Honeymoon Horror (1982) * 1/2 (out of 4)A husband goes out for cigarettes while on his honeymoon but when he returns home he finds the bride with another man. The bride busts her husband over the head with a bottle, a fire breaks out and he is burned to a crisp. Fast-forward a few years and the "bride" is still with the man she was cheating with and she's used the insurance money to build a honeymoon resort. Three love bird couples show up as well as a murderer.HONEYMOON HORROR is an ultra low-budget slasher that borrows elements from THE BURNING and a few other films. The end result is pretty much what you'd expect. They obviously didn't have the money and in some cases didn't have the talent to pull off a very good picture but at the same time the film does have an interesting look and feel to it so fans of the genre who must see everything it has to offer will find a few nice things here.The majority of the death scenes aren't the greatest that you'll ever see but again it's obvious they didn't have too much money to do them. MOre times than not we will see the weapon going towards the victim and then there's a cut to the aftermath. The body will be lying on the floor or wherever else with of course plenty of blood flowing. None of the scenes are terrific but at least they tried to give us some of the red stuff.The performances are pretty much what you'd expect out of a film like this. They range from poor to "good-enough-for-the-genre" but to be fair, not too many of them went onto other projects. I will say that I really liked the look of the film as well as the setting. The plot is overly familiar and I'm sure most people will guess who the killer is. One wishes that there was some more action or a bit more energy but overall I've seen much worse than HONEYMOON HORROR.

At a newly re-opened honeymoon lodge "Lovers Island" someone is stalking and killing the female newlyweds.Decent if completely unmemorable slasher. The idea is fine, a killer lurking in the shadows killing the women on a remote island, but there are too many problems for it to become anything other than average. The acting is fairly stilted and even dramatically poor at times, the women are best but some of the males are just a bit too unbelievable. The film does create a bit of tension and does have a creepy atmosphere, however this is killed off along with some decent pacing, every time we see the stupid and totally unnecessary sheriff, its played for comic relief but doesn't work and would've been better not in the film. The mystery of the killer is not a mystery its obvious from the very first scene who our killer will be & is no shock when we see him. The low-budget is clear particularly in the ineffective gore sequences that don't really convince, although they are a little fun at times.Unbelievably this was a Section 3 nasty here in the UK meaning it could be seized by the police, why?, that's anyone guess. The tag-line of- Why kill all the women- doesn't really mean a thing and it never becomes clear why, the best thing to do is don't think too much, just sit down for 90mins and enjoy it as much as you can.

Made in the heydays of the slashers this is a slasher but one that people forgot and it disappeared in obscurity. It still is because if you want to see it you will have to search an old ex-rental NTSC VHS. Is it worth searching, oh yes it does but not for the horror.The acting is sometimes as wooden as it can get. But that's normal because they were all first time actors, and even last time actors, not one made it further and only Kathy Johnson (tourist) came from a few other flicks but her career stopped with this flick. the worst acting came from Bill Pecchi as the sheriff but he went further as an technician like in Moonwalker (1988) as camera operator.This flick is a perfect example how bad a flick can be due the low budget. The editing was too slow and it's clear that when they went running outside the cabin the sound was added afterwards. It isn't lipsync at all. But it can get worser. There were so many opportunities for the killer to attack but every time there was something in between so that the killer couldn't attack. If he attacks the editing was done so weird and bad that you misses some important moments of stabbing. Naturally they had to add some nudity which they did with a shower scene. Does I have to say that the killer slashes the nude girl, but just look once she's dead and is discovered by her lover. You can see her breath, her body is moving, go figure that one out!The last scene were the killer enters the house is funny too. They tried to add some suspense but failed completely. Watch after a killing with an axe the killer watching the victim and her boyfriend just standing there waiting to be attacked. Once everything is solved we go further to a scene with the sheriff and his deputy on a motorboat, it adds nothing to the flick, only stupidity in the story and even the script, listen how he reacts to the CB. Early eighties, the clothes do add something ridiculous to the viewer too. One guy is as gay as it can be, white socks, a chest with too much hair, and he's wearing a mustach and daisy dukes, but he's as straight as it can be. Men, this is a must see. There are a few bloody moments but from shot 5 you already know who the killer is. One to add to your collections to classify under weird horrors. I had a few laughs due the cheesy lyrics and the weird editing while the killer goes berserk.Gore 1/5 Nudity 0,5/5 Effects 1/5 Story 2/5 Comedy 0/5

