The Undertaker

Like I'm sure it's the case for every single other reviewer around here, my sole reason for watching "The Undertaker" was because it stars the great (and late) Joe Spinell in a role very similar to the one he played in the legendary gore classic "Maniac" (1980). Joe Spinell may have appeared in several acclaimed A-listed cinematic landmarks, like "The Godfather", "Rocky" or Taxi Driver", but he'll always be most remembered for his role as the perverted, mother-obsessed psychopath Frank Zito. Presumably he was desperate to add another notorious horror role to his repertoire, as he allegedly lobbied intensively to be cast in the titular role, but it didn't quite work out as he hoped. By now "The Undertaker" is a forgotten horror movie from the 80s, and rightfully so because it's really boring, slow-paced and badly acted. Apart from being the local undertaker, Roscoe is also a deranged and megalomaniac killer who keeps the embalmed bodies of his victims hanging around in the basement like there's some kind of everlasting tea party going on! Roscoe and his murder patterns aren't exactly discrete or carefully planned, so there are many people that grow suspicious and attempt to stop him (subsequently his own nephew, a high-school teacher, a sleazy cinema owner and a couple of police officers) but they stupidly get themselves caught or killed as well. It's truly incomprehensible that "The Undertaker" is such a disappointment, as it basically contains all the necessary ingredients for success: a simple but effective plot, a very high body count, some gore, gratuitous nudity and a creep in the lead role! However, the whole film gets ruined due to slow-pacing, too many pointless boring scenes and an endless amount of inaudibly muttered dialogues/monologues. Not recommended, unless you feel the uncontrollable urge to track down and watch literally every 80s horror slasher ever made (which I'd understand if that's the case, by the way).

This is truly an example of bad horror at its worst, with bad writing and uneven editing. However as Joe Spinell's last film it is an interesting curiosity of a film and it has some good moments. Spinell is not at his best here and the acting overall isn't very good however Patrick Askin turns in a good performance as Spinell's nephew. The biggest problem with the film is the editing which results in some unintentionally comic moments in particular the big confrontation scene between Spinell and his nephew. The whole scene falls flat due to choppy editing. But for die-hard horror fans this film may be watched as an exercise in scary camp.

The Undertaker (1988)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

Roscoe (Joe Spinell) runs a funeral home but there aren't too many people dying so he's losing out on money. This gives him the idea of killing people so that his work will be full and this will bring in money. Soon the police are trying to track down who is mutilating all the people.

THE UNDERTAKER is somewhat of a mystery movie. It never got an official release in America when it was made and for many years it was only available via a bootleg. There were rumors that the film was never completed but that's certainly not true since there are opening and closing credits as well as a music score and so on. I think it might have been possible that the production ran out of money and this might explain why certain scenes end without reason or why other bits and pieces seem to not be complete.

As far as the film goes, honestly, it's pretty hard to judge the film because it just feels like it's incomplete. However, no one involved with the production has spoken up so it's hard to know what's really going on with it. As I said there are many scenes that just stop without reason or cuts off and goes to something else without much of a reason why. There are also countless scenes where people just walk or talk for no real reason other than to expand the running time. I will say that the special effects are decent for the obvious low-budget they were working on. A lot of the effects happen off screen but we get the bloody aftermath.

The main reason to watch the film or stay away from it is for Joe Spinell. The character actor appeared in films like THE GODFATHER, ROCKY and TAXI DRIVER but he will always be remembered for his role in MANIAC. That 1980 slasher was a masterpiece and several producers tried to recapture that film with Spinell. You had THE LAST HORROR FILM and then MR. ROBBIE: MANIAC 2. It's clear that they wanted this to be like MANIAC as we get some very familiar scenes and especially with Spinell talking to his victims and crying because of his pain. The performance is okay but there are some rather obvious moments where Spinell is drunk and having issues with his lines. Some might just wish not to see Spinell in this shape and especially when you considered he died a couple months after this was done filming.

So, it's really going to be up to Spinell fans on whether or not they want to see this film. It's strange that it isn't better known but there are just way too many issues for it to be a complete success.

Fans of the genre will know Spinell as Frank Zito in the cult slasher Maniac (1980). This is essentially a reprisal of that character-a haunted loner conflating sex with gore. The Undertaker is a poorly written, badly acted, cheap entry in the genre. It's perfect.

"The Undertaker" is a lost and forgotten horror film with Joe Spinell.He plays crazy mortician with the penchant for necrophilia called Roscoe,who stalks and kills beautiful girls.His nephew tries to stop him.The film is clearly not as good as "Maniac",albeit there are some striking similarities between this one and Lustig's gruesome gorefest.The acting is truly awful with the exception of Spinell.The budget is extremely low and there is almost no gore.However there is plenty of nudity,so fans of low-budget slasher flicks won't be disappointed."The Undertaker" is also filled with many clips from "The Corpse Vanishes",which Roscoe watches everyday.Anyway, if you're a fan of Joe Spinell you may give this one a try.My rating:5 out of 10.