Drive-In Horrorshow

Starring: Jenna Morasca.

Really,really enjoyed this odd little tip of the hat to film showmanship from the past.

Drive -in theatres have alook,smell,ambiance that wasn't exactly perfect,But made one feel like they were somewhere else besides home.

Many segments like : PIG,THE CLOSET,FALL APART,MEAT MAN,WATCHER-

They are all different and equally scary.

The acting was really good and must admit the the difference theatre ( light hearted humor ) and feature ( at times really mean spirited) was not exactly meshed.

I really wanted to like this, not least because I'm a big fan of that vanishing and venerable phenomenon, the drive-in. Alas, I've come away with a mixed reaction.

The overall conceit---a postapocalyptic drive-in run by mutants, zombies, and the undead for a similar clientèle---is a fun one for a horror film. I've been left sitting in the last car present in a drive-in in the middle of the night, and a deserted one that's still running in real life is creepy enough, let alone one that's at the end of the world. Best, this fictional drive-in features what few real drive-ins do today---that staple of yesteryear, the B movie.

The problem is that we have some F movies included in this anthology.

In that category, I'd have to put the first film, "Pig." I believe the filmmakers fancy it to be in the company of such revenge films as "Last House on the Left" or "I Spit on Your Grave," but for a variety of reasons, the comparisons don't work. The film started on a hopeful, if low-budget, note (the frat's front door reads Delta Omega Alpha--D.O.A.). But that's just about the last I liked of it, except for the fact of how the woman managed to get the man into the position he's in--a nicely ironic touch. The actors do their best with what they've been given, which isn't much. The female lead has been given a load of vituperative histrionics, and the film quickly degenerates into a lot of shouted imprecations and ceaseless torture. The film suffers further from the fact that the timing of the first half is all wrong, and I started to get the giggles because of it. This vignette isn't scary, suspenseful, or triumphal---it's alternately gross, depressing, preposterous, and annoying.

"The Closet," about an unhappy boy of the Space Age, is rather better. The characters are over-the-top and unidimensional, but they are intended to be. Although one can see the end coming, it's nicely done. The boy playing the lead is surprisingly good for such a young actor. My main quibbles with the film are some poor pacing and some anachronisms (for example, glaringly, the cell phone; less so, the answering machine). Surely the writers know some people over the age of 50---they should have tried talking to them before committing images to film, especially since some of the set dressing (such as the lighted globe) was really good.

"Fall Apart" isn't big on action or plot, but it isn't meant to be. (My one argument with that fact is the plot threads that start and then go nowhere. Why?) The main character is likable enough, and he meets a terrible fate, which is the point of this one. It's a gross-out effects film, which starts creepily and builds to total nastiness, and the effects are well done. Unfortunately, the budget seems to have gone largely to making those effects; the small budget shows excessively elsewhere.

Of all the films, "Meat Man" may be closest to the creepy films and mags of the drive-in's heyday. It's certainly close to the real sorts of scary tales and rumors we told each other as children. The script, direction, and editing are crisp and well paced. The way these kids think is spot-on. Even the preposterous game they play with the freezer is on target---it's exactly the kind of game (that makes no sense to adults) that kids would invent. The child actors do a wonderful job portraying the brothers. Overall, I liked it. (But what did I miss at the beginning? What was with the Frankenstein monster in the bushes?)

Finally, "The Watcher" is 99% unwatchable. If Dark Carnival, the film festival I saw this at, had stuck to its schedule, and shown this one last, I'd have gone home after the few shots of some spectacular scenery, and caught one of my TV shows instead. The makers claim it was inspired by such classics as TCM, but there is nothing here of what made TCM a landmark film in the genre. The characters are unengaging, and there isn't a bright bulb in the marquee. These have to be THE stupidest characters I have ever seen in a film, and that includes the recent "Timber Falls." There is nothing scary or disturbing here, except perhaps the notion that "starring" on "Survivor" is an entrée to the film business.

The bits in between the vignettes are not particularly funny, but the guy playing The Projectionist does so with enthusiastic, committed glee, and the concessionaire Teenage Axe Victim is an inspired touch. There are plenty of trilogy-formatted B films, and I think that "Drive-In Horrorshow" could benefit by becoming one, that is, lose the first and the last vignette.

