Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
6 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Why Don't You Stand Up to Them?, July 26, 2006
David (Derrell Maury) is a new student at Central High, set near the mountainous California coast. A friend from his past, Mark (Andrew Stevens), welcomes him and makes a strong effort to recruit David into the tough foursome that dominates the school: outsiders don't have a comfortable life. Along the way, David strikes up a friendship with Mark's girlfriend, Theresa (Kimberly Beck). Observing the gang members bullying and raping their way through the student body, David chooses to side with and aid the victims and to spend time with Theresa. The gang turns on David, sending him to the hospital. Limping and aloof, David returns. Then one-by-one, most of the gang die accidentally. As the former victims realize what is happening, they rejoice and become overbearing themselves. Then the former victims begin to die, not so accidentally. Of the thirteen credited characters, a double-digit number die violently. How will it all end?
The blood and gore is at a realistic level. The film is technically not a slasher film since no one is stabbed or slashed and the killer is not some unknown in a mask. No gun is fired. There are explosions, collisions, electrocutions, and the like.
The skin shots are quite generous. All three credited female characters have topless scenes, as do most of the credited male characters. There are several rear-end shots and a scene of a couple romping nude at night in the surf.
The acting is fairly good. Most of the actors had extensive experience both before and after this film. I thought Andrew Stevens did especially well as the ambivalent gang member, Mark.
The students run the show. The film presents no teachers or parents. The school building is a stately palace with an Ionic columned portico in front, apparently set all by itself in the coastal California countryside. The actors are all early 20's; so, other than the gym and locker scenes, one could imagine this as a college film. The DVD image is clean. The film seems to have been influenced by the romance of student takeovers of the 1960's, by Lord of the Flies, and by High Noon. Carrie with Sissy Spacek came out the same year. The action is self-contained and reflects its period well.
Massacre at Central High raises interesting social issues while keeping the blood flowing. It deserves more active distribution. High 3.
|
|
|
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
A rather dark - and weird - commentary on modern society, January 11, 2006
Massacre at Central High is an unusual revenge/exploitation film with somewhat confusing sociopolitical overtones. Some (but not me) would designate it as a cult classic - but that is largely due to the fact that it's been rather hard to find for many years now. It is not a horror movie, so don't go in looking for an axe-wielding masked killer chopping high school students up left and right. Rather, it's sort of a combination between Revenge of the Nerds, Animal Farm, and any number of low-budget 70s exploitation movies. While there's nothing particularly impressive about any aspect of the film, the story had promise - up to a point; about halfway through, it goes over the brink and comes awfully close to winding up in laughable territory.
David (Derrel Maury) is the new kid at Central High. He has an old buddy there, though, who promises to make sure he fits in - it's really important that he fit in because not fitting in means nothing but trouble. Good ole Mark (Andrew Stevens) just happens to be one of the in crowd. He, Bruce (Ray Underwood), Craig (Steve Bond), and Paul (Damon Douglas) are a little junta of four who basically terrorize everyone else in the entire school. They're not just bullies, though - they're arrogant, preppy bullies. They quite literally run the school - as you watch the film, you can't help but notice there is not a single adult to be seen anywhere. No parents, no teachers, no cops. That's why the gang can do things like vandalize vehicles, trash the library, beat up anyone they choose, and even attempt to rape two girls with no consequences whatsoever. But now, the times they are a'changin', as David names himself Mr. Consequences and goes about seeking revenge for a friendly little accident that left him unable to vent his anger through those daily runs he loves so much.
The preppy bullies start going down hard and fast, and the deaths are really rather impressive (but not very gory). Since there are no adults to be found (not until the very end of the film, anyway), life just goes on - no funerals, no psychological counseling, no investigations - just nada, zilch. Those who start to worry about their own pathetic little lives just go to the beach to forget their troubles. Pretty soon, the whole atmosphere at the school changes. The formerly oppressed are living it up, enjoying their newfound freedom from bullying. That lasts about one day. That's when the oppressed start morphing into oppressors, the student body divides into several power-hungry cliques, and almost overnight a new batch of low-life bullies are bossing their way around the school. It's really rather depressing, but - unfortunately - it's also quite believable. Give someone his freedom, and the odds are about even that he'll just turn around and try to deny some other poor sap of his freedom. It doesn't say much for our society, does it?
What's a violent revolutionary to do but continue to attack the cancer growing amongst the body politic - even if it ultimately means killing the patient? In other words, the killings continue. What about David and Mark, though? Will their friendship keep them from killing each other? And what of Theresa (Kimberly Beck, who some might recognize from her role in Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter) - you just knew there had to be a lovers' triangle in here somewhere, didn't you?
Massacre at Central High is just a little bit this and that. Revenge stands atop the list, but you've got your standard nudie exploitation scenes, and let's not forget the ambiguous political overtones: fascism is bad - check; overthrowing the oppressors and standing up for the little guy is good - check; the socialist revolution is doomed to failure - yep, that's a big affirmative on that one. Basically, all we learn is that people just aren't any good - well, that and the fact that a town without any adult presence or authority (especially of the policing variety) is just not a good environment to grow up in.
|
|
|
4.0 out of 5 stars
Not a slasher at all, August 31, 2008
This is a curious and meaningful piece of work. The film is not a slasher as so many others have written or implied. I'm not even sure I could regard it as a typical "revenge film". It seems to fall in between some pre-selected categories and that makes many of us nervous, as it should.
In some respects it is prescient - Columbine crops up immediately - but it is as well out of time.
The acting isn't highly underlined and the musical score can be quite irritating but the camera work and the editing are extremely fluent. It doesn't depict adolescence in black and white for a change. My own adolescence wasn't painted in black and white either and for that alone I could recommend the film. It goes in several fascinating directions, all of them troubling.
Leaving out the question of "why" things happened, it's perhaps more useful looking into some broader issues. The punishments were much more brutal than the crimes. The central character never receives our sympathy. The other central characters don't involve us very much. There is no specific "message" to satisfy would-be film critics. And yet the film has achieved some "cult" status.
"Massacre" kept me on my feet throughout. I truly didn't have a clue what was about to happen but I was afraid NOT to look. I enjoyed looking at this film and recommend it to others who don't seek easy
solutions to complicated times.
Curtis Stotlar
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|