Reviews

137 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Side Splitting
6 May 2016
I just saw this film and almost laughed myself to death! As you've probably guessed, the plot revolves around a girl named Rachel whose ex boyfriend Troy posts nude photos of her online.

Talk about "cutting to the chase." The slimy boyfriend takes the nude photos and the break up all within the first scene of the movie!

Within the same hour of the break up there are nude photos of her online and perverts are literally showing up at the coffee shop where Rachel works to harass her. And it just doesn't stop!

Her neighbors are stalking her, Rachel's mother is fired from her job, they're being followed by a black van, people are breaking into their house. HTF does this happen within a matter of hours?

Even the people at church are harassing her. This begs the question, aren't all of her friends, co workers, and neighbors admitting they're visiting revenge porn websites on an hourly basis? Doesn't this shame them?

The funniest scenes involve Rachel's mother. I haven't seen acting like this since the mom/aunt in 'Sleep Away Camp.' Seriously, we have to wonder what the rejected footage looked like if these are the line deliveries chosen for the final cut. I want to know!

The character of Rachel's mother is dumb as rocks to start with. When they're being followed by the black van she pulls into a dark alley and gets out of her car to confront their stalker. Great idea. That's like lighting a match to inspect a gas leak.

The second funniest scene is where Rachel tells her mother within an hour of her nude photos going online. As if her mother will find out sooner or later. So her mother visits revenge porn websites?

This is also the case when the sleazy ex boyfriend Troy is framed for child pornography. Rachel brings it up on her phone to show her parents. WTF would they be looking at child porn in the first place?

The stand out funniest scene is when we meet ex boyfriend Troy's mother played by real life porn star Amy Lindsay. Not kidding!!! That's like Ron Jeremy making an appearance in 'Ghostbusters.' Then, Rachel and Troy's mothers get into a knock down drag out catfight! Yes! More Lifetime Network movies need to feature scenes like this.

Also of worthy note is the scene where her next door neighbor apologizes to Rachel for making creepy faces at her in public. And she accepts his apology! Again, WTF? He's admitting to being a dirty old man and following revenge porn websites and stalking a teenage girl and she tells him, "It's alright"?

It's definitely worth a watch.
12 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Trash Humpers (2009)
1/10
Apply Razor To Wrists and Repeat
3 April 2016
I'd like to note I am currently writing this review from my padded cell.

How bad could a movie shot on VHS about masked homeless people humping piles of trash really be? It's directed by Harmony Korine, that's how bad it its.

What else is there to say about this movie that could possibly convey how horrible it is other than simply stating it's a Harmony Korine film (video) about masked homeless people humping piles of trash? WHAT ELSE IS THERE TO SAY?

Since I can't talk about the movie, I'll talk about the people giving this movie positive reviews. They're liars. They're lying to themselves when they say this film (video) has any value at all. They're lying when they say Harmony Korine proves the nothingness of being. Because Harmony Korine openly brags about being a drug addict, and his films (videos) really shows it.

'Trash Humpers' isn't even amusing the way 'The Room' or 'Troll 2' are. This is just plain bad. Not even Tom Servo and Crow T. Robot could make this film (video) watchable.

Now it's time for my electro shock therapy. I'll be needing a lot of it after watching 'Trash Humpers.'

"Make it make it don't fake it."

AAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
So Bad It's Good/Funny
2 April 2016
This film is best known as being the basis for Steve Oedekerk's 'Kung Pow' where it was redubbed and reedited as a comedy.

I thought 'Kung Pow' was one of the most ingenious comedies I'd ever seen. The DVD contains a track with all the original audio from both Steve Oedekerk and the original film. I forced my father whom speaks Mandarin to watch it and translate what they were really saying. He said, they were actually saying exactly what was redubbed except not in funny voices.

I doubted my father's statement and watched the original in its dubbed English format. It's a laugh riot!!! My father was right, most of the dialogue is the same!

Just as in 'Kung Pow' many of the scenes are truly WTF? Like when the villain enters the city and his thugs just start beating up random people for absolutely no reason. Or when the villain orders his thugs to repeatedly hit him the groin with a wooden pole just to prove he can take it.

