totally uninteresting the movie its story is, while its concept itself doesn't sound that bad at all. Seriously, this is all they could come up with? I'm surprised that a person green-lighted this project at the first place.

The characters absolutely don't work out at all, also due to its poorly and unimaginative written story. The actors also come across as bad ones because of this, since the movie features some real poor dialog as well. Doubtful that this is a movie Demi Moore is still very proud off. This movie was one of the very first ones she ever appeared in and to be honest, she was absolutely horrible in this, which is, as I said, more due to the writing and perhaps directing as well, than her actual acting skills.

But to name a good thing about this movie; it has some quite confusing looking effects and special effects make-up. No big surprise though, once you see that Stan Winston's name is attached to this.

This movie is too much of a bore and there is no reason to recommend it to anyone.

4/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

My review was written in March 1982 after a TImes Square screening:

"Parasite" is a low-budget monster film which utilizes the 3-D process to amplify its shock effects. Outlook is okay to attract fans of horror pics and depth films.

Set in 1992, tale has a skimpy sci-fi peg, of scientist Dr. Paul Dean (Robert Glaudini) attempting to neutralize a strain of parasite he has developed for the government. Morbid premise (accounting perhaps for Glaudini's glum, almost laughably downbeat line readings) is that the large, worm-like parasite is in his abdomen growing while he studies another specimen, racing to somehow avert his own death and save the world from millions of offspring.

Post-nuclear war locale is a remote, western town, with fashions resembling today but gas up to $40 per gallon. Filmmaker Charles Band is weak on transitions and story development, ending many scenes arbitrarily with a fast fade. Nominal tension is generated by merchant (industrial class controlling society) James Davidson pursuing the hero while both use futuristic laser guns to deal with the young punk locals.

Pic's raison d'etre is a set of frightening mechanical and sculpted monster makeup effects by Oscar-nominated (for "Heartbeeps") Stan Winston, aided by James Kagel and Lance Anderson. Convincing gore and sudden plunges at the camera are enhanced by StereoVision 3-D filming, with cameraman Mac Ahlberg creating some interesting foreground-dominated compositions among the standard shots. Otherwise "Parasite" is lethargic between its terror scenes, making it a test of patience for all but the fanatical followers of horror cheapies.