La casa del sortilegio

A voice-over explains the HorrorVision concept, scary scenes being preceded either by some weird video effect blooming around a black glove, or a certain musical cue. I didn't really get it...

Some opening exposition appears on a computer screen, but the quality of the video was not very good and I could make very little of it out. At least some of what the computer screen shows is actually depicted, I guess, some Nobel Prize winning scientist falling into his pool and drowning, and a woman bleeding copiously after her hand gets stuck in a below-sink garbage disposal. There's some scene in a hospital of a nurse who was going to recommend against someone being released committing suicide by hanging, and a orderly or doctor who disembowels himself with his hands as someone breathing in through their nose, and out through their mouth "sniff... ha HAAA! sniff... ha HAAA!" apparently forces them to do it.

A guy tries to get some hot roommates by advertising the rooms at $100 apiece, which for Los Angeles is quite a deal, I guess, even in 1982. Supposedly the house has ten bedrooms, but it seems like he gets only about five women, and when another arrives all the rooms are taken and she has to get the child's room being used as a storage closet. There's also an Asian woman who appears in some scenes, but not others.

The landlord, Jim, has some kind of business deal with a drunk involving computer printouts. He uses the strange breathing technique the killers uses to move things with his mind. One of the women in the house becomes interested in his mind control and pyramid grid and crystals, etc. and checks out Wisdom of the Mystic Masters, two volumes of A Course in Miracles, and the Tibetan Book of the Dead, among others.

A plan is made to have Victoria's band set up on Friday at the house for a party on Saturday, I think. At some point Jim goes to the beach with Cindy and he's struck over the head, and she starts bleeding and walks into the ocean. When he comes to, he doesn't think to report this.

There's at least a few scenes where their continuity is difficult to determine immediately. One involves a guy named Richard hiring a PI to find somebody. Another involves two policemen briefly coming to the house, one dressed in a shiny green suit and vest. Somebody also has a nightmare while they're sleeping in the den while their room is painted.

There's a weird gardener who saved Jim's late uncle in Vietnam hobbling about. There's odd poltergeist activity in the bathrooms (one which needs its grout cleaned even before the blood gets on it). A bloody icepick gets buried in the yard by one of the women after it stabs another through the hand, while another woman suspiciously gardens compulsively.

What to say about it? It's by no means the worst shot-on-video horror flick - The Last Slumber Party is worse, for one. It's also superior to a lot of more recent shot-on-digital video horror. Johnn Wintergate and Kalassu have been up to more new age stuff since this movie, and if there really will be a DVD with a commentary track by them, I'd definitely check it out.

I own not one, but two copies of this movie and both of them are the "directors cut", which would be fine except both copies are nothing BUT the directors cut, without the option of watching the movie as it is actually supposed to be viewed. Brutal. At 2:35.00, it's easy to see how an hour could be shaved off this thing. If you miss the 80's, you can leave this thing running with the sound off while you are making a tuna casserole with music playing in the background but sitting down and watching it is tedious and borders on masochistic. It's a shame because it actually looks like an OK piece of 80's shlock. The girls are mostly hot, show skin and the death scenes are decent, while the leading man looks like David Lee Roth's tweaked-out second cousin and for some reason seems to have given up acting after this mess. Can't imagine why.

This movie is not just truly awful, but its also historically significant in its awfulness because it was the first shot-on-video horror movie and as such actually contributed to the slow decline of the low-budget horror genre. Let me explain. By the early 80's the traditional venues of horror movies--drive-in theaters and inner-city grindhouses--were disappearing. These movies SHOULD have dominated the emerging video rental market, but this didn't happen and one reason was that a lot of unscrupulous individuals said to themselves, hey, if they're going straight to video why bother shooting on film, using professional actors, or having and kind of production values when we can just take a camcorder out in the backyard? It worked for porno right? Never mind that it was impossible to create any kind of horror atmosphere on 80's video. Never mind that fake blood looks a lot more fake on video than the, uh, real bodily fluids spilled in porno movies. Never mind that horror fans are infinitely more discriminating than porn enthusiasts (you don't see anyone shelling out $30 for the widescreen special edition of "Jenna Jameson Does Everybody" or some other obscure porn title do you?) The result was that unsuspecting horror fans who got stuck with amateurish shot-on-video crap like this more than once simply quit taking a chance on renting obscure horror titles on video and the whole market (and genre) eventually went south.

OK, this movie is slightly better than other contemporary SOV crap like "Blood Cult" (a rip-off of "Blood Feast" which makes the latter look like "Citizen Kane") or "Stuff Stephanie in the Incinerator (which made me want to stuff Troma's Lloyd Kaufman and Michael Herz in the incinerator after I rented it). It at least has a lot of nudity in it unlike those other two titles, but if you want SOV nudity, rent a porno movie for christsake. I can honestly say that not only could I make a better horror movie than this, but I HAVE made a better horror movie than this (sans the naked chicks)with my friends and my dad's camcorder back in high school. But I had the common decency not try to sell it to people it as a REAL horror movie. Total garbage. Avoid it like a social disease.

I'm watching BOARDINGHOUSE as I'm writing this and the "film" is woeful. There's almost no redeeming quality to it. It feels and looks like a porno production but without any hardcore sex scenes. In this case, the "horror" scenes have replaced the sex scenes. The film even warns you at the beginning that every shocking scene will be preceded with a warning of sorts. Funny enough, throughout the movie, people (mostly women) get killed without any warning to the viewers. The producers weren't even able to do what they promised they were going to do. Yep, the film is THAT cheap.

The only thing one can credit this film of being is that it's one of the first direct-to-video "film" specifically made for the booming video market of the early 1980s. Today, they're dime a dozen. So, I guess the producers of the film were ahead of the times in this regard. But that still doesn't change the fact that BOARDINGHOUSE is devoid of acting, a script, special effects or any suspense or fright whatsoever. I can't even tell who is supposed to be who.

You do see a lot of women sans clothes (all natural breasts, no less) and guys in bikinis. Ah, the 1980s.

If you're evaluating this movie in terms of plot structure or character arcs, you're missing the point. If you're saying "the image quality isn't sharp enough," you are consuming the wrong genre.

If you do like backyard horror films, Boardinghouse belongs in the good pile. It has something that most of these films lack: passion. The filmmakers clearly put in more time, effort, planning, and care than most of their peers. The result is something with a vision and level of energy that's hard to replicate, even on films with budgets in the millions.