The biggest changes are that the actually sequence of events in 'Kung Pow' is very different.

So maybe Steve Oedekerk wasn't such a comic genius after all as this movie was funny enough on its own.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Murder in Peyton Place (1977 TV Movie)
8/10
'War & Peace' Had Fewer Characters
28 March 2016
Well I must give this film a positive review for being both entertaining and gutsy. How many 90 minutes movies have featured triple digit characters and 30+ ongoing plots? I mean successfully?

Those numbers are not exaggerations! That's the real number of characters and ongoing plots for this movie! Similar to 'These Are The Damned' and 'Scream and Scream Again' which featured three seemingly totally unrelated plots and characters which converge for the climax, this movie boldly has many many many many many many many more.

All these plots revolve around the small Californian town of Peyton Place. First we're introduced to a married couple running and hospital and then it expands to the lives of their multiple ex spouses, and their ex spouses' multiple ex spouses, and their multiple ex spouses' multiple ex spouses' siblings, parents, and kids and their friends and so forth.

That wasn't an exaggeration! That's the way it really goes. Almost every character over the age of 30 has at least two ex spouses! And some have more!

The main focus is on the fiery auto deaths of two characters we've lost track of in all the multiple ex spouses. Seriously! I've seen this movie twice and I still don't know whom died! But at least we know they're related to the other 98 characters. How couldn't they be? Everyone in Peyton Place changes spouses like socks.

Their deaths are ruled accidents until a deep cover up is exposed at the hospital. An evil corporation New Star is buying up the town and as a result every business including town hall is corrupt.

So investigating the murders and New Star's motive become the focal point. But the movie is STILL THROWING IN NEW CHARACTERS AND PLOTS! More lovers and ex lovers, a cop sleeping with an underage girl and someone trying to blackmail them, a hippie do gooder and his murder, a psycho stalker and his violent past and his mother trying to cover it up and being blackmailed for her cover up. Then Stella Stevens' and her flashbacks and her young murderous lover with the killer attack dogs and her motives for revenge by controlling the town water supply and cutting jobs at the mill and...

Alright, I could go on all day but seriously I did not make up any of these plot points. They're all real and they really all do come together at the end.

It's as if a someone took an entire year of 'All My Children' and turned it into a 90 minute movie so I really have to give the film makers credit for keeping the plot together.

The big question is why have so many on going characters and plots other than for the simple challenge of doing so. Like the novelists who write entire books without ever using the letter "T" just to prove it can be done.

If their intent was just to tell the story of a small town being bullied by a big corporation, about 80 of the 100 characters could have been eliminated. This formula might have worked better as a mystery the audience is dying to know the answer to like the two films I mentioned. Here, there is no mystery. We see Stella Stevens plotting and controlling everything from her hotel room.

Definitely worth a watch just to admire the fact that someone wrote a story with 100 characters and 30 ongoing plots for a 90 minute movie. That's talent.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I Sleep Through Your Movie
17 March 2016
As a major fan of exploitation films I have to be honest and say, I didn't like the original 'I Spit On Your Grave.' It was a silly film with no redeeming entertainment value.

The remake? Was better. Far better acting and production quality (hard to be worse than the original) and some interesting revenge kills. Not a masterpiece but an improvement.

This rushed cash in sequel brings me back to my statement about the original.

The worst thing a movie can be is boring. 'I Spit On Your Grave II' is boring.

We go through the classic set up of an American in Eastern Europe who's abducted raped and tortured by snuff film makers. If this sounds like the exact same plot as 'A Serbian Film' that's BECAUSE IT IS!!!

Both films are painfully boring. Since we care nothing about the victim or the attackers we don't feel sorry for her or any hatred towards the villains.

NONE of the torture porn or torture revenge scenes are creative in the least.

The rape revenge exploitation genre is, let's face it, pretty boring. The audience already knows what's going to happen. We're just waiting for the movie to catch up.

In order for rape revenge to be entertaining they either need a gimmick like the arty directing in 'Ms. .45' or characters we actually care about like 'Thriller: A Cruel Picture' which is very rare.

Skip this one.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Catacombs (2007)
2/10
Intriguing Premise Goes Nowhere
9 March 2016
The catacombs of Paris, a lesser known historical marvel of how Paris' over populated cemeteries were cleaned out and 7,000,000 human skeletons were arranged in a macabre maze underground!

So in 2007 when I heard it was the setting for a new horror movie I just had to see it! There's no cheap CGI, it's filmed on location.

Victoria flies from Boston to Paris to visit her sister, a drugged out drunk party girl. It's the role Pink was born to play.

Pink takes Victoria to a rock concert in the catacombs. And by "concert" I mean an orgy of drugs and alcohol. Predictably Victoria gets lost and chased by a goat headed monster said to haunt the catacombs. This goes on for 80 minutes and it's more boring than words can describe.

At least the ending is a good one. SPOILER WARNING!!! Eventually Victoria kills one of her pursuers only to discover this was all a prank by Pink and her friends. Ha ha ha. What it's a joke is that Victoria really did kill one of the friends out of fear. As Pink is cursing her Victoria beats all of them to death! Amen. They all deserved it for the hell they put her and the audience through.

Can't really think of single reason to see this film as they don't make use of the on location filming in the catacombs. Come on! 7,000,000 human skeletons and they couldn't come up with anything scary?
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Popcorn (1991)
1/10
Apply Razor To Wrists And Repeat
6 March 2016
Good Lord, this is the horror version of 'The Room' where some scenes are so silly it can only be considered an unintentionally bad comedy.

5.7? This has a rating of 5.7 here? WTF?

Standard slasher plot: College professor Ray Waltson has his film students renovate an old movie theater to show 50's B horror films for a single night.

First off, WTF does film making have to with construction and renovation? Also, they're renovating a condemned building just for a one night show?

Also, we see no promotion for the theater, begging the question, how did they get a sold out show? They could have at least shown a montage of the students handing out fliers.

The first truly mind numbing scene is the montage of the students fixing up the theater. It looks like those legendarily bad European Mentos ads. Only worse!

So on the big night the killer emerges. He peels off the flesh of his victims and wears them like masks to disguise himself because apparently that's how human tissue works! Just stick someone else's face on your own and you'll look just like that person.

And WTF is the killer targeting the students?...... That's never answered! Oh, he explains why he's a deformed psycho. As a child his mother was cheating on his father so he burned down the theater killing her, but he was burned and his face disfigured. So WTF does this have to do with the students? His revenge motives are unclear.

This villain's motive explanation scene is the funniest as it goes on and on and on for about fifteen minutes! Also, the killer's voice and movements are like all of Jim Carrey's 'In Living Color' characters rolled into one! HTF are we supposed to take this seriously?

Like 'Shanghai Surprise' this movie is a special kind of intentional atomicity. It's not just the result of a low budget, bad actors, or poor film making. It's a deliberate well planned massacre of cinema. The fact that these scenes were written, acted, recorded, and edited together by dozens of people working together is truly disturbing.

This film is totally devoid of any entertainment value even for laughs. We seriously have to wonder what was happening behind the scenes that created.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The Crap Behind The Stars
16 February 2016
Just like other reviewers of this film I must concur, "Huh?"

The film claims to be "based on a true story." Not only is this farcical but since all the characters die at the end who would be alive to tell it?

The paper thin plot revolves around a fashion shoot with catches a flying saucer in the background and the aliens are DEAD serious about recovering the negatives to cover up their existence.

The main characters then switch to a reporter investigating the disappearances of the photographer and model.

The reporters discover an elaborate cabal "The Silencers" men in black whom cover up the existence of aliens by killing all witnesses.

This begs the major question, if there is an international cabal already covering up alien existence why would the aliens give a damn about some blurry photos?

