Review of Satan's Blade

Satan's Blade (1984)
2/10
Truly satanic
21 July 2016
Welcome to the longest 80 minutes of your life. Distinguished by catastrophic acting, editing, cinematography, music, sound, lighting, makeup, pacing, plotting, dialogue and characterisation, L. Scott Castillo Jr's slasher is so bad it's bad, reaching an Edward D. Wood Jr plateau of tosh. It couldn't secure a release until 1984 – four years after it was shot.

The legends speak of a "Mountain Man" who, frustrated at society encroaching on the hills and pushing him further into the wilderness, regularly comes down from the peaks to take it out on poorly-clothed teenagers. This season there are two groups: The lusty spring break chicks and the two sensible couples. Their worlds collide when hottie Stephanie (Stephanie Leigh Steel) inexplicably falls for nerdy Tony (Tom Bongiorno), and this sets in motion a series of horror movie separations, giving the killer his chance to pick them off, one by one.

The plot isn't sufficient to fill the running time. We get endless shots of Stephanie wandering the wilderness, accompanied only by a drab piano-and-flute score. At times it's like we're watching bored actors waiting around on location. The killings ramp up in the final third, but are tame and lacking invention in their execution. There is one diverting nightmare sequence, although it is memorable for its dodgy makeup more than its creepiness.

This is one of those cheapo horror flicks where, thanks to the desperate acting quality and the appalling script, the alleged friends barely seem to know each other. The relationship between Tony and his wife Lisa (Elisa R. Malinovitz) is laughable. Their dirty talk scene – packed with lame courtroom metaphors (he's just qualified, you see) – is an avalanche of cringe.

Let's be relative. Comparing Satan's Blade to bigger budget horror movies of the era isn't fair. But films like The Mutilator and Sleepaway Camp – low budget contemporaries with which Satan's Blade bears resemblance – at least had fun deaths and biting humour respectively. And the final 'twist', involving a cameo from our esteemed director, is a total dud. It makes sense when Hitchcock does it, but Hitchcock he ain't.

In a very awkward interview on the disc, the director states that film is "a business, not an artform". Don't worry, Mr Castillo, there is no danger of mistaking this film for art. Arrow Video (the version I watched) is scraping the barrel here with a curio that only the most dedicated slasher aficionados should indulge. It's also worth mentioning that this is a very rough print. Crackle and hair is authentic, sure, but the print is woefully damaged at times, with distorted sound and a multitude of unwanted historical artefacts. Actually, "unwanted historical artefact" might be the best way to describe the film.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed