Oh come on, yes this is bad. This movie is so bad I just had to come here and tell everyone about it. It's not even bad on a "so bad it's good" level: I put this on the other night while some of the guys were over. They left at about the twenty five minute mark for the art bar, which should have spoken volumes. First impressions are usually correct. Instead of some tripped out perverse creature feature epic, what starts out as a kind of intriguing voodoo revenge crossed with nature striking back drama quickly devolves into a giant rampaging rubbery monster movie.
The tipoff should have been the Point-Of-View photography meant to show the snake's view of the world as it stalked & attacked it's prey. When handled correctly (i.e. ALIENS 3 or even RATMAN with David Warbeck) P.O.V. photography can add an element to a film by showing people reacting to a genuine menace. Here it is just a relatively cheap gimmick meant to take the place of showing the monster, however, and nothing really important or revealing is seen during the P.O.V. shots to indicate that hey! this is a big, weird, freaky snake on the rampage. SPASMS could have been a movie about a monster kitty cat on the loose or maybe a runaway vacuum cleaner. Come to think of it, now THERE is an idea!!
The choice of having the monster be a snake was arbitrary, and raises a couple of silly, nagging questions about the thing: How was it able to send pretty brunette coeds flying through the air with enough force to not just smash into a bathroom door, but fly clean through the door to smack against the shower stall? Snakes have no arms or fingers, no feet to dig into the ground to get a firm purchase on the floor and use momentum to get a 125lb human body into motion. Maybe it was smacking people around with it's head like a baseball bat. Evidence to the contrary, the snake was also intelligent enough to have seen horror movies and know where to go to kill people, most notably a college dormitory. It also knew where Oliver Reed lived, suggesting access to a roll-a-decks. This is some snake.
The one thing I was pleased by in regards to the film is that while some live snakes were used during the early voodoo/mystics scenes, none were used in the big horror finale. None appear to have been used to ill ends during the course of the film, let alone exploited for their sexual connotations. Which when you think about it isn't exactly an easy thing to do in a horror movie about snakes, especially those with naked shower scenes set in coed dormitories. Stripped of it's latent phallic horror the snake becomes just another juggernaut of animal-friendly destruction. The producers instead relied on a cheap looking giant rubber snake puppet which got laughs even when attacking the coed in the shower -- which is never shown by the way. How can you fault a movie for not being exploitational enough? Next time anyone asks, point them in the direction of SPASMS. Great, sleazy name for a movie, but if you are looking for lurid thrills forget it, the people who made this film had something else in mind.
Just what it is I haven't a clue: It doesn't really work as a monster thriller until about the final 15 minutes by when most people would have followed the boys out the door to the art bar, where you can't even smoke anymore. Fans of Peter Fonda will like the movie, and devotees of dumb, rubbery grade C monster movies will be well served, though I will personally qualify this film as an enigma who's existence can only be explained by contract obligations.
4/10: Has about a half dozen good laughs, two really nice breasts, and a conclusion rather than an ending.
The tipoff should have been the Point-Of-View photography meant to show the snake's view of the world as it stalked & attacked it's prey. When handled correctly (i.e. ALIENS 3 or even RATMAN with David Warbeck) P.O.V. photography can add an element to a film by showing people reacting to a genuine menace. Here it is just a relatively cheap gimmick meant to take the place of showing the monster, however, and nothing really important or revealing is seen during the P.O.V. shots to indicate that hey! this is a big, weird, freaky snake on the rampage. SPASMS could have been a movie about a monster kitty cat on the loose or maybe a runaway vacuum cleaner. Come to think of it, now THERE is an idea!!
The choice of having the monster be a snake was arbitrary, and raises a couple of silly, nagging questions about the thing: How was it able to send pretty brunette coeds flying through the air with enough force to not just smash into a bathroom door, but fly clean through the door to smack against the shower stall? Snakes have no arms or fingers, no feet to dig into the ground to get a firm purchase on the floor and use momentum to get a 125lb human body into motion. Maybe it was smacking people around with it's head like a baseball bat. Evidence to the contrary, the snake was also intelligent enough to have seen horror movies and know where to go to kill people, most notably a college dormitory. It also knew where Oliver Reed lived, suggesting access to a roll-a-decks. This is some snake.
The one thing I was pleased by in regards to the film is that while some live snakes were used during the early voodoo/mystics scenes, none were used in the big horror finale. None appear to have been used to ill ends during the course of the film, let alone exploited for their sexual connotations. Which when you think about it isn't exactly an easy thing to do in a horror movie about snakes, especially those with naked shower scenes set in coed dormitories. Stripped of it's latent phallic horror the snake becomes just another juggernaut of animal-friendly destruction. The producers instead relied on a cheap looking giant rubber snake puppet which got laughs even when attacking the coed in the shower -- which is never shown by the way. How can you fault a movie for not being exploitational enough? Next time anyone asks, point them in the direction of SPASMS. Great, sleazy name for a movie, but if you are looking for lurid thrills forget it, the people who made this film had something else in mind.
Just what it is I haven't a clue: It doesn't really work as a monster thriller until about the final 15 minutes by when most people would have followed the boys out the door to the art bar, where you can't even smoke anymore. Fans of Peter Fonda will like the movie, and devotees of dumb, rubbery grade C monster movies will be well served, though I will personally qualify this film as an enigma who's existence can only be explained by contract obligations.
4/10: Has about a half dozen good laughs, two really nice breasts, and a conclusion rather than an ending.