The production quality is shot on sxxtyo and the plot is just plain silly. I can't even think of a drinking game based around the film it's so devoid of any substance.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
DeepStar Six (1989)
3/10
Rushed Rip Off Of Another Rushed Rip Off Of A Real Movie
1 February 2016
What happens every time a highly anticipated movie is about to be released? The cuckoo effect! A rival studio rushing into production a similarly themed lesser film to cash in on the free publicity of the other film. It's been going on for decades and isn't going to stop.

In 1989 we got TWO cuckoo films trying to cash in on the release of James Cameron's much anticipated 'The Abyss.' One was 'Leviathan' and the other was 'Deep Star Six.'

While it would be impossible for either of the two to even be in the same league as 'The Abyss,' 'Leviathan' was an enjoyable cuckoo film. It had a fantastic A list cast, a scary build up, and quality FX. 'Deep Star Six' had... Miguel Ferrer.

That's the major problem with 'Deep Star Six,' it's doesn't fail because it never even tries on any level. For example, 'Leviathan's limited budget required them to film dry for wet for its underwater shots, which it did surprisingly well. 'Deep Star Six' ONLY HAS ONE 30 SECOND UNDER WATER SHOT! That's right, an under water sci-fi action film which only has one under water scene!

The plot, a deep ocean under water base... well, they never really explain WTF there is a giant under water base. They only mention something about it being a nuclear missile site for the Navy or something.

Unlike 'Leviathan' the characters are extremely forgettable and the cast is totally devoid of any namable stars, save Miguel Ferrer whom is terribly miscast in his role. The only other three actors I recognized were Greg Evigan ('My Two Dads' 'PSI Love You' 'Tek War') Matt McCoy (husband in 'Hand That Rocks The Cradle') and Elya Baskin (token Russian guy in EVERY MOVIE).

I looked up the filmographies of the other actors just in case I missed anyone. Nope. They've barley done any other work.

Their mini subs are attacked by a sea monster or so we're told. Remember, there's only one under water shot in the beginning so we never actually see the monster under water or the destruction its blamed for.

The monster eventually gets inside the base and this is another example of 'Deep Star Six' not even trying as Matt McCoy being cut in half is NEVER SHOWN! In one shot he's alive, in the next he's cut in half. Maybe the monster is innocent? So far we haven't seen it cause any of the deaths. In fact, we haven't even seen the deaths!

When we finally see the monster it's bigger than an elephant which begs the question, how the hell did it get inside and how does it later fit through airlocks the size of manhole covers?

The surviving crew members do the only sensible thing and close the airlock, thus trapping the monster inside the base! While the airlock was leaking water they'd already decided to abandon the base anyway so what would one flooded room matter?

Anyway, five crew members escape the room alive. Alright, so letter lock the door and NEVER go in that room ever again! At this point the film reminds us that they will decompress and evacuate the base in four hours. Good! Just leave the monster alone for four hours and they'll never have to see it ever again!!!

Of course they go back into the room!!! What's the worst that could happen? Thus the monster causes more death and destruction. Maybe it just wants out? Open the airlock and let it out!

As I said, there's nothing to hate about 'Deep Star Six' except how little it tries. It was a cuckoo project to begin with that really comes in a distant third behind 'The Abyss' and 'Leviathan.'
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Looker (1981)
3/10
Good Ideas Go Nowhere Slowly
15 January 2016
With a strong cast and intriguing premise 'Looker' .... looks impressive. But it's NOT!

By "strong cast" I mean Playmate Of The Year Terri Welles. She visits Beverly Hills plastic surgeon Albert Finney requesting some very specific changes down to .1 millimeters.

The movie's off to a great start with Welles getting topless within the first five minutes. However the scene is so brief I literally watched the movie THREE TIMES before I even noticed this scene! WTF? This is the money shot! That's like having the chariot race in 'Ben-Hur' last only three seconds!

Welles and other of Dr. Finney's patients turn up dead. The movie might as well be over! Terri Welles is dead within SIX MINUTES!!! WTF?

They've all been thrown off balconies by a killer whom looks like John Holmes or Chuck Norris from the cover of 'The Good Guys Wear Black.'

