Parasite

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.

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.

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.

It isn't necessarily fair to begin making judgments about a movie within its first minutes, but sometimes it's very easy, for good and for ill. By the time one-quarter of the length has elapsed plot still hasn't shown up (and it won't meaningfully show up for a good while yet), and half the scenes we've gotten up to that point were rendered in slow motion. The obvious 3-D gimmick, which never survives in a picture beyond its initial release, just comes off badly. Charles Band's direction is so lethargic generally that it's a wonder the cast weren't falling asleep in the middle of the shoot. We are shown the world, and some characters in it, and we're given small pieces of information, but even as we close in on the halfway mark there still hasn't been any significant explanation, and we can only accept the goings-on at face value. "Insufficient" might be the best word to describe the writing in all regards, but "weak" is a fair one, too. Despite their overall reputation, the Band family has made some genuinely enjoyable, good films every now and again. 'Parasite' isn't one of them.

It's not until we're five-eighths through the runtime that substantial plot really shows up, by the way. In fairness, it's not like this is all bad. I see the skill that did go into it. The cast are very much limited by the material and Band's direction, but they try to make the most of it - including a fledgling Demi Moore, and Cherie Currie. The crew turned in good work generally, including effects and special makeup, sets, and costume design. The story may take a long time to truly show up, but there are some fun sci-fi horror vibes to be had all the same. Richard Band's original music isn't half bad. And hey, there are actually some splendid idea in the screenplay; there was real potential here. Would that the direction carried more vitality, and more than that, that the writing had bothered to give us any reason to care until the title was already more than half over. There's value here, but it's condensed and miniaturized, and presents as sloppily and with as little excitement as it possibly could. All the best efforts of the cast and crew can't overcome writing and direction this meager.

Really and truly, this could have been a good movie. I see what it does well. It flounders in some crucial ways, however, and for far too much of its length, so the entertainment that it can ultimately offer is just all too little. I'm glad for those who like 'Parasite' more than I do, and for that matter I want to like it more than I do; then again, maybe I'm being too kind. One way or another it's hard to especially recommend this except for those who are diehard fans of the genre or someone involved, or those who are direly curious. Oh well.