Satan's Blade

Thanks to the enormous success of rudimentary teen slasher flicks like "Friday the 13th", and low-budget gore movies like "The Evil Dead", many horror-crazed amateurs during the first half of the 1980s thought it was also their true calling to become directors. This resulted in several titles written, directed, edited, and produced by one single person. Mostly, though, that one movie remained their sole effort. This review is a tribute to all those "one-hit-wonder" horror directors.

In fact, "wonder" is a wrong term to use, since practically all the titles I'll mention are terribly bad and poorly accomplished movies. Still, though, they are great fun. The one-hitters I spontaneously think of are Joe Giannone's "Madman" (1981), Buddy Cooper's "The Mutilator", Fabrice-Ange Zaphiratos "Blood Beat" (1983), Skip Schoolnik's "Hide and Go Shriek" (1988), and - of course - our mean feature for today, L. Scott Castillo Jr. And his 1984 masterwork "Satan's Blade".

L. Scott Castillo Jr. Didn't necessarily have any bright or innovative ideas, nor did he have any money, but he assumed it was his duty to make a slasher movie anyway. And believe it or not, but the first ten minutes are even quite enjoyable. Two female bank robbers run off with their loot (after gratuitously killing a few bank employees) to a cabin resort in the snowy mountains. They strip off their clothes, obviously, but don't live very long after that. The next day, while the local-yokel police officers are still cleaning up the bloody mess, two groups of tourists arrive at the same holiday resort. My favorite part of the entire film is how, after hearing the bloody details of the murders that occurred the previous night and a disturbing local legend, both groups still carelessly (and unanimously) indicate they want to stay.

It's mainly pointless padding footage after that. One of the males receives the opportunity to cheat on his wife with a woman ten times more beautiful, but he resists. The men drink. The single women strip. The married women complain. 40% of "Satan's Blade" is composed of footage of people randomly walking through the snowy landscape whilst wannabe ominous piano music is playing. Suddenly, the assailant from the opening sequences returns and eliminates everybody quite quickly with a blade. Is he a supernatural creature, like hinted at by the elderly resort owner's mother, or an ordinary flesh & blood killer?

Yes, it's one of the most pitiable slasher movies of the decade, but I have a weakness for this film (and other sole-effort-slashers of the aforementioned directors) and enjoyed the amateurism and pointlessness a lot!

A pair of female bank robbers make off with $50,000 after they kill two bank tellers in cold blood. They lay low at a snowy mountain cabin while waiting to rendezvous with their partner, George. As they wait, one of the robbers gets greedy and shoots the other. She plans to do the same to George when he arrives, but she doesn't get the chance, as she's stabbed in the back by an unseen assailant while dragging her ex-partner's body. The next day, two married couples and a group of college girls show up to a mountain ski resort. As it turns out, the cabin where the criminals hid out is part of the resort. Despite being told of the murders and a local legend about a murderous mountain man who comes from the bottom of a nearby lake, the college girls decide to take the cabin, which is right next door to where the married couples are staying. As the two groups settle in, it isn't long before the unseen assailant returns to continue his killing spree. Is it the mountain man from the legend or just someone who has taken the tale a little too far?

This incredibly low budget slasher is rarely talked about. Perhaps there's a reason for that, be it the film's obscurity or the general consensus that it's a rotten entry into the genre. Personally, I really enjoyed it as a cheesy treat when I first got the tape a few years back. I was admittedly a little bored with it on my second go around, but I still had a fun time with it for the most part. The director just threw in too many scenes of people walking or driving as the synth score plays in the background. These bits make the film seem a tad longer than it is, which perhaps was the intention since there clearly wasn't a lot of money to work with. I would certainly be surprised if the rumored million dollar budget were true. The resort seems deserted except for the two main groups, and we never get to see any skiing or ski slopes for that matter. We also get a lot of blood without wounds and, in one case, blood on the wall behind a girl before she's shot to begin with.

