Snake Eater (1989)

aka Soldier

How bad is it? It's a Lorenzo Lamas movie. It is what it is.
Should you see it? If you're a Lamas fan.

That's a Harley turned jet ski, white trasheroo.

First, no snakes get eaten. Second, this had TWO sequels. Lorenzo Lamas is a former Marine (his unit was the Snake Eaters) whose parents are killed and sister abducted by hillbillies, so he goes to rescue her. Imagine Lethal Weapon meets Rambo by way of Deliverance. Ronnie Hawkins, Larry Csonka and Ron Palillo round out an unusual cast. A corpse blinks, a bear is obviously a guy in a bear suit, Lamas can't find a shirt that fits and the acting is quite bad (though Lamas is okay).

Smokey and the Bandit III (1983)

aka Smokey and the Bandit, Part III, aka Smokey and the bandit 3, aka Smokey and the Bandit, Part 3

How bad is it? Even Burt Reynolds wouldn't be in it (except a cameo).
Should you see it? No.

I wasn't the audience for the original film, as I'm not a fan of Burt Reynolds or Sally Field, but it managed some good ole boy charm. The second film was much worse, the blooper reel during the closing credits being the best part. This third film substitutes Jerry Reed and Colleen Camp for Reynolds and Field, and they're more enjoyable - unfortunately, the film isn't about them. This time, Pat McCormick and Paul Williams wager Jackie Gleason that he can't transport a stuffed shark... oh hell, who cares? It's a bunch of chase scenes and stupid yuks and it's tired and it's trite and it's just a waste of time.

Slumber Party Massacre III (1990)

aka Slumber Party Massacre 3, aka Stab in the Dark

How bad is it? Typical slasher sequel. Not good.
Should you see it? If 1980's slashers are your thing, it's watchable.

The first film in this series was interesting in how it subverted the genre, the second was just weird (which is not a bad thing) and this third (there was a fourth released in 2003) is true bare bones horror, executive produced by Roger Corman. The killer's given a backstory and then that's abandoned. There's volleyball at the start to up the jiggle factor. There's toplessness, mostly by Maria Ford. Hope Marie Carlton has a role. There's a vibrator electrocution, an impalement with a For Sale sign, a mallet to the head, a speargun... who has a mallet and a speargun?!... the guys who are mostly red herring jerks get offed before the girls, who eventually subdue the bad guy after blinding him.

Slash Dance (1989)

aka Night Chills

How bad is it? It's pretty bad.
Should you see it? Yes, if 1980's not-quite-horror is your thing.

First, this is NOT the 1984 Lucio Fulci film "Slashdance," which has a similar plot. This has a female cop go undercover as a dancer to try to catch a guy who's killing Broadway chorus girls. There's a whole tot of questionable dancing in leg warmers. There's not a lot of plot or characterization. There is, however, a high heel impaled into a forehead (wasn't that originally in Franco's "99 Women?" Even Tarantino's stolen that). The killer's identity is very obvious. There are stabs at humor that don't work. It's hokey and dull, but somehow not unwatchable.

Skinned Alive (1990)

How bad is it? It's a minor low-budget slasher flick.
Should you see it? For it's intended audience, it has its moments.

Produced by J.R. Bookwalter, this is a very cheaply made (under $20K) "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" kind of film, with bits of "Bad Taste" and "Mother's Day" thrown in. An incestuous family of hicks sells leather goods they make from the skin of people they kill. After car trouble, they end up at the house of an alcoholic ex-cop and his wife, who are having some marital problems. There's some gore that's surprisingly good for the budget (and a bit that's not), but the film tries for humor and that doesn't work. Dying's easy; comedy is hard. Bookwalter makes a cameo as a victimized Jehovah's Witness. I don't think anyone's actually alive when they get skinned.

Silent Prey (1997)

aka Silent Predator

How bad is it? Imagine a Lifetime film masquerading as Cinemax. More disappointing than bad.
Should you see it? If it shows up, it's not unwatchable.

Sometimes films are made around an instant celebrity (Xaviera Holland - look her up - got three) and here we have Carol Shaya, who got booted off the NYC police force for appearing nude in Playboy with her uniform in the shot. Here she plays a cop that goes undercover at a Catholic girls' school to catch someone who's been raping nuns; though she's a decade too old to be thought a teenager, she fits right in because the other actresses look even older. The film has very little violence or nudity and none of the luridness that nun-raping suggests. The twist ending is jaw-droppingly weird and the reason to sit through the rest of it.

Silent Night, Deadly Night, Part 2 (1987)

aka Silent Night, Deadly Night 2

How bad is it? Typical slasher sequel. Not good, but not terrible.
Should you see it? Maybe if you're doing a Xmas slasher marathon. There's a dozen.

It's no wonder that this film's had mixed reviews. The original film was controversial - they had to come out and say that it's not a "Santa is a psychopath" film, but rather a guy dressed as Santa is a psychopath. The whole first half of this film is flashbacks to the first film; if you haven't seen it, this tightens it up a bit, but if you have, you're shouting "Get on with it!" to the screen. In this film, the brother of the original film's star has been so traumatized that he's taken over the killing. Then it shows that he's killed eight people - in flashback! When the film finally starts, near the end, there's another 8 (I think) kills, with a pretty good eye pop and a decapitation. There's 22 kills shown in all, so the film just keeps throwing stuff on the screen and it doesn't get dull. It's just not all that good, either, lacking in plot and reason. There is some spectacular over-acting; wait for the "Garbage Day" scene for the worst of it.