• R, 1 hr. 21 min.
  • Horror
  • Directed By:
    Jim Wynorski
    In Theaters:
    Mar 25, 2003 Wide
    On DVD:
    Mar 25, 2003

Opening

67% The Maze Runner Sep 19
69% A Walk Among the Tombstones Sep 19
56% This Is Where I Leave You Sep 19
91% The Guest Sep 17
83% Tracks Sep 19

Top Box Office

13% No Good Deed $24.3M
73% Dolphin Tale 2 $15.9M
92% Guardians of the Galaxy $8.1M
19% Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles $4.9M
20% Let's Be Cops $4.4M
89% The Drop $4.1M
37% If I Stay $3.9M
36% The November Man $2.8M
33% The Giver $2.6M
67% The Hundred-Foot Journey $2.4M

Coming Soon

68% The Equalizer Sep 26
70% The Boxtrolls Sep 26
86% The Two Faces of January Sep 26
—— Two Night Stand Sep 26
91% Jimi: All Is by My Side Sep 26

Premieres Tonight

29% The Mysteries of Laura: Season 1
63% Red Band Society: Season 1

New Episodes Tonight

86% The Bridge (FX): Season 2
83% Extant: Season 1
—— Franklin & Bash: Season 4
—— The League: Season 6
56% Legends: Season 1

Discuss Last Night's Shows

—— Brickleberry: Season 3
88% Finding Carter: Season 1
67% Matador: Season 1
—— The Mindy Project: Season 3
—— New Girl: Season 4
83% Sons of Anarchy: Season 7

Cheerleader Massacre Reviews

Page 1 of 5
Dean !

Super Reviewer

June 19, 2007
A light hearted low budget slasher with lots of girls in showers, and cheap thrills. Ticks all the boxes for a modern day slasher and despite the emphasis on the pretty women this is quite a good entry in the genre.
Dann M

Super Reviewer

October 8, 2012
You hear about movies this bad, but rarely do you get an opportunity to actually see one. Cheerleader Massacre is beyond low-budget horror, there's virtually no production value and the "acting" isn't even up to the standards of a used car commercial. This abomination isn't worthy of being called a movie, let alone worth watching.
DrStrangeblog
DrStrangeblog

Super Reviewer

July 29, 2012
Really terrible. Avoid even if you're a fan of sorts of Jim Wynorski, he's never been effective directing horror and this "effort" is among the worst. Rife with continuity errors, builds zero tension, incredibly lame killer (or I should say killers), virtually goreless, and only one memorable splash of T&A, the adorably bratty Charity Rahmer getting giggly in the shower. Gotta hand it to Cheerleader Massacre in one respect, it reels off a murder (1:30), nudity (3:00), and a shower scene (5:20) all before you've cracked open your box of Milk Duds. Unfortunately then it says, "Oh shit, what do I do for the next 75 minutes??"
divinetrash
divinetrash

Super Reviewer

December 17, 2007
Yes, it's bad, and yes, it is a cheap porno. But also, it's fantastically hilarious.
John W.
August 1, 2013
Very amateurish T&A horror. A terrible story with awful dialogue delivered by terrible actors with almost no cinematic production values. About the only thing going for it is the young, attractive, largely undressed cast and even that is barely enough to keep your eyes on screen. The enjoyment value of the film is inversely proportionate to the cast's collective cup size.
December 26, 2012
Pretty horrible quality. The death scenes were almost as bad as the acting. Plenty of non-acting "talent" however...
Dann M

Super Reviewer

October 8, 2012
You hear about movies this bad, but rarely do you get an opportunity to actually see one. Cheerleader Massacre is beyond low-budget horror, there's virtually no production value and the "acting" isn't even up to the standards of a used car commercial. This abomination isn't worthy of being called a movie, let alone worth watching.
February 1, 2012
Same creaters as Slumber Party Massacre so you know this film is a cheap porn slasher with some good kills & an 80's charm to it!
December 15, 2011
Wanted this to be awesome. It wasn't.
jazza923
December 27, 2006
Low budget and campy horror film, not as bad as I was expecting, not to say that that means it was good. Bordering on soft porn, the main cast is primarily large breasted women who can't act very good. Predictable.
MovieMoJoMaster
March 13, 2006
Look above for Ratings.
ripvanryan
July 13, 2004
See, here's the thing: I have this friend, who is a huge proponent of digital video. He's an amateur filmmaker, and he would never think of originating on anything but video. He is always citing Robert Roderiguez and making me watch the extras on Once Upon a Time in Mexico, you know, where Robert takes you through his digital process and you get to see all of the neat things he has in his home, like sound mixing boards and digital squib readouts and sh**. My friend claims that digital is the only universally acceptable medium, and that the accessability of digital video makes it so that anyone can afford to make a movie. I guess his point is, you shouldn't have to be rich to be an artist.

Yeah, but then I watched [i]Cheerleader Massacre, [/i]which I started after I couldn't get more than 20 minutes into [i]Scarecrow, [/i]both of which are straight to video horror films shot on digital video. The immediacy of the digital medium looked good in [i]The Blair Witch Project[/i], but I have to admit, in regards to my friend's complaint, that I think maybe if paint were a little more expensive we wouldn't be subjected to so many crappy paintings. Who wants to waste paint on a crummy still life if the stuff is $50 a bottle? Similarly, I don't think that everyone with a digital camera should be given a shot at the big time, and [i]Cheerleader Massacre[/i] is the reason why. It looks bad, it is bad, and I have to say, with the same actors, script, and effects, had the movie been shot on 32 mm, it may have been half-decent.

So, now I have learned, all of today's straight to video horror films are digital video and look like crud. Poorly-lit with awful pixellation and abyssmal acting, this films were over before they started. I'll rent a DVD remastering of [i]The Prowler[/i] any day.
Page 1 of 5
Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile