maximumkate No one going into a low budget film like this should expect a masterpiece, but reading the reviews, I was prepared for something far less competent than this movie about an intergenerational curse as the product of a witch burning (think Mario Bava's Black Sunday but set in modern day - well, 1971 - Staten Island).You sort of expect barely-good-enough performances and barely competent direction with something like this, but several things really threw me for a loop:First is the performance of the smoking hot Shelby Leverington, the revengeful protagonist of the movie. Her performance here exceeds expectations which adds to the surreal quality of the film generally. I should also mention, in particular, the performance of Norman Parker as Jake, who matches her excellently and believably.The other thing is the unsettling yet appealing left-field prog-psych soundtrack which was notable enough that it kept drawing my attention.There are no big twists here and the plot is hardly original, but the direction is competent and it exceeds a lot of other films with this sort of subject matter from that time period.I don't agree with the negative reviews of this film. Compared to all of the other occult horror of the period, this one stands up a lot better than most of the rest, avoiding exploitation elements in favor of something a little more subtle. There's some blood and some sex, but it is muted and serves the plot.This is not Citizen Kane. You have to suspend a few critical faculties for this. But for what it is, you can do a whole lot worse.Also: if any woman ever starts telling you a story about the Southern Tribes, my suggestion is to head for the exit immediately.

Scott LeBrun This low, low budget clunker begins with a Salem Witch Trials type of sequence wherein a young woman is accused of witchcraft and burned at the stake. Then we abruptly - and I do mean abruptly - cut to modern times where another young woman, Lise (the attractive Shelby Leverington) has insinuated herself into the lives of an affluent but insipid family. Eventually a few deaths occur; it seems as if somebody wants to get revenge for the death of that long ago witch.Nothing interesting ever happens in this dull and dumb film. It just plods along, with way too much filler. For whatever reason, Lise feels compelled to tell people stories about ancient tribes where women were the hunters-gatherers. Sequences such as those in an office building are simply inane and go on too long. The dialogue by director Ken Friedman is lame and badly delivered by a mostly nondescript cast. Use of music is particularly egregious. Gore and fight scenes are as inept as the balance of the film. Because of this, "Death by Invitation" isn't without its little amusements, but there's simply too few of them.Leverington went on to have a fairly good career as a character actress, appearing in things like "The Long Riders" and "Dutch". A good thing, considering how inauspicious this film debut was. Another performer here did reasonably well, and that's Norman Parker (who plays Jake), whose other credits include "Prince of the City" and "The Clairvoyant". Aaron Phillips is awful as grumpy patriarch Peter Vroot. Friedman, to his credit, would hone his craft and go on to write or co-write such movies as "White Line Fever", "Heart Like a Wheel", and "Johnny Handsome".With an underwhelming and unsatisfying ending, and a story too thin to sustain much viewer attention, this has to rate as very forgettable. Even people who crave discovering obscure efforts like this may find their patience tested.Four out of 10.

MartinHafer I like bad movies. Or, shall I say movies so bad that they are funny--such as "Plan 9 From Outer Space", "The Apple", "The Room" or "Robot Monster". However, there is another type of bad movie that I simply cannot stand--BORING bad movies. These are movies that you can't even enjoy on a camp level and they therefore have nothing to offer. "Death by Invitation" is clearly in the latter category. Now this truly is amazing given the plot--as almost any director should have been able to make this interesting--any director but Ken Friedman that is. While he might be a very nice person and has written a few good films, when it comes to directing, this is not his forte and this first directorial effort possibly is the reason he's directed very few films.The film is about a lady whose ancestor was killed during the witch trials*. Now, centuries later, she is out to avenge this death by killing the relatives of her killers. And what is her weapon? UTTER AND COMPLETE BOREDOM!!! A great example of this is relatively early in the film when instead of just killing some bad actor (and wow, he was bad), she talked on and on and on about some tribe of female warriors. As for the killing, you really couldn't even see how it happened...nor did you care. You just wanted it to get moving! Add to that that normal incidental music was absent and you've got a ponderous scene and a ponderous movie. Add to that that the cast was made up of mostly first-time actors, very bad editing and composition, a first-time director and a budget (I'm guessing here) of about $324 and you've got a lousy picture. I have actually seen worse films (hence the score of 2) but few that were as dull as this one.

HEFILM This film does have the feel of an Andy Milligan movie from around this same time zone of 1968-1974. But it rises above that level in spots. It starts rather lamely with a protracted witch trial sequence but then effectively and abruptly cuts to modern day. The modern story plays off the troubles of the times, the family breaking apart with the hippie children and 50's era work ethics of the parents and their strick religious belief--which mirrors a bit the witch trial beliefs. The modern day version of the wronged witch uses these tensions to help her revenge. As in other films like this the same actors appear in the modern day story who are also in the "flashback" opening. Parts of the flashbacks continue through the whole film and eventually we see more of the flashback story than is presented at the start. Though some of this flashback stuff does just seem like padding in spots. There is also an underplayed and non-nudity sexual element to the film-- also part of the era. Would the film be more powerful if it had more nudity? Probably given how the story would lend itself to that. I say all this just to give some context to the film as those elements will all seem alien to people watching it now, by and large anyway.The acting is not great, but not inept either, which is pretty much true of the whole film in most regards. I saw this on TCM and the description says it's about an ax murderer which it isn't, though an ax figures into one scene. Though slowish the film has some memorable things, a double murder, a head floating in a bag full of blood, odd attempts at comedy in one office scene, and the story of the Brazilian tribe of female hunters. That's probably the most memorable scene in the film and is well acted by the generally good looking female lead Shelby Leverington, who went on to a full-on career in acting. The film has that poverty row NYC feel in spots in a good way. It also features that oddly thick blood from the era. Yes this is for fans of the fringes of filmmaking and indie horror, but what's wrong with that? The ending is good and unexpected. The music score is odd and usually dated and ineffective but it too has some good moments. The film has a very thin sound mix and sometimes uses only music in an effective way. If you like this kind of supernatural revenge story and the feel of films of this era give it a shot, it has a few shocks and value amid the clumsy or dullish bits.