The only model not killed is Susan Dey. Susan Dey? Susan Day from 'L.A. Law' is our leading lady and trying desperately to be sexy? This is the final nail in the coffin for the film.

Not even villain James Coburn can save this wreck, and he wasn't even in the trailer.

The master plot revolves around an evil company developing an illegal super weapon... a ray gun which causes the victim to lose time. That's how they killed the girls.

This seems pretty far fetched for a petty weapon. If they wanted a silent non lethal weapon Thomas A. Swift already beat them to it. Or they could just use a tranquilizer gun. But since they killed the models anyway, and not silently, they could have just used a gun, knife, or blunt object! Their ray gun is pretty pathetic.

Why did this company kill its own models? That's never explained!

This whole movie is a waste of time. The trailer promised me a movie staring Terri Welles but she's dead by the time the credits end. Skip this mess at all costs.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
One Of The Better Aminxploitation Films
28 December 2015
The mere fact that there are enough exploitation films based on Idi Amin to merit their own genre in a video store, Idi Aminxploitation is truly disturbing.

I don't just mean films about Idi Amin, I mean outright exploitations films which use the Ugandan dictator to include as much sex and violence as possible.

This one's unique by taking the bold move casting real Africans actors to play Africans rather than American Mulattos with fake accents. The authentic African accents are a double edged sword. While it does make us feel like this really is Africa but their accents are so strong it can be difficult to understand what they're saying. And now that I think of it they shouldn't even be speaking English at all! Oh well, still better than those American Mulattos.

Idi Amin is right up there with Caligula as not being too important to history itself but extremely memorably simply for his insanity and debauchery.

There's never a dull moment in this film. It's fast paced and Amin's insanity provides non stop entertainment.

The only major problem is that if you don't actually know the history of Idi Amin you'll be lost. The film doesn't actually explain the context for many scenes. For example, the Israeli hostages and the raid at Entebbe are never explained.

The ending is also a major let down. It just ends out of nowhere! There's no climax, no resolution, it's just ends by saying the film is devoted to Amin's victims. Yeah right! They made an exploitation film to honor the dead?

It's certainly worth a watch and stands out as far better than any of the other Idi Aminxploitation films.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
90 Minute Root Canal
22 December 2015
This is one of the worst films I've ever seen! No, it isn't Chester Novell Turner movie bad, it's just the most boring and pointless movie ever made right next to Gus Van Sant's 'Jerry!'

The VHS box cover states it's about a 20 something group of friends reuniting for a weekend at a cabin in the woods, "if anyone survives." Alright, so it's a slasher or 'Ten Little Indians' murder who done it? WRONG!

The friends drive up to the cabin in the woods and spend the next HOUR saying the same thing as the audience!!! "I can't wait until Christina Applegate gets here. Things will be so great when she arrives." Seriously! That's all they talk about for an HOUR!!!

When Christina Applegate does finally show up she's hanging from a tree! Yup, that's her big scene, hanging dead from a tree. Did she commit suicide? Was she murdered? By whom? While we the audience are now starving for anything of interest, Applegate's friends are totally uninterested. Apparently so are the police. We never even see the police arrive or the coroner take away her body. Did friends just bury her in the backyard? No one seems to care!

We do get some kind of flashback to Applegate and some of the other female friends being raped at a party. At least that's what appears to be going on, it's too hard to tell. Who were the rapists? Were they in the group of friends? Did they murder Applegate so she wouldn't talk? More questions never answered or even explored.

An even bigger question is who is having this flashback? It's told from Applegate's point of view but she's dead!

So the 90 minutes is up and the weekend's over. Another weekend reunion ruined by someone's death. Although they don't really seem to care too much about her dead. In fact they don't even talk about her death. The weekend just continued the same as it did before Applegate's death!

I truly have no idea what the point of this film is. There's nothing of value. Even if you're some kind of sicko and you want to see Applegate getting raped you're in for a major let down. The flashback is only 10 seconds and it's unclear what's happening other than women being tied up and men laughing. So maybe they didn't even get harmed and it was some kind of practical joke? More questions never answered or explored.

