Massacre at Central High (1976)

Not a slasher at all

This is a curious and meaningful piece of work. The film is not a slasher as so many others have written or implied. I'm not even sure I could regard it as a typical "revenge film". It seems to fall in between some pre-selected categories and that makes many of us nervous, as it should.
In some respects it is prescient - Columbine crops up immediately - but it is as well out of time.

The acting isn't highly underlined and the musical score can be quite irritating but the camera work and the editing are extremely fluent. It doesn't depict adolescence in black and white for a change. My own adolescence wasn't painted in black and white either and for that alone I could recommend the film. It goes in several fascinating directions, all of them troubling.

Leaving out the question of "why" things happened, it's perhaps more useful looking into some broader issues. The punishments were much more brutal than the crimes. The central character never receives our sympathy. The other central characters don't involve us very much. There is no specific "message" to satisfy would-be film critics. And yet the film has achieved some "cult" status.

"Massacre" kept me on my feet throughout. I truly didn't have a clue what was about to happen but I was afraid NOT to look. I enjoyed looking at this film and recommend it to others who don't seek easy
solutions to complicated times.

Curtis Stotlar August 31, 2008

The source material for "Heathers"

Shortly after starting at a new school, a group of bullies attack new student and athlete, David (Derrel Maury), resulting in the loss of his leg. David doesn't report these students to the police, but instead takes matters into his own hands and dispatches with the bullies one by one, thinking that this will free the other students from the bullies' reign of terror. However, things don't go quite to plan and David soon discovers that when one authoritarian power goes, another will just rise to take its place.

"Massacre at Central High" is not a bad film. The idea behind it is excellent (I particularly liked the idea that when one set of bullies vanishes, another will just take its place), but it falls victim to a bad script with way too much filler and bad acting. What do you expect of a low budget horror film made for the drive-in audiences of the 1970's? The main claim to fame of this film is that it has the reputation for being the "inspiration" for "Heathers". I am a huge fan of "Heathers" (I've seen it three times) and watching this film with the deliberate intention of looking for plot similarities, I can see them (both films have the same basic idea of a slightly deranged outsider coming to a new school and killing the popular kids, and the endings to both films are very similar). However, "Heathers" is by far the better film (the idea is better executed, the dialogue is sharper and Derrel Maury is definitely no match for Christian Slater) and there are enough differences between the two films to stop me from screaming "rip-off".

In spite of the title, "Massacre at Central High" is actually quite a tame film. My DVD copy bears such quotes as "violence-drenched", and "this film is definitely not for the squeamish" on the cover, but in fact, there is very little blood and gore and I found the episode of "Dexter" that I watched immediately after this film to be far more gruesome. If you are thinking of watching this film for the gore content, then you will be disappointed. However, for fans of "Heathers", it's not a bad way of spending 82 minutes of your life.
April 17, 2008

...but a bumper crop at the cheese factory!

Massacre at Central High (Rene Daalder, 1976)

I first saw Massacre at Central High over a quarter-century ago, probably on HBO, and have been searching for it again ever since. I finally managed to track down a copy thanks to a recent overseas DVD release (it's about time we got a domestic one, no?); while this is by no means deathless cinema-- Daalder started his career as a cameraman for Russ Meyer-- it is, if anything, even better than I remembered it being.

David (Derrell Maury) is the new kid at an exclusive high school. One of his old friends, Mark (Andrew Stevens), already goes there. He's fallen in with the school bullies, and plans to use his affiliation with them to protect David. David, unfortunately, has other plans, both in standing up to them himself and organizing the rest of the students against them. The bullies, of course, have other plans, and soon the conflict has escalated.

It's impossible to get to what really makes this movie so gripping without going into major spoilers; we'll just say that things reach a rather absurd conclusion (hinted at in the title)-- and then go two or three steps further in the movie's final act. This is a movie where the scenario does all the work; the acting, the direction, the cinematography, the soundtrack, all are average at best (and plumb some truly strange depths at worst; Rainbeaux Smith, topless, idly playing with a box of dynamite, may be a nadir in seventies exploitation cinema, where outright silliness is concerned. Not that you're likely to notice, given that, well, Rainbeaux Smith is topless). But the concept is so outlandish that it somehow works. If you missed this one on the cult cinema circuit, it's certainly worth looking up now. ***
March 10, 2008

What ever happened to?

I haven't seen this movie since I first saw it in 1976. I enjoyed it back then especially the acting of Derrel Maury. I remember seeing him in Happy Days and I thought he would really make it big. I wonder whatever happened to him. February 2, 2008

Why Don't You Stand Up to Them?

David (Derrell Maury) is a new student at Central High, set near the mountainous California coast. A friend from his past, Mark (Andrew Stevens), welcomes him and makes a strong effort to recruit David into the tough foursome that dominates the school: outsiders don't have a comfortable life. Along the way, David strikes up a friendship with Mark's girlfriend, Theresa (Kimberly Beck). Observing the gang members bullying and raping their way through the student body, David chooses to side with and aid the victims and to spend time with Theresa. The gang turns on David, sending him to the hospital. Limping and aloof, David returns. Then one-by-one, most of the gang die accidentally. As the former victims realize what is happening, they rejoice and become overbearing themselves. Then the former victims begin to die, not so accidentally. Of the thirteen credited characters, a double-digit number die violently. How will it all end?

The blood and gore is at a realistic level. The film is technically not a slasher film since no one is stabbed or slashed and the killer is not some unknown in a mask. No gun is fired. There are explosions, collisions, electrocutions, and the like.

The skin shots are quite generous. All three credited female characters have topless scenes, as do most of the credited male characters. There are several rear-end shots and a scene of a couple romping nude at night in the surf.

The acting is fairly good. Most of the actors had extensive experience both before and after this film. I thought Andrew Stevens did especially well as the ambivalent gang member, Mark.

The students run the show. The film presents no teachers or parents. The school building is a stately palace with an Ionic columned portico in front, apparently set all by itself in the coastal California countryside. The actors are all early 20's; so, other than the gym and locker scenes, one could imagine this as a college film. The DVD image is clean. The film seems to have been influenced by the romance of student takeovers of the 1960's, by Lord of the Flies, and by High Noon. Carrie with Sissy Spacek came out the same year. The action is self-contained and reflects its period well.

Massacre at Central High raises interesting social issues while keeping the blood flowing. It deserves more active distribution. High 3.
July 26, 2006

More reviews at Amazon.com ...