Stories: 0.75/2 - Direction & Pace 0.75 & 1.00/2 - Performances: 1.00/2 - Entertainment 0.75/2

Total - 4.25/10.

"Drive-in Horror Show," the 2009 anthology that claims to be a horror movie, is about as spine-chilling as a cup of lukewarm decaf on a rainy Monday morning. The four stories bundled together here are less horror and more of an attempt at psychological thrillers. Sadly, the only psychosomatic effect they induce is a profound sense of regret for hitting the play button.

These tales had potential, like a cake left in the oven for too long, but unfortunately, the writers seem to have mistaken mediocrity for suspense. The plots dangles before you like a carrot on a stick, tempting you with what could have been, only to deliver a bland buffet of missed opportunities: You're expecting a roller coaster and get stuck on a slow-moving merry-go-round instead.

The direction, or lack thereof, is like watching a confused GPS trying to guide you through a maze blindfolded. The director seems to be attempting to conjure some semblance of interest and atmosphere; however, all that materializes is a numbness that spreads faster than a bad joke at a funeral. The slow pace of the stories only adds insult to injury, making the viewer yearn for the sweet release of the end credits.

The performances, while marginally better than the rest of this horror misadventure, are the equivalent of polishing a turd. The cast stumbles through their roles like sleepwalkers in desperate need of caffeine, and the best actor in this dreary carnival of disappointment is the host. Kudos to him for trying to inject life into the cinematic corpse, but even his valiant efforts are like putting lipstick on a zombie.

In conclusion, if you possess an insatiable desire to experience boredom on an existential level, "Drive-in Horror Show" is the perfect prescription. It's the kind of terrible movie that undoubtedly makes you wish for a selective memory eraser to erase the unpleasant recollection of wasted time. Stay away unless you have a portable defibrillator on standby because you might necessitate an urgent need to revive your enthusiasm for horror after this cinematic coma.

An anthology film with the segments bridged with supposedly humorous antics of ghosts and zombies who visit their own drive-in theater to watch movies about more ghosts and zombies. Why, you ask, do the undead go to a drive-in theater when they don't drive? Wouldn't an indoor theater be more to their liking? And such a drive-in! The film makers apparently had access to an actual drive-in theater but were not allowed to touch the projection equipment. So when it's time to show a film the print magically changes from 35mm to 16mm and an old pre-war Bell & Howell model 138 is switched on. The monster projectionist hasn't actually put the film IN the projector,but he gives the reel a spin and as we zoom in on the reel of 16mm film spinning like crazy the picture is somehow projected out of the big 35mm machine. And they do this goofy act for each of the segments as though the viewers won't notice. The films come in absurdly tiny cans which should hold a preview at most. Nit-picking? Maybe. But if there is one thing a movie maker should know it is what film is like. And these guys obviously don't. They can't act either. The ghost "manager" tries to do a funny/sinister accent as he tries to be a version of "The Cryptkeeper" but he isn't very good and drops his dialect repeatedly. Some of the undead actors don't speak at all so they thrash around trying to be over the top funny but just look silly. The performers in the story segments are so-so at best and none of the stories would scare anybody. I'd like to give these folks something for effort but considering they didn't even try very hard, I won't. I suppose you could sit through this if nothing else was on hand and you were really desperate for entertainment. Recommended only for those die-hard fans who want to see every last horror movie ever made.

To the guy in the 1st review from 2018, did you actually watch this? Guessing not. It was not her bf, and she was not the hero. Nor was that the problem here.

This isn't even campy bad, it's just bad bad. When I saw it pop up on a streaming site where you can use your library card to watch stuff like this for free, I was expecting a cheesy anthology like others here have noted. Like Creepshow, or maybe even Tales From The Darkside. But it was somehow worse that even those, despite coming out decades later when effects have improved on even the cheapest shows and movies. Bad acting, dialogue, and lazy tropes that don't go anywhere didn't help either.

I rarely feel like I've wasted time watching stuff, even bad or b-movies, but this was an actual waste of time. It was free, and I still want my money back. 1 star.