The mere fact that any reviewer here gives it more than one star just proves they didn't watch the movie!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Nuke The World And Start Over
7 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
So Ben Gazzara is locked in a nuclear fallout shelter with Euro trash. This'll be a fun 90 minutes.

Burt Lancaster hires people from all over Europe (I guess that explains why there's no token minorities), and Ben Gazzara to spend twenty days testing out a nuclear fallout shelter. They'll receive a bonus if they can all stay in for the full time period.

This means we have to sit through endless comments from everyone about how nuclear weapons are evil and how evil America is. Ben Gazzara is too nice to remind them they'd all be speaking German right now if it wasn't for him!

Actually Gazzara makes the moves on the most attractive women.

Predictably they receive news reports of a rogue nuclear missile headed in their direction. Gee, wonder if this is part of the test? Of course you're not wondering because it's obvious it is!

Rioting and looting are rampant and the rioters want inside the nuclear shelter.

Those inside are afraid and decide to gun them down with the M16s they have lying around. So the shelter can withstand a nuclear blast but not people banging on the door with their bare hands? That's when it's revealed it was all just a test.

The production quality gets into real Chester Novell Turner territory. I thought this was made for TV until I heard the F bombs.

Give this one a pass.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Surprisingly Superior
7 December 2015
As I die hard exploitation fan I'm going break the rules and say, I hated 'I Spit On Your Grave.' It wasn't bold, it wasn't brutal, it isn't a classic. It's bad acting, bad film making, and a boring and unimaginative story.

So as much as I hate quick cash in remakes, which is exactly what this is, it is a far better film than the original. It's only major problem is that... it is a remake hence it has a very limited story to work with.

They do try and improve on the story as much as possible so it's more logical. After the local yokels attack her in her cabin she actually escapes and runs to the sheriff for help. However, he joins in the gang rape. And this time instead of the attackers simply leaving her alive they do actually try and cover up their brutal crime by trying to kill her. But of course she escapes and lives in the woods as a fugitive. This makes far more sense than the original which simply had her and the attackers merely returning to their normal lives like nothing ever happened!!!

It was also an improvement to cut the actual rape scene down to five minutes from THIRTY MINUTES IN THE ORIGINAL! We get the point. Rape is bad.

Weeks later she returns to town for revenge. Now, it's time for the meat of the movie, the torture porn. I'm not a fan of torture porn so the only thing I ever hope for is some imaginative torture methods. This film is far more imaginative and brutal than the original.

The most gruesome elements take place off camera which is better since we don't actually need to see them as long as we know what she's doing.

The weakest scene which everyone rightfully always complains about is the bad CGI birds pecking out the bad CGI eyes. Yes, the FX here are atrocious but that's the only bad scene.

My only other gripe is redneck annoyingly filming everything with his 8mm camcorder. Alright, I know they're poor rednecks but 8mm camcorders have been out of production for over ten years!

Overall the acting is solid and so is the production quality. Nothing fantastic but certainly above average.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Classic Exploitation Horror
5 December 2015
We open in sepia tone 1945 with the fall of Berlin. What does this have to do with the rest of the movie? Very little.

A priest, a bickering couple, two models, and their fat driver are in a van lost in the German countryside. Stop me if you've heard this joke before.

After getting directions from grave digger Marylin Manson they decide to spend the night at a haunted castle and are invited to dinner by the creepy baron and his zombie butlers whom actually give them details on why each room they'll be staying in is haunted! What could possibly go wrong?

Finally it's time for the meat of the story, the hot lezbo action between the models!

This whole movie is basically the ultimate horror exploitation film with every cliché done to the extreme! So if you enjoy exploitation films you'll love this one.

The set is also noteworthy. I have no idea where this was filmed but the real life castle stands out as no just a Hammer Horror movie set.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Failed Hasbro Marvel Series
5 December 2015
Riding high the success of countless hit toy TV series such as 'Transformers' and 'G.I. Joe' toy maker Hasbro and the comics publisher Marvel launched their newest series, 'Visionaries.' With many of the same writing and voice talents as their other series, 'Visionaries' should have been a hit. But it wasn't. And it's easy to see why.

