Sorority Babes in the Dance-A-Thon of Death (Video 1991) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
5 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
Abominable.
dkellough10 March 2003
Abominable--and not in a good way.

Bad lighting, bad sound, bad editing, bad acting, bad locations, bad set dressing, bad props (including a homemade Twister game), bad dancing, bad hair, and an unappealing cast are just the beginning. The plot is a poorly realized blend of ideas from other, better horror films and lots of chasing.

Too boring to even be fun as a bad movie.
44 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
A trainwreck you can't look away from
esamys-941-29541829 November 2020
Sometimes there are movies so bad they're good, this is not one of those movies. The camera work, the sound, acting, soundtrack everything about this movie tells you to stop watching, but you can't. You keep going wondering how bad it can get and it defies expectations. Definitely not the worst I've ever seen but it does crack the top 5.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This Is The Sort Of Movie They Show In Hell...........
blurnieghey14 September 2022
This is one of the lowest-rated movies on IMDB I have ever watched, if not the lowest, which says a lot since most of the stuff I watch is crap. There is no use harping about what is wrong with this film, as that would be literally everything and, honestly, what else would you expect from a movie with a title like this? OK, well, now that I think about it, there are a couple of things one might expect like oh, I don't know, a dance-a-thon? Or how about some babes? To put it in perspective, this is one of those flicks that is little more than a glorified home movie and, if that isn't a clear enough reference, check out any title released by the godawful Low Budget Pictures company for further example. It's like some sort of insider joke that you could care less about because you can tell it just isn't all that funny in the first place. But, hey, sometimes it doesn't hurt to taste the bottom of the barrel and, if that's what you're looking for, here it is.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
There are times when one can only point and laugh.
capkronos4 November 2014
Warning: Spoilers
In 1988, David DeCoteau directed SORORITY BABES IN THE SLIMEBALL BOWL-O- RAMA, a cheesy horror-comedy about sorority girls and nerds facing off against an evil wish-granting imp in a bowling alley. Though not what most would consider a genre classic, it went on to a minor cult following thanks primarily to its memorable title plus the fact it was a reasonably fun B-movie with enthusiastic actors, lots of nudity, lots of bad jokes, a cheesy-looking monster and pretty solid production values. Though it was not exactly clamoring for a sequel, DeCoteau himself made NIGHTMARE SISTERS (1988), another college horror-comedy heavy on the T&A and featuring the same three female stars, as a companion piece. He should have just stopped right there. Unfortunately, he did not and decided to throw a little money at Kansas City filmmaker Todd Sheets so he could make this unofficial "sequel." While the budget of "Slimeball" was a modest but sufficient 90 thousand dollars (enough to afford professional film equipment), I'd be surprised if the budget of this one exceeded 90 dollars (enough to purchase blank VHS tapes to feed into the camcorder it was shot with).

Our leads are a hideous group of college girl eyesores with fried hair, dumpy bodies and the ugliest clothes the 80s had to offer who decide to open their own sorority house after being rejected from "The Felta Deltas." They paint, clean, dance, play Twister and pinball and talk about throwing a housewarming party for the opening of their new house. Suddenly, something strange and unusual happens... and I'm not talking about the incident during a séance where a crystal ball spits out smoke that knocks all of the girls unconscious. I'm talking about the fact the director completely forgets about the plot he just set up. Without warning, the girls all suddenly become sorority PLEDGES still trying to get into that snobby house with no mention of the sorority house they'd just opened. None of this makes a lick of sense and all seems like it was made up as they go along, probably because it WAS.

After the smoke clears, so to speak, one of the girls becomes "sexy" and starts acting weird. As part of an initiation rite, five of the girls are forced to go spend the night in a reputedly haunted building where possessed girl pulls out her eyeballs and then puts them back in and then kills a couple of guys who happen to be there admiring their "garbonzas." Characters walk around the building in scenes that never seem to end and are so poorly lit you can't tell what's even going on. The possessed girl then chases the survivors back into town to a bar and the elderly couple who accidentally sold them the crystal ball show up to perform a lame exorcism. The old guy also informs them that the crystal had previously been used by a witch who "conjured up an exorcism" with it. Say whaaa? There's no blood, no gore, no nudity, no special effects and no entertainment value to speak of to any of this except to laugh at how cheap and amateurish the whole thing is. Most disappointingly, there's not even a damn "Dance-A-Thon" like the title promises!

The best part of this movie happens when the whole thing is over and the hilariously obnoxious end credits roll. There's a special "No Thanks" to "the K.C. Film Commission," "the close-minded folks here in K.C." and "anyone who thinks we make porno films." And then a "Big Rot in Hell" section for "Jack Valenti and the Nazi lovers at the M.P.A.A., all fat, lying abusive ministers who accuse us of being porno makers." That is followed by what is pretty much an insult to anyone who just wasted their time viewing this worthless tape ("Turn the damned thing off... don't you have any better things to do?") The copyright say 1994, but this thing was clearly filmed sometime before that. Everything about it screams the 80s.

A few more notes: The "technical specs" for this movie currently claim it was filmed on 35mm (they wish!). It also doesn't run 75 minutes, but just 69 and that's including the VERY slow-moving end credits.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
No where near as good as the first, but still a decent time waster
aaronzombie7 August 2001
Warning: Spoilers
In name only sequel to David DeCoteau's "Sorority Babes in the Slimeball Bowl-O-Rama," is pretty entertaining, but isn't quite as fun as the first. Also, if you thought the first was low budget, this one looks like a $5 budget movie that was shot with a camcorder. That doesn't mean it isn't fun to watch though.

!!!POSSIBLE SPOILER OR 2!!!After releasing an evil spirit from a crystal ball, a group of sorority sisters are told they must spend the night in an abandoned college if they want to become a real sorority. One of them gets possessed by the spirit they released and one by one they die. Only 2 antique dealers can save them.

Entertaining, o.k. acting, a cool music score, and the college setting is pretty spooky, but the polt is awful, and the very beginning of the film has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the film. **1/2 out of *****.
8 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed