Drive-In Massacre

Drive-In Massacre (1976)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

Low budget horror film about a maniac cutting people's heads off with a ninja sword at a California drive-in. This certainly isn't a "good" film but it works very well for its type—a B budget drive-in flick of the 70's. There's plenty of violence and gore, including a rather well done decapitation and some wonderful, zany dialogue. The biggest problem is that the film runs a tad bit slow even at 74-minutes. The nice twist ending and warning was also a nice touch. This certainly isn't going to be remembered as anything great but if you like "B" trash then you might enjoy this one.

DRIVE IN MASSACRE was meant to scare the patrons of the actual drive-ins that dotted the landscape of it's day. Starting off with a gag-inducing theme song, the horror gets under way.

A madman is lurking among the rows of cars, and beheads a pair of amorous customers. With a sword! As usual, the cops are stumped. Cantankerous, bullet-headed manager, Austin Johnson (Newton Naushaus) is no help at all. He just hates everyone and everything. Could he be the killer? Or, could it be Germy the "halfwit" janitor? Why is he so twitchy? And, Why is he wearing Pinocchio's hat? Hmm?

Meanwhile, in spite of the gory murders, the drive-in fills up the next night. Unsurprisingly, another couple is dispatched, this time in shish kebab fashion. And, on it goes. At no time does it seem like a bad idea to keep the drive-in open. Even when someone is killed every night!

This movie's biggest problem is that in between deaths, it's an extremely dull police investigation, conducted by the world's most lackluster detectives. They're more like fast food-loving carpet salesmen. While chasing a suspect, one fears that they could drop dead at any second!

By normal standards, this is a debacle. However, on the schlock scale, this is pure gold!

P.S.- Watch for an uncredited George "Buck" Flower as a marauding, bug-eyed maniac!...

I find many of the old horror movie titles as part of packaged releases from Brentwood and other companies, twelve titles for $5.99, fifty titles for $20.00, etc. Therefore, many of these films have not been remastered and have lousy sound or picture quality. This is very true for the version I saw of "Drive-in Movie Massacre". I couldn't understand most of what was being said in the opening sequence, and I had to increase the brightness of my television to figure out exactly whom was being shown at the end, and I think I know who it was -- due to the context -- but it wasn't clear.

However, despite its sound and picture problems, this film couldn't have been any better in crisp shape 30 years ago. I was only 4 and 5 in 1976 and recall only one time being sneaked into a drive-in; my understanding of drive-ins, however, is that when things on the screen got boring, people honked their horns. I read that that was why Sam Raimi kept up the pace of "Evil Dead", to prevent horn-honking. I imagine that there was much honking during screenings of this film. The ending is laughably absurd; it MIGHT have worked in 1940, or 1876, and it might scare little four year olds who are still afraid of the bogeyman and have parents who try to keep them well-behaved by using his appearance as a threat, but for teenagers or adults, it's "Oh, Jesus" lame.

This is on top of the film being highly padded, with a minutes-long scene of one character's carnival-gazing and another set in a warehouse that doesn't make a lick of sense. However, I found this film mildly amusing, in a movie-night-with-your-drinking-buddies sort of way. It has touches of camp, sometimes intentional. The manager of the drive-in, filled with angrily-told stories of self-pity, amused me, and I thought that the actor playing "Germy" often hit some spot-on moments, his pathetic 'am-I-a-good-boy?' eagerness to help with the investigation and wounded reaction when finally being pushed too far helping to ground the film.

This is not the worst film of its genre, and I'd watch it again with friends who want to make fun of something while we get drunk.

The movie is awful, cheesy but kinda fun to watch. It's better than I expected it to be - I thought it might have been a grindhouse style of film but it's not. It's a slasher, bloody but not a lot of that going on... it's main focus is on two cops trying to solve the murders! The best thing about the film are the two cops who could pass as brothers! Really, their facial features look similar to one another and similar build to their bodies.. only real difference is one is slightly shorter than the other!! I could see these two in a spin off 1970s TV show playing the same two cops and still solving murders. LOL! It's not a film to seek out - even for a die-hard horror fan - but it is an OK watch if you happen to catch it on one night or acquire it in a film pack as I did.

3/10

For the type of movie this is, given when it was made, and a total lack of big name stars ( or small name stars for that matter ) this film is very watchable. The players, none of whom are great at their craft, are worth the effort and make the movie. The special effects aren't bad given '76 standards and low budget. The plot is typical and functional. My favorite part of the whole thing? The cops. They actually come off like cops. Coupled with the premise its like Dragnet does Freddie Kruger. I liked this film. Of course I liked Dragnet and Nightmare on Elm Street too. Its certainly not great art, but thats not what this type of film is meant to be. Its meant to be cheap entertainment, and thats exactly what it is.