Kidnapped Coed

You would never think that a movie with a name such as "Kidnapped Coed" would be so..well..boring. But, it is. There are long stretches where absolutely nothing happens! I actually shouted at the screen several times, "DO SOMETHING!" and I'm not usually that agitated. This had so much sleaze potential and it bypassed all of its opportunities. There is a violent rape scene in the first 15 minutes, but it's ineptly staged and filmed in a slapdash manner.

Several other drawbacks: the girl is plain, to be kind and there is no nudity (It may have been cut-out, but I doubt it). There's also many odd plot devices which make no sense whatsoever.

I will say that the photography is excellent and the actor that plays the kidnapper is a fairly decent thespian. The subplot regarding his trying to relate to his mother in a nursing home oddly resonated with me since I've had some experiences with my own mom. I hate myself for tearing up during "Kipnapped Coed"!

My oh my, what a terrible movie. I've rarely seen a film that starts out so promisingly and engaging but then collapses into a boring dud so darn fast! The first ten-fifteen minutes are really strong and full of excitement. A small-time thug, a loner but nevertheless reasonably clever bloke, kidnaps the young and redhead daughter of a rich man and demands a ransom. On the first night of his plan, he seeks refugee in a sleazy and practically abandoned hotel to hide out with the girl, but they are assaulted and raped by the pervert hotel owner and his drooling bellhop. This traumatic experience somehow creates an emotional bond between kidnapper and victim, a kind of messed up Stockholm Syndrome - if you will. Sadly, it also means the abrupt ending of a potentially fantastic exploitation film. From here onwards, "Date with a Kidnapper" is indescribably tedious (despite the short running time) and thoroughly unremarkable.

Many of my fellow exploitation fanatics/friends around here seemingly had a good time with Frederick R. Friedel zero-budgeted effort, and I'm happy for them, but unfortunately, I cannot concur. Friedel's other twisted flick entitled "Axe" (aka "Lisa, Lisa"), on the other hand, I found sardonically entertaining.

One noteworthy aspect about "Date with a Kidnapper" is the minuscule supportive role of Larry Drake (the really cool maniac from "Dr. Giggles" and "Darkman") as retirement home worker. Blink your eyes and you'll miss him, though.

Despite some fairly decent acting and cinematography, this movie has plot holes you can drive a truck through. These guys at this hotel must just wait around for someone to check in with a woman for them to rape, as there is no other discernible motive for them coming to the room. Even after she tells them that she's the daughter of a rich man, they aren't interested in earning a reward by rescuing her, or kidnapping her themselves as far as the audience is told.

Then there's the amiable old farmer that puts the kidnapper and the girl up for the night. At first he seems to be the first truly decent person seen in this film, then, for no apparent reason, he's a psycho. First, he spies on the lovers at night and is holding a knife. You're waiting for: A. One of them to notice the old psycho pervert with a knife. B. The old psycho pervert to use the knife. C. The old psycho pervert to decide against doing anything and slink away. You don't get any of this, the scene just changes to morning, inexplicably. Then the old guy comes at the kidnapper with a pitchfork. Why? I sure can't tell. He continues to attack the kidnapper who draws a gun and gives the old guy every chance to stop attacking. When the kidnapper is finally forced to kill the old farmer, the girl goes all hysterical about him being a murderer and runs away! What was he supposed to do? Let the psycho farmer impale him on the pitchfork?

Also there's some question about what happens in the final scene. I can't really elaborate without giving away the so-called 'surprise ending', but the DVD calls the scene "Dance of Death", which leads you to wonder if any death actually took place, because, if it does, you don't see it.

I watched this hoping for a good, old-fashioned exploitation sleaze film, and it wasn't that, but it wasn't good either. Make of that what you will.

Oh, Jeepers, watching this one might actually lower your I.Q. a bit. Ten years ago I rented this on VHS under the title "House of Terror", I expected a low-budget 70's horror film, I also expected a specific house along with a specific terror, what I would find would leave me speechless... until now.

