Mutanti

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.

In the post apocalyptic 1992 in order to keep control of the populace, the Merchants force Dr. Paul Dean to create a parasite. The doctor realising its deadly potential goes on the run studying the parasite so that he can find a way to destroy it.

Director Charles Band (of the excellent Puppet Master (1989)) offers a plodding film, with the terror scenes few and far between. The small town setting feels like an episode of the Dukes of Hazard, The Fall Guy or the A-Team and sandblasts Mac Ahlberg's cinematography of any atmosphere. With a Planet of the Ape (1968) vibe Richard Bands music hits all the right notes, along with with some of the parasite effects which notably Stan Winston had a hand in designing and creating.

Robert Glaudini does a great job as Dr. Paul Dean, Demi Moore does her best with the overkill trio of writer's basic dialogue as Patricia Welles. Band is on a directing high is when he's borrowing elements from Alien (1979) and an exploding fuel tank from James Bond movies.

Maybe it would have fared better in a Western setting with cowboys instead of gangs and a mad scientist rather than the 80s doubling for the post atomic disaster 1992 with a small town and a fast sleek car.

Overall, fanatical horror B-film fans may get something out of this, even those curious about the handful of effects or Moore's early role.

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.

Calling PARASITE a good movie is as arguable as whether or not Paris Hilton has had a breast enlargement. It's no secret that I've always had a soft spot for Charles Band's pre-Full Moon stuff. And even though I've liked PARASITE ever since I saw it in my mid-teens, I think I'm not being biased if I say that watching this movie is a worthwhile effort and it's worthy of an honourable mention as an entry in B-movie horror history set in a post-apocalyptic future. Well, "future", is somewhat of a debatable topic here, since the movie is set in the year 1992 (while having been produced in 1982).

PARASITE is noticeable for quite some aspects. One of them being that it was originally shot and released in theaters as a 3-D feature. While 3-Dimensional Photography was a popular phenomena in cinematic history during the 50's (CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON, anyone?), its popularity soon fizzled out by the decade's end. Fast forward to the early 80's and we encounter director/producer Charles Band as one of the people (in collaboration with 3-D specialist Randall Larsen) who revived 3-D for a short-lived period and brought it back to theaters. PARASITE was his contribution to the sudden but short wave of 3-D features to emerge around that time (FRIDAY THE 13th PART 3, AMITYVILLE 3-D and JAWS 3-D being the most famous ones). One year later Charles would make another 3-D feature, the sci-fi/adventure flick METALSTORM: THE DESTRUCTION OF JARED-SYN (another worthwhile watch, if you ask me). The use of the 3-D gimmick is integrated nicely with the rest of the movie (e.g. during a fist-fight you can see a snake lashing out at the camera; the titular parasite creature falling from the ceiling towards the camera positioned on the ground). The two most memorable scenes involving 3-D cinematography involve one killing (a guy gets impaled by an iron pipe; when the camera slowly closes in on the hollow pipe, blood starts dripping out of it) and the parasite-creature bursting out of the head of actress Viviane Blaine (well, not her real head, of course).

The story itself is rather simplistic and sometimes moves at a slow pace, but there are a lot of enjoyable scenes to make up for that. A scientist, played by tormented-looking Robert Glaudini, flees from an oppressive paramilitary government, for which he created the flesh-eating parasite. He takes with him two specimens. One he keeps in a canister; the other creature… is growing inside his stomach. We don't get to see much of the futuristic paramilitary government, though. The only information we learn about it, is coming from the various characters our scientist meets when he's stranded in an isolated desert town (amongst them being a group of post-apocalyptic punks and a scarred-by-radiation black bartender). But... there is one black-suited (and laser-armed) villainous Government Agent (called "Wolf The Merchant" and sadistically played by James Davidson) on the hunt for him (it all leads to an enjoyable but short showdown near the end, of course). Children of the 80's will sure love the Lamborghini Countach Car he drives (complete with vertically opening doors). The acting even is fair enough for this type of movie, and another reason to watch this flick is that it stars no-one less than Demi Moore in her second motion picture role ever (although, indeed, one can clearly tell that Miss Moore was only just getting started with her acting career). She plays an all-American post-apocalyptic cutie (that even makes and sells lemonade), eventually teaming op with Robert Glaudini. A small role is also granted to Cherie Currie (Former lead singer of the Runaways).

Another aspect of PARASITE worthwhile mentioning is the work of cinematographer Mac Ahlberg. For one thing, while around the same time (early 80's) his Italian colleagues were still obsessed with getting a spontaneous erection by touching the zoom-button on their camera's, Ahlberg prefers to use slow tracking shots every now and then while equipping his camera with wide-angled lenses. His images bring a dusty and desolate feeling to PARASITE. And then there's the contribution of Stan Winston, who designed the creature and did the make-up effects. While far from being his best work (hey, the man was just getting started too), most of the effects are quite grotesque, slimy and deliciously cheesy. I wouldn't want it any other way in a movie from the early 80's.

I can understand that, to some, PARASITE might be considered a post-apocalyptic snooze-fest (with bad acting, bad special effects and whatever else they might find to nag about). But my love for it and the joy I got out of (re-)watching this slightly offbeat and rather obscure 80's gem, encourages me to be generous in my final rating. I can say one other thing too even: Once you've seen one of Charles Band's older movies and liked it, there's a big chance you'll like all his other stuff up until the early 90's too (whether he produced or directed it doesn't even matter). Reportedly, there were plans to produce an inevitable sequel back in the early 80's, simply titled PARASITE II. I think it's safe to say that, sadly, we can abandon all hope of that ever happening, in this year of writing, 2007.