Films That Witness Madness

review

DRIVE-IN MASSACRE

DRIVE-IN MASSACRE is a fixture on many of those cheap collections of public domain titles put out by companies like BCI and Mill Creek but it's inclusion among titles like NIGHT TRAIN TO TERROR and WEREWOLF IN A GIRL'S DORMITORY is a bit misleading in terms of it's quality. I'm not going to argue that DRIVE-IN MASSACRE is in any way a good film but I will argue that it stands well above most of the Z-grade crap crammed into these collections. Despite all it's ineptitude, DRIVE-IN MASSACRE emerges as a pleasant waste of time, a film that doesn't take itself too seriously and doesn't ask it's audience to take it seriously either. It's one of those "almost" films, an entertaining pseudo-slasher that could have been much better had the producers had a bit more green in the piggy bank and a more observant writer behind the desk.

The setting of the film, a drive-in theater, is the perfect setting for a film that would have found much of it's audience at the same kind of venue. One of the real joys of SCREAM 2 was the opening pre-credits sequence with Omar Epps and Jada Pinkett Smith being slasher to pieces during a horror movie screening. It's the kind of self-reflexive nod to the horror film experience that cinema hounds eat up. I kept wishing DRIVE-IN MASSACRE would open itself up a bit and truly use the setting to it's fullest potential but it never did. Unlike films like HALLOWEEN and ANGUISH, the creators of DRIVE-IN MASSACRE completely overlook the effect that tying the audience's surroundings into the events of the film they are watching can have. HALLOWEEN made you feel the terror when you went home that night, the idea that something evil might be lurking in your ordinary neighborhood still kicking around in the back of your mind. ANGUISH made you feel uncomfortable sitting in the theater, not knowing what the person behind you might be up to. DRIVE-IN MASSACRE, however, wouldn't even make you think twice about going to buy a hot dog. The setting of the film is simply that, a setting. What a waste.

The other thing missing from DRIVE-IN MASSACRE is an audience surrogate to help create tension. Usually in a slasher film, we have our attention focused on a specific character or couple that provides us with our emotional anchor. Without a Laurie Strode, we have no reason to be fearful. We care about what happens to her. That is what provides the suspense and the tension. DRIVE-IN MASSACRE chooses at it's main characters two policemen - I can't imagine many teenagers in 1974 giving a shit about two coppers - and the main thrust of the film is their investigation of the crimes. The victims are nameless, groping patrons. Their deaths are filmed in a very matter-of-fact way with no real build-up to the money shots of swords penetrating flesh. As a result of these two choices, DRIVE-IN MASSACRE fails to create any kind of audience participation. This is a film you simply sit back and watch instead of actively participate in. That would explain it's total lack of scares or tension.

I called DRIVE-IN MASSACRE a pseudo-slasher for a reason. It doesn't adhere to the slasher formula - mostly because, in 1974, no slasher formula had been formed. The similarities are there - graphic murders, red herrings galore, plenty of people sucking face and squeezing boobies - but the execution isn't. But that doesn't make this a terrible film. DRIVE-IN MASSACRE is briskly paced and competently acted with a sense of humor that neither disrupts the film or destroys it completely. It has some stand-out moments - especially it's gotcha ending which, though obvious, ends the film on a less-contrived note than most - and when it works it works better than expected. I wouldn't recommend DRIVE-IN MASSACRE as a purchase - it's available on YouTube and virtually every other video streaming site on the web - but as a lazy Saturday afternoon watch, you could do much, much worse.

Overall, recommended.

DISCUSS THIS FILM IN THE FORUM! JUST CLICK HERE TO VISIT!