On the surface, it may appear that House of Terror's one and only counterpart, California AXE Massacre is the inferior product. That theory is soon challenged and eventually torn to shreds, the utter ineptness of this sleazy tale could be compared to that of a more humorous, less tragic mistake, the legendary Blood Freak, or even Blood Shack... well, then again, maybe it's not all that bad. Meet Eddie & Sandra, what an awkward pair, this guy thinks he can just up and kidnap some rich guys daughter for ransom and make some easy money, think again fella, this is Exploitation Country, he's gonna earn that money. You would think that Sandra's father would make some sort of trouble for Eddie but he doesn't seem too stressed about the whole thing, that would make too much sense anyway. Among other things, Everyone that our twosome encounter on their slow-paced journey around Charlotte, N.C either wants to hurt, rape, or kill them, kind of like in the Doom Generation, but without the third party to make things interesting. House of Terror flaunts a mean spirited theme from the beginning, Eddie now takes his young hostage to a nearby hotel where some bad guys posing as the hotel clerk & bellboy bust in, of course Sandra thinks shes been rescued, wrong, they're only there to rape her, so they do, while Eddie if forced to watch, we get the idea from his reaction that he's not all bad. Any alleged storyline is ditched at the hotel. At this point it seems this movie just stops caring what anyone thinks of it, 5 minutes of silence at a time being just one example, I guess everyone just ran out of ideas, but I really think this film is mostly about Friedel confusing the hell out of us. Certain facial expressions and phrases uttered just seem a little off to me. Finally, when things start to make sense, out pops Dr. Giggles ! Great, thats all we need. Why him why not the Blood Stalkers ? Hell, why not that 30 year old kid from Burial Ground ? I'll bet little Michael could've really spiced up this shin dig, Instead we get this early 90's garbage. Good thing this movie is for Adolph because no one else would know quite what to do with it. All sarcasm aside, I actually kinda dug House of Terror, it's what underground film-making is all about, making your movie the way YOU want, regardless of how pointless or unredeeming it might turn out, and so what if each viewing lower's your I.Q a bit. House of Terror also has that "Rare, unintentional dream-like quality" that money could never and will never buy. They should be playing little obscurities like this on TCM Underground, I mean, Russ Meyer is OK but if you wanna go underground, then do it right. Besides all that, Sandra is Kinda hot, plus, there are some pleasant N.C country locations too, looks like a pleasant place to film a little exploitation gem such as this. That santa claus guy was entertaining with his breakdown and whatnot. Any humor or B-charm that this film might possess is most likely unintentional and I wouldn't have it any other way. OK, so what were looking at here is unintentional humor, possibly unintentional confusion, plenty of silence & awkward moments, one whopper of a low-budget, and almost no closure, I get it, but come on !! Adolph deserves better.

John Canon and Leslie Rivers...what a pair! These two unsung decent actors had surprisingly convincing chemistry between them. They both made this movie that much more tolerable as did the excellent cinematography and the well conveyed moody atmosphere. The story is well-tread and predictable and the incidents too few for the movie's timeframe. As a result, we have a movie that drags on with its poigniant moments of developing love between kidnapper and abductee fizzling to an ignorable drone. What's remarkable is how society in this picture is portrayed as uncaring and ugly: an old man sits on a bench looking on as blood curdling shrieks emit from the window of the hotel where Leslie River's character is being raped. Other incidents of violence occure while passers-by either go about their own business or wish not to be disturbed. At one point, while running from her abductor, Rivers pleads with a wandering man for help but he can't do anything as he is blind. The surroundings being filled with useless or evil people creates a feeling of helplessness. Finally, the picture ends as it does (I wont spoil) and mercifully so as it tends to go on a bit too long and instead of "THE END" we see "FOR ADOLPH". What the hell does that mean? Hitler? Probably not, but still, one of those mysteries that makes a movie that much more special.