Michael Ledo These cheerleaders didn't do a whole lot of cheering in this movie, nor were they ever dressed in cheerleader outfits or waved around pom-poms. These girls seemed a bit old for HS cheerleaders. Tammie Sheffield does have a bit of a Denise Austin horsey voice to her, if you like that kind of thing. This was more of a religious movie, as cleanliness is next to godliness, and these girls like to take showers and rub soap all over their dirty sweaty chests. The deleted scene consists of 3 girls in a tub pouring chocolate syrup over their chests and then licking it off. It has a certain straight male appeal to it. This is done in the classic 1980's style where beautiful women (minus clothes) fill the screen and we had to guess who the slasher was between the shower and sex scenes. Not quite Slumber Party Massacre, but then what is?

Boba_Fett1138 I have seen more than a couple horror/erotic crossovers and I can tell you that this movie is not the worst the genre has to offer. If you have seen a couple of Jesus Franco films you'll know what I mean.Of course it has got a silly script, poor actors, bad production values and a serious lack of gore. But at least you can tell by looking at this movie that they have put some serious effort in it all. Not that it really makes the movie great but at least it makes this movie a better watch than you would perhaps expect.Problem with these horror/erotic movies crossovers is that they are not scary enough to please any horror fans and not erotic enough to make this movie effective on that field.This movie is part of the Slumber Party Massacre franchise but yet the movie doesn't really follow any of the stories from the previous movies. At least not in the way things really occurred. I mean a girl who died in the first movie suddenly now has survived the attack and reappears in this movie. The killer is also supposedly the same as in the first movie, which also seems highly unlikely since he had his hand chopped off and got completely pierced.The movie is at least not as boring as the two previous Slumber Party Massacre movies. The movie is fairly well paced and offers plenty of interesting moments.Of course not a great movie but really not the worst the genre has to offer either.5/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

John Crane This movie was one of those movies where it completely fooled me into thinking that it was a cheesy 80's slasher flick, based on the cover, but it wasn't. It was quite possibly one of the worst slasher films that I have ever seen. The picture on the cover did not match any part or scene in the movie; in fact it didn't involve a chainsaw. Not even the tag line fit the movie. The film is about a group of cheerleaders and two potheads who escape to a desolate cabin, in the cold woods, for a weekend getaway. However, things get extra chilly when they start to get murdered by an unknown killer. At the same time, the local sheriff's department is hunting down a dangerous killer. I'll name the problems in a list.1. The Acting. Boy was it cheap and horribly bad. It felt unnatural and it seemed as thought it was very scripted. None of the actors seemed as though they tried to perform with good intentions and therefore they seemed silly and tired. There was bad acting by all the characters in the movie, so I won't point out specific people, but I wills say that the stoners did a horrible job, as well as the police and the cheerleaders, which is not a surprise.2. The Plot. This story had set up a perfect storyline for good ol' fashion slasher flick, but instead they peppered it with plot-holes, useless and unnecessary scenes and an overall stupid back-story to the killer's intentions. There were major plot-holes including how the killer killed the last victim so quickly and yet still be there in the group of girls when it happened? The ex-con virtually served no purpose in the movie aside from being a useless plot device. There was random and unnecessary sex and nudity sprinkled throughout it, even for a b-movie or my taste it was a bit too much. As for the killer's intentions, lets just say it was stupid and it makes no sense as to why she / he is killing young girls. Plus, there was also some very predictable kills that I saw coming about 30 miles away.3. The Technical Side. The lighting was okay, it certainly wasn't the worse lighting that I've seen in a movie, but there were points where it was supposed to be dark but it looked more like the afternoon. The house seemed darker with the lights on, then with the lights off. The camera work was average, it didn't have any good establishing shots or amazing pans or zooms, thought it did get the job done is building some suspense with it's framing.Overall, this movie, in the sense of plot, character development and performance, was a huge disappointment and a waste of my time. What I thought would have been a great slasher flick turned out to be one of the worse movies that I have ever seen. The acting was really bad and wooden, there was hardly any sense in the plot and there was no emotion to this film. However, the technical aspect of this film saved it for me, because if the camera work or the lighting was bad, then I would have turned off the DVD player and popped in something else. I would recommend this movie to those who enjoy really cheesy b-movies as well as those who follow cult classics, because this movie certainly is. I would partially recommend this film for those who enjoy 80s slasher flicks. But for me, this movie was pitiful and utterly horrible.

TroyinIA Originally harped as a sequel to "The Slumber Party Massacre" series, this film falls flat on it's face with a new title. First off, if you are going to include the word "massacre" in your film's title, you better deliver. This one certainly does not. There is no gore, no on screen murders and no chainsaw, as the box art would lead you to believe. Instead, we get a paper thin, overdone plot about a group of cheerleaders who get stranded in an abandoned cabin on the way to a football game, only to be offed one by one. Again, this film could have been OK if the gore quotient was upped a bit. Why directors, especially those doing direct-to-video flicks, are afraid to show ANY gore is beyond me. Now, I am not a huge fan of excessive gore, but come on...why else would anyone rent a movie called "Cheerleader Massacre??" Besides that problem, the film suffers from a shot-on-a-home-video-camera cheapness. It looks cheap, sounds cheap, and the actors aren't all that good. It tries to throw us off track to who the killer may be, but even that fails. The ending ends up being a ridiculous mess. Folks, if you run across this film, walk away and go find the original "Slumber Party Massacre." 2 out of 10.