"One of the most censored films of all time! ...The screen is drenched in despair by the constant, nagging anxiety of isolation as the encroaching elements envelope the characters in a cloud of ever impending horror and doom." Pshyah, right.
Despite the hyperbolic cover copy, there's not that much going' on in this early effort from noted bottom-feeder Fred Olen Ray. A group of college students are sent out by their professor on an unethical dig to illegally collect Native American artifacts. So, of course, they make directly for the one place the creepy tribal elder warns them against. One girl has visions of doom, then one of the guys gets himself possessed by a pizza-faced Indian spirit, who kills almost everyone and makes off with another body, to kill again in the promised, but apparently never realized, "Scalps II." (Gee, I wonder why that didn't happen?)
But FOR's unoriginality doesn't merely extend to the boilerplate plot. The look of the film strongly suggests an early Wes Craven or Tobe Hooper, which only serves to remind the viewer how well this material has been used in the past by better directors. Add to that the stiff and halting delivery of the "actors," thoroughly un-special effects, and a cameo where Forrie Ackerman flashes his book like a talk-show guest, and you're soon wondering why anyone would bother censoring this mess - it's not like anyone would want to watch it in the first place.
Despite the hyperbolic cover copy, there's not that much going' on in this early effort from noted bottom-feeder Fred Olen Ray. A group of college students are sent out by their professor on an unethical dig to illegally collect Native American artifacts. So, of course, they make directly for the one place the creepy tribal elder warns them against. One girl has visions of doom, then one of the guys gets himself possessed by a pizza-faced Indian spirit, who kills almost everyone and makes off with another body, to kill again in the promised, but apparently never realized, "Scalps II." (Gee, I wonder why that didn't happen?)
But FOR's unoriginality doesn't merely extend to the boilerplate plot. The look of the film strongly suggests an early Wes Craven or Tobe Hooper, which only serves to remind the viewer how well this material has been used in the past by better directors. Add to that the stiff and halting delivery of the "actors," thoroughly un-special effects, and a cameo where Forrie Ackerman flashes his book like a talk-show guest, and you're soon wondering why anyone would bother censoring this mess - it's not like anyone would want to watch it in the first place.