Video Violence 1 & 2

Much like what's happening on DVD shelves today, the mid-to-late 80's had a slew of very low-budget horror films that went straight to VHS. They knew that the average video watcher couldn't tell the difference from a big-budget movie to a low-budget movie by the cover art alone, thus, many cheesy and easily forgettable horror films were born. Video Violence was one of them -- made on a meager budget and with a cast made primarily of friends of director Gary. R. Cohen, they set out to deliver a horror film with a message on violence in society. Now, thanks to the likes of Camp Motion Pictures, we're forced to re-watch these horrible additions to the genre that many (like myself) wish had never been made. Now released on a double-feature DVD, you can experience low-budget 80's cheese like never before!

----------

3 - "Video Violence... When Renting is Not Enough"

The first film follows a video store owner and his wife who recently moved into a small town after having enough of the big city. One day the store owner receives a mysterious tape in the slot box for returned films that doesn't appear to be from their archive. When a co-worker decides to play the tape they witness the brutal murder of a mailman who supposedly went on vacation. The store owner decides to run to the police station instead of calling them, and for some reason decides to leave the tape behind with the co-worker, so naturally when he returns with the chief the co-worker and tape are missing. The store owner and his wife eventually uncovers the towns secret love of snuff films and how they murder any outsiders and puts it on a VHS tape for the rest of the town to enjoy.

In the first minute of watching the movie you can tell immediately this is going to be one crappy film. Despite being on DVD it's almost like you're watching VHS all over again, but that's expected when the original masters have a horrible home-video look to it anyway. Aside from the look, the movie has a number of problems, from the pacing, story, and especially the acting. Since most of the cast have never acted in their life it's to be expected, but it really just makes the movie hard to take seriously. A big plot-hole the movie suffers from is actually in the beginning after the video owner receives the tape. Instead of simply calling the police, he decides to actually go to the station, and on foot I might add, despite driving to the video store earlier in the film (maybe he wanted to save gas?). There's a nice sequence of him running and dodging traffic as he makes his way to the police station that also doubles as a library(!). Either way, he decides to leave the tape (evidence!) behind with the co-worker, but hey, at least he locked the front door and put up the closed sign right? So of course when the chief of police arrives the door is open and the tape and video clerk are missing.

Speaking of the chief of police, with his hilarious toupee and grandpa sweater-vest, he looks like he just escaped the walls of a nearby nursing home! It always looks like he just threw the toupee on his head right before the cameras started rolling, with each time he's on-screen it looks more disheveled than before. Then we've got the long five-minute sequences involving the video store owner and his wife trying to analyze the situation over dinner. This is probably the slowest part of the movie, and you'll most likely hit the fast-forward button like I did. Towards the end of the film you'll witness one of the slowest car-following sequences in feature film history. The couple decide to follow a car after the guys in it just kidnapped a girl, but the car their following is clearly driving no more than 20 MPH, and the couple (for one reason or another) think it's necessary to only have a few feet between them while they follow the culprits to their hideout. Wouldn't that seem a bit suspicious? So in terms of gore, we really don't see anything until an hour into the film when we get some decapitations and lots of blood spilt. The make-up effects are okay considering the decade, but scenes like the decapitation are clearly fake.

3 - "Video Violence Part 2... The Exploitation!"

Since they actually turned a profit with the first movie, Camp Video demanded a sequel, thus, Video Violence 2 was born shortly after the first film. This time the two guys that did most of the killing on film (Eli & Howard) have somehow found a way to hack into television broadcasts to host their own talk show called "The Howard and Eli Show", where they basically kill a live person on camera while also showing clips and fake commercials all depicting other forms of murder on camera. Supposedly the urge to kill has gone global and it's not just the little town from the first movie that loves the stuff. This movie is pretty much just a waste of time; there's essentially no plot, just pointless killing and some blood and guts. The movie has more of a comedic tone than the first film, which took itself too seriously and had an incredibly slow pace. With this movie we're thrown a bunch of cheesy skits of people murdering other people. Each time the show goes to commercial we're shown a new skit. These skits range from fake products designed for killing to a ravenous new pet called "Wilbur" that looks like something from Ghoulies. There are even "viewer submissions" for fans of the show to send in their own murders. One segment starts out just like an 80's porno -- three bored half-dressed young ladies order pizza, and when the delivery man arrives they all decide to dance and strip his clothes off. Just before you think you're gonna see a foursome, the girls draw their knives and stab the hell outta the poor sap.

It's clear from the start that there's a bigger budget, bigger cast, and more gore. That, added with the fact that they don't take the film seriously and even poke at the genre does make the movie somewhat more enjoyable than the first. While watching you'll notice various homages to other horror films, and especially the ending which reminds me a great deal of a specific 80's slasher that shall remain nameless to avoid spoilers. The gore is a big improvement from the first movie, and we get more of it. Exploding eyeballs, heads, and lots of blood. Still, the gore alone isn't enough to make the movie watchable.

OVERALL

In the end both films are prime examples of how bad straight-to-video horror films were in the 80s. Whether they were going for a serious plot, or spoof-theme, they were going to be bad either way thanks to the horrible directing, acting, and fake-looking make-up effects. Do yourself a favor and don't waste your hard-earned dollars on this mess.

Comments page 0 of 0:

CLICK HERE TO COMMENT

Your Name:


Email Address:


Image verification:



Message:

 

There are currently 0 comments to display.

<>