Slumber Party Massacre III

This movie seemed like a completely separate film. I don't why, it just feels like it. Well, It's still a good slasher though! You have 6 beautiful women running around in their underwear with no way of protecting themselves. What more could you want? The killer turned out to be predictable. But I guess it's because I've seen too many slashers. This one had more T&A than the other two. Although I'm not complaining. It's still a good movie. 6 out of 10.

My review was written in December 1990 after watching the movie on Concorde video cassette.

Third entry in this slasher film series eschews the role reversal aspects of Amy Jones' superior 1982 original to focus repetitively on a driller killer. Pic has played theatrically since September.

Debuting helmer Sally Mattison proves once again one doesn't have to be male to execute a sexist horror movie. Byu the final reel, when five full-bodied females are scurrying helplessly as the man wielding the phallic drill skewers them, even diehard genre fans will be groaning in dismay.

Poorly scripted by producer Catherine Cyrus, pic has almost no subtext to divert one's attention. After a beach volleyball intro, six young women (several played by older actresses) go to Keely Christian's house for a slumber party while her parents are away. Amon the boy and men who arrive to pester them, killer Ken (Brittain Frye) is a handsome nutcase with a drill, apparently deranged due to child abuse at the hands of his cop uncle.

Except for t&a interludes in which Maria Ford and voluptuous Lulu Wilson (or perhaps her body double)strip for the other girls and camera, pic consists of the women running around the house being killed. Gore is plentiful but unimaginative.

Worse yet, drill-as-phallus image dating back to the original's infamous 1982 poster is overemphasized: Ken is impotent but has his handy drill.

Christian does her best with the inevitable worm-turns central role but the rest of the cast is wasted. Technical support is meager.

This is a great example of why you should always try to hire fans. Watching behind the scenes interviews, it's clear that the director didn't really want to be apart of this, leading to a bland and uninspiring film.

I first saw this in the early 90s on a vhs.

Revisited it recently.

This is the third and final installment in the series. It is better than part 2.

This one has dumb fellas who wanna close a glass window of the basement so that a killer doesn't enter. Why cudnt they jus close the door of the basement which connects the house.

It has a lil bit gore n nudity but absolutely no tension or suspense.

There is lousy scene where one girl keeps the killer busy, two other girls rather than taking advantage, stays in one corner just to scream later. They cud have run away or attack the killer.

So the conclusion is that part 1 is way much better than part 2 n 3.

Slumber Party Massacre III's gravest sin is that it lacks what made the first two special. It doesn't even attempt at subverting the conventions of what it is (the first one started as a satire and got trashier in production but stuck to enough of its original intent to be unique) or be really out-there in its badness (the second one, which may be one of the most entertaining rockabilly slasher neo- surrealist movies of 1987). All this is is exactly what you might expect, and yet it only puts in the minimal amount of effort possible in its run- time (ironically the longest of these movies).

Corman sold out with this one - not surprising he would do this of course, but at least this series, all helmed by women, had some teeth and, you know, *ideas* - and either didn't allow the filmmakers to get more creative or never hired anyone good in the first place. Its just a dumb, tired slasher with a final 20 minutes filled with such dumb and *mean* stuff (why do the girls stand by while that one kill happens that could have been stopped in the five real time minute lead up?)

It's only for genre completists, or those who might dig watching what is in effect everything that made Scream necessary, from its "twist" third act reveal (think you know who the killer is? F*** off, like I should care) to the inane conversations the characters have are meant to make them sound like real people and not types; its not really fun enough to be a guilty pleasure or something to put on at a party (like, again, the second one was), and its 350 grand budget feels as cheap as that sounds. Its also not a total crime or offensive (hey, it could be worse - imagine Eli Roth putting his taint all over this), but you could be doing better things with your time.