NOTE: This has spoilers in it. but you know what is coming five minutes into the film. Still, if you plan on seeing the movie, don't read the following review.Let's see what we have here.... A secluded island with only a few people on it? Honeymoon cabins on the island? A deceitful murder years before? The cabins reopen years later? A bunch of "young" hormonally charged couples taking their vacation there? Could this be the premise of yet another bad slasher movie? You betcha!Chances are, you've seen this all before, and much better, at that. Elaine and her husband (I think his name was Frank....we'll just call him that anyhow) own some cabins on an island. When he leaves for the mainland, she slips over to the cabin of their friend, Vic, for a little after-hours mischief. Ah, but one night, Elaine hurries over, and Frank returns for his cigarettes. He finds the adulterers...um...engaged and flips out. The result is Frank being knocked out after the cabin catches on fire. Vic and Elaine leave him to die, and the director leaves the scene to show us the black screen with the "Several Years Later," phrase on it. Yes, several years go by, and Elaine, now married to Vic, reopens the cabins to honeymooners. Three couples show up, all six displaying their bad acting talents. Among them is only one cliche, a muscular, stupid, balding guy named Dwayne. The other five people have no personalities whatsoever, which makes the picture worse than it should have been. Anyway, they apparently blew all their cash on the weddings and the receptions' alcohol, because I can't imagine why anyone would choose this ugly island for a honeymoon. I would have more fun dancing nude in the Antarctic Circle than being on that dull island! But the couples don't care, and proceed to do nothing but sleep together. Eventually (but not too soon, unfortunately), a crazed, burnt-up killer comes to bump people off. Everyone but the people on the screen knows it is Frank, which just goes to show how insultingly stupid these people really are.There are way too many dumb points to this movie to mention, but I will provide a few reasons not to watch this. I would encourage (or perhaps I should discourage) you to watch the film before reading my negative points so you are unbiased and can compare your list of idiocy to mine. First off, why does Frank wait so long to attack? Elaine and Vic are the main targets, and they spent time on the island to fix up the cabins. Why not just whack them there and be done with it instead of waiting for the honeymooners? And why does Frank only seem interested in killing the women? That is stupid. Second, once they figure out someone is killing people, the so-called men wander out in the dark, looking for either the killer or missing people. Not only is that ridiculous of them to do, but you'd think that Frank would use this opportunity to isolate someone and snub them out. But no, Frank actually disappears during these searches, and thus there is a huge gap in the movie where absolutely nothing at all happens. Third, since they obviously never found Frank's body in the fire, why did Elaine, Vic, and everyone on the mainland think he died in it? It's not like his charred corpse got up, jumped in the water to cool off, and was lost in the undertow. This could be explained by the fourth point: dumb cops. Throughout the whole movie, we are constantly assaulted by pointless, annoying scenes featuring a dumb sheriff and his equally dumb deputy. They don't want to investigate the island because it is too much work, and we are force-fed overly long scenes of the sheriff complaining to his deputy and to himself over the island and "those crazy couples" that we really don't need. They serve no purpose in the film, and they are idiotic caricatures to boot. Every time they showed up, I kept expecting to hear the voice of Waylon Jennings pipe up and say, "Well, looks like the ol' Duke Boys are going to have an easy day today." Painful. And don't get me started on the poor acting, dim lighting, and the thin blood that comes out of people like spurts of water.Originally, I thought about giving this film a 2, but the more I thought about it, the more I hated it. There is one good death, and it happens early on. After that, it get excruciating. The only reason you might want to see it is to write a comparison paper between it and the similar film, "The Burning," which was made around the same time as this was. At least with "The Burning," you could laugh at a very young Jason Alexander. With "Honeymoon Horror," you laugh at a muscular, stupid, balding guy named Dwayne. Zantara's score: 1 out of 10.