Frat House Massacre (2008)

 

Just about a year ago, in last years countdown, I reviewed a film called Slumber Party Massacre which was a remake of a 1982 film of the same name.  In it, all the male characters get the slasher movie treatment in that they are the ones being sexualized as opposed to the norm of the ladies being the ones this happens to.  Pillow fights, shower scenes, little tight underwear and nothing much else, and of course they are the victims of the killer instead of the girls in the cabin just on the other side of the lake.  Frat House Massacre is a story in the same vein.  College boys collecting new pledges and giving them their hazing rituals is the norm in this one.  Of course the pledges are all in their tighty whitey underwear (when they are wearing anything at all that is) and subjected to paddling on their naked buttocks.  Among other things as the punishment is ramped up as the film progresses.  There's actually many layers to this one which is pretty unexpected for a low budget slasher flick.   

 

 

The film is directed and produced by Alex Pucci (Camp Daze) and stars a bunch of unknowns, the way slasher films were meant to be.  The film has a grainy grind-house feeling to it as the film takes place in the late 70's and is filmed like it was made in the 70's.  Basically what we have is a killer loose in a fraternity house.  Who is the killer and why they are doing it seems pretty obvious but is it?  The film is criticized for a few reasons which I can understand but don't agree with all of them or maybe it's I don't think it's that big of a deal.  The three reasons are (1) the acting is pretty horrible which it is.  Everybody is pretty stiff and not one of the character (other than Ms. P) do I seem to care about and a few of the frat boys are down right unbearable.  So I'll give them that one.  The second issue is in an attempt to keep film costs down the production didn't include a costuming department leaving the wardrobe up to the actors wearing their own clothes.  This decision is criticized in that some of the actors wore clothes that were nowhere near something worn in the late 70's and you know that due to my fashion sense this issue of course meant nothing to me.  So maybe this was an issue for some but I didn't care nor did I really notice that much of it.  If that's the straw that broke the camels back you need to get a grip. 

 

 

 

 

 

The third issue (and perhaps the biggest one I've noticed appear in reviews) is that the film is over the top homoerotic.  Which I guess it is but again, I didn't care.  Lot's of naked boy parts (there are some naked girl parts as well so it does give semi-equal time) are seen from the front and back but this is a slasher film - nudity is expected.  Perhaps these things that people are upset about means that those people are not truly horror fans.  It's standard fare for a slasher horror film and even if the acting is very amateurish I have to give it credit for being a different type of slasher film.  The director and the producers really tried to make this different which they did with the filming and a couple unexpected twists I have to say I didn't see coming (well at least one of the twists I didn't) and it ends very unexpectedly.  My biggest complaint about the film is the run time.  One hundred and sixteen minutes!  Really?  Is that necessary?  There's a 90 minute rule that Cerpts was explaining to me about horror films where every minute over 90 minutes had better be necessary or it will count against the films score.  With the help of Blogger magic a better explanation will appear in the comments just a little bit down there VVV.  This one is extremely guilty of breaking that rule.  If it was closer to 90 minutes I would happily give this three powder blue VW micro-buses (think Dharma van) out of five but I penalize it a half of a micro-bus to make that two and a half out of five.  Maybe fast forward through the talky parts?