Cult Mythology Earned the Hard Way

Read Time:5 Minute, 20 Second

MOVIE REVIEWS
Scarlet Warning 666 (It Happened One Weekend)
–

Genre: Horror, Occult, Outsider Cinema
Year Released: 1974, Grindhouse Releasing 2026
Runtime: 1h 40m
Director(s): Palmer Rockey
Writer(s): Palmer Rockey
Cast: Palmer Rockey, Cookie Rockey, Ron DiSalvo
Where to Watch: available February 14, 2026, pre-order your copy here: www.shop.grindhousereleasing.com

RAVING REVIEW: At what point does sheer artistic obsession stop being a movie and start becoming an accidental self-portrait? SCARLET WARNING 666 isn’t merely a ‘lost film,’ a cult oddity, or a so-called “bad movie.” It’s a document of obsession preserved frame by agonizing frame. Watching it now, newly restored and finally contextualized, feels less like encountering a forgotten horror film and more like stumbling into a private fixation that was never meant to be archived, let alone reexamined.

Palmer Rockey wrote, directed, produced, edited, starred in, and endlessly reworked this film over decades, retitling and reshaping it in a futile attempt to make it legible to an audience that never met it on its own terms. The result isn’t coherence, satire, or even accidental perfections, so much as exposure. SCARLET WARNING 666 shows what happens when creative control goes unchecked, when self-belief hardens into denial, and when perseverance becomes indistinguishable from compulsion.

As a work of narrative cinema, the film barely functions. Plot points drift in and out without motivation. Scenes repeat, contradict, or simply stop. Rockey’s performances across multiple roles lack distinction, intention, or measure. Editing feels arbitrary. Sound levels fluctuate. Continuity collapses. By traditional standards, it is a failure at nearly every level of craft. And yet, somehow, the act of dismissing SCARLET WARNING 666 as merely incompetent misses the point of why it matters.

What the film accidentally captures is something far rarer than any level of technical proficiency; it shows an unfiltered authorship. There’s no irony here, no knowing wink to the audience, no calculated camp as nostalgia. Rockey believed in this project with absolute sincerity. He expected awards, admiration, and recognition. When mockery followed, he didn’t abandon the work. He doubled down, reframing the laughter as satire and continuing to tinker until the film itself became a record of that struggle. That struggle is the real story.

The Satanic imagery, occult gestures, and “demonic assassination” framing barely register as horror in any conventional sense. They function more as symbolic disarray, ideas that Rockey believed carried weight even when he lacked the tools to deploy them effectively. What is shown is the naked persistence behind them. Every awkward musical interlude, every prolonged shot, every baffling choice reflects a man convinced that vision alone would carry him through. That conviction is uncomfortable to watch. SCARLET WARNING 666 doesn’t allow the viewer the safety of distance. Laughing feels cruel. Taking it seriously feels absurd. The film traps you in that tension, forcing you to confront the human cost of unchecked artistic faith.

This is where the Grindhouse Releasing restoration becomes essential. Presented without mockery but with extensive contextual supplements, the film is finally framed not as a joke but as an artifact. Interviews with Cookie Rockey and Ron DiSalvo help reposition the project as a lived experience rather than a novelty. The involvement of figures like Jello Biafra and Reverend Ivan Stang further cements its place in outsider and counterculture history, not because the film succeeded, but because it refused to disappear.

There’s also an undeniable preservation value here. SCARLET WARNING 666 represents a strand of American independent filmmaking that rarely survives intact. These vanity projects usually vanish, unlabeled and unloved. Saving this one doesn’t validate it, but it does honor the truth of its existence. Not every preserved film needs to be good. Some need to be honest.

That honesty is why the film lands higher in my ratings than its craftsmanship would suggest. SCARLET WARNING 666 isn’t entertaining in a conventional sense, and it’s not consistently enjoyable even for fans of so-called “bad cinema.” Its length is punishing. Its pacing is nonexistent. Its self-importance is exhausting. But it is revealing. Few films so clearly expose the inner workings of their creator without intervention.

As a viewing experience, it demands patience and a willingness to sit with discomfort. As a historical object, it’s invaluable. As a film, it’s deeply flawed. As a portrait of obsession, it’s strangely complete. That tension is what keeps SCARLET WARNING 666 from being dismissed outright and what elevates it above ridicule. It isn’t “the greatest worst movie ever made.” It’s something sadder, stranger, and more human than that.

In the end, that alone makes the film transcend to another level. Looking at my rating alone, people may get the wrong idea. This is about the package, the context, the extras, the voices behind the original, and the voices discussing what it meant and what it means now. This, without question, is one of the reasons I place so little value on how many stars a film gets; instead, I value the thoughts behind the review's words.

Please visit https://linktr.ee/overlyhonestr for more reviews.

You can follow me on Letterboxd, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube. My social media accounts can also be found on most platforms by searching for 'Overly Honest Reviews'.

I’m always happy to hear from my readers; please don't hesitate to say hello or send me any questions about movies.

[photo courtesy of GRINDHOUSE RELEASING]

DISCLAIMER:
At Overly Honest Movie Reviews, we value honesty and transparency. Occasionally, we receive complimentary items for review, including DVDs, Blu-rays, CDs, Vinyl Records, Books, and more. We assure you that these arrangements do not influence our reviews, as we are committed to providing unbiased and sincere evaluations. We aim to help you make informed entertainment choices regardless of our relationship with distributors or producers.

Amazon Affiliate Links:
Additionally, this site contains Amazon affiliate links. If you purchase through these links, we may receive a commission. This affiliate arrangement does not affect our commitment to honest reviews and helps support our site. We appreciate your trust and support as you navigate these links.