One winter morning, while driving through the desolate French countryside, traveler Charlotte picks up hitchhiker Max. Together they stop at a roadside diner, where a strange and depraved horror awaits.
"Living in Your Car" follows the winding karmic adventures of fallen corporate exec, Steve Unger, who was caught cooking the books and now finds himself legally forbidden from working in ... See full summary »
Two female journalists and a photographer travel to Europe to investigate a series of mysterious disappearances, only to find themselves embroiled in a struggle against a kind of evil they never expected.
As a child Jack Brooks witnessed the brutal murder of his family. Now a young man he struggles with a pestering girlfriend, therapy sessions that resolve nothing, and night classes that barely hold his interest. After unleashing an ancient curse, Jack's Professor undergoes a transformation into something not-quite- human, and Jack is forced to confront some old demons... along with a few new ones. Written by
Robert Englund agreed to take the part of Professor Crowley after watching one of Brookstreet Pictures' short films, Still Life. See more »
The sign on the desk of Dr. Silverstein, Jack Brooks' shrink, misspells "counselor" as "councilor". (Despite various international spellings, a "councilor" is still someone who works for the council, and a "counselor" is someone who counsels.) See more »
[Howard has just told the story about how he buried his possessed uncle after he bit off his hand as a child]
So he... he ate your hand?
[Howard shows Jack that he has a hook instead of a hand]
How did you dig the hole?
Well goddammit, it wasn't easy!
See more »
No Animals or Monsters were Harmed in the Making of this Film. See more »
"Jack Brooks Monster Slayer," is not a good movie. In fact, it is a big letdown. While the production quality and tongue in cheek use of rubber costumes reflects the moderately large budget, the story itself is both flawed and boring. The culprit of the failings is found in the assumptions made by the film makers. By focusing on monster creation process, the film neglects important character development and playful action. Overall, this is a film to be missed. Admittedly, "JBMS," will strike a chord with some nostalgia buffs; yet, as a film, this is little more than a mediocre rehash of genre clichés.
The downfall of this film is two assumptions. First, the makers assume that showing the history and creation of the monster is both necessary and amusing. Second, supplying detail to the above mentioned monster ontology is assumed to also be necessary and interesting. Neither assumption is wrong, per se. The execution in this film, however, is outright boring. An extended example may help to clarify. Cooking shows run a tenuous line. Watching the act of creation is interesting and informative. Detailing every action that goes into dish preparation is dull. A cooking program needs to find a balance between informative exposition and potentially dull but important detail. The answer seems to be that every part of a cooking show is a mix of technique and technique explanation. As such, breaking down an onion is shown because it informs on knife technique in practice and also illustrates the benefits of uniform piece size in cooking. Peeling a potato or boiling water is not shown because they are important techniques that benefit little from being demonstrated. The point is that all elements of the process are evaluated on the levels of understanding that are conveyable. The same is true for the horror film. A background to the protagonist and antagonist is appreciated as long as it sets the current context as well as developing the actual characters. "JBMS," provides a great amount of detail concerning how the main monster is formed. The slow transition from human to demon is the body of the film. Choosing this transition as the focal point of the story leads to a ninety minute film; a ninety minute film that could very easily have been forty minutes. Furthermore, the added detail affords no real development. To the contrary, the monster development is the cinematic equivalent to watching a trained chef peel a potato. Essentially, this film would have benefited from a focus on devious monster action and not hum drum monster ontology.
The above stated, the film is not a total loss. The characters are likable enough, and Robert Englund clearly enjoyed this production. The use of rubber suits as opposed to CGI is a welcome throwback to the creature films of the eighties and before. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that these benefits do not come near enough to balancing out the dry, elongated, boring story telling. This film is worth a miss. I am loathe to recommend this movie even to the horror/comedy buff. There are a great many more interesting and better told stories that are actually worthy of one's time.
On a personal note, I will mention this film to friends as a real Turkey. Unfortunately, this will almost guarantee that it is seen by at least one more person. Should you feel the need to hunt this film down, the movie is best paired with low expectations and somewhat sloppy drunkenness.
2 of 3 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?