That said, "Satan's Blade" has it's charms. There is an eerie vibe throughout, enhanced by the aforementioned synth score and a surprisingly unsettling dream sequence midway through. In fact, I would say that the limited locations used actually enhance the mood as well. If we had seen an active resort or a bunch of ski slope high jinks, I don't think the film would come off as effectively downbeat as it does. I think even the lack of gore effects works in the film's favor, as it appears that director L. Scott Castillo, Jr. attempted to compensate by having the victims writhe around in pain as they slowly succumb to their wounds. This makes for more disturbing death scenes than one would typically expect to see in a slasher.

The acting actually isn't all that bad. I've seen far, far worse, but some of the characters are grating. The scene of the two husbands getting drunk was a sterling example of just how grating the people in this movie could be. The constant lawyer puns (the lead character recently passed his bar exam) also get old really quick. To hell with really quick, they're old from the get-go.

My favorite part of the film is undoubtedly the scene where the lone survivor runs into the killer. This entire sequence with the revelation, the voice effects and the motive worked very well for me. It's one of my favorite reveals in any slasher. The ending is also quite something, like a surreal take on "Excalibur".

I like this one, but it's not a great film under any circumstances. It has it's upside, but if nothing else, it's worth seeing for the revelation scene and an out there ending.

A lot of movies try to replicate that 80s horror schlock aesthetic, but they never quite capture it. If you want the real thing, you have to go to actual 80s horror schlock, and this movie is it.

The visual style is so alluring. The film stock, the framing choices, the fashion, the sets, the hair styles. It's also aided by the really haunting soundtrack. The acting is appropriately horrible.

What I like most about this movie is its tone. It may sag at times, but once it gets going, things are just so grim and nihilistic. The combination moved me way more than most bigger budget productions.

I was there when this horrible nightmare began. I'd known Scott for years when he was given the opportunity to produce a horror film ala Halloween when someone (I think his name was Pat???) fronted the money. It was too bad Scott's experiences had been in 8 mm home-style and not in reality because he spent more on looking like a producer than being one and putting out a quality film.

But I was a young innocent in my mid-twenties, like most of the people involved. We were all promised a percentage of the film (which we never received even though I have my contract somewhere) and I was promised an assistant and a writing credit which, you can see, doesn't exist. Tom Cue and I sat for many nights trying to put together a script that was constantly being changed. And like the actor Tom Bongiorno said, the film was doomed from the start and is one of the worst ever made.

As bad as the film was I will say it was one of the most fun times I'd ever had. It was the closest I'd ever get to Hollywood and I knew it. It was like an ongoing cast party. The only people that really seemed to know what they were doing was Terry Kempf, the cinematographer, and Paul Batson, the makeup artist.

It was so unorganized everyone did everything. Not only was I the assistant and a scriptwriter, I ran errands, changed lighting, was in charge of props (and so many other things I can't remember). I dropped off the production staff shortly after the film was in the can because I didn't agree with the way the money was being spent - which is probably why I'm not in the credits anywhere (ya think?).

I didn't walk out of the "premier" but I spent the entire time laughing, it was so damn bad. They'd called it Satan's Blade but I wanted to call it Ski Bunny Blood Bath because that's what it was . . .

One of the most obscure horror films out there, 'Satan's Blade' offers a very cool premise - whomever wields the Devil's knife becomes possessed and commits murder - and then just shambles along unimaginatively. This is a very lacklustre affair, with somnambulist performances and very little blood.

A violent bank heist opens the film, after which the perpetrators of said robbery flee to a remote mountain resort to kick back and count the loot. But then a double cross has the red, red kroovy flowing once again. Shortly after this, the titular weapon is plunged into flesh, cueing a series of formulaic stalk 'n' slash dispatches. It is kind of a pity to watch this film deteriorate into dull routine after quite a promising start.

One of the best things about 'Satan's Blade' is the poster art - a frightening, not-to-messed-with Lucifer clasping a nasty-looking dagger, holding it up as though about to bring it down and through the heart of a young virgin upon a sacrificial altar. But, as any experienced horror viewer knows, one must never judge a flick by its poster art. This is especially true in the case of 'Satan's Blade' because the artwork promises great things, but the movie itself cheats us out of any real blood and gore. It kind of reminds me of another horror outing entitled 'A Name for Evil', in that both films offer excellent cover art but deliver very little when it comes to the crunch... or should I say the squish?!