The premise was strong but the characters were weak. So was the action, and the animation itself.

The plot: On an industrialized planet similar to our own, a solar realignment causes all electrical power to stop working. The planet quickly reverts to a feudal society. Alright, no electricity would throw us back to the mid 1800s not the dark ages. Motors would still work, meaning there would still be factories, trains, steam powered ships, the printing press, film cameras and phonographs would still work. You'd think the planet would find someway to progress without electricity rather than regress.

This also beg the question, since our this series is about good vs evil, why isn't anyone using guns? Or machine guns? Or tanks? Or airplanes? None of those things require electricity.

Anyway, it's G.I. Joe vs Cobra, only this time they're knights. The knights are given magical powers by a wizard Merklynn. "Merklynn?" Really? Alright, either use the name Merlin or just come up with a new name all together.

The knights' main power is the ability to transform into animals. This is where I began to question the writers' efforts even when I was a kid. If you're going to base the characters' power around animal transformation you'd obviously choose the coolest animals possible. Right? While some deadly animals like a lion and a polar bear are used, the rest are very weak. Most of the villains' are just small animals like lizards. Not very interesting.

The knights' other powers revolve around staffs. Again, some powers are cool and others are just silly. For example one of the villains can summon a giant Godzilla like creature. Wow! But two of the heroes' powers are wasted on questions being answered with riddles. Boring.

There are vehicles. Yes, powered by magic. Every toy line needs vehicles.

The characters themselves are very dull as well. The villains come off like comic buffoons instead of real threats. The heroes have no depth.

The biggest problem with the animation are the backgrounds. Nuclear holocaust wasteland is the only thing which comes to mind. They must have really hated drawing forests. Seriously, it all looks like the moon!

It's also easy to see why the toys flopped. Their man power is morphing into animals but the action figures obviously didn't do this so it made play very difficult. It would be like having Transformers that couldn't transform!

Is the series horrible? No. But this one just seemed rushed and not thought out very well. It's a shame it came from such talented writers.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Srpski film (2010)
1/10
Chloroform In Celluloid
13 November 2015
My review of this film may be many different than many others as I did not feel disgusted or depressed. Instead I felt NOTHING! That's right. I was only slightly more offended than watching Daffy Duck getting crushed flat by Bugs Bunny because this entire film treats itself like a cartoon!

All of the scenes come across like joke. We'll if the movie isn't going to take the danger these characters are in seriously how can the audience feel disgusted, frightened, sorry for them? Even the most disgusting scenes of a children and babies being raped didn't even get me to bat an eye because they were just too silly.

The best comparison I can give to this film is 'Cannibal Ferox' arguably the single most violent of the cannibalxploitation films. Just like 'A Serbian Film' it's obvious goal was the create the biggest gross-out possible. While I didn't enjoy 'Cannibal Ferox' I did feel something, horror and disgust, because the film at least took itself (somewhat) seriously. I truly believed the characters were in danger and experiencing real suffering. 'A Serbian Film' was just a two hour joke.

Was there any hope for this miserable story? While it's impossible to turn this mess of a screenplay into a good movie it could have at least succeeded in its gross out goal if the film had taken itself more seriously.

A perfect example of this is a scene where the "hero" is about to film a porno of him raping a little girl. The hero literally jumps out of a window to escape. This is so outright comical it kills any sense of drama about the act of rape.

Another scene is when the "hero" hacks a woman to death with a machete while raping her. This seems like a Rob Zombie music video.

The musical sore is a major problem which causes the cartoonish atmosphere. It doesn't even give us the basic calm destroyed by a shock. Instead it's just a consistent electronica beat. Then why even have a musical score at all?

There were also many outright sloppy errors. For example, the porno production crew are using obvious digital camcorders. Yet much of the story is reveal when 8mm video tapes are discovered. I haven't even seen an 8mm camcorder for 15 years! As I said we clearly saw them using digital camcorders anyway.

The worst possible feeling you can have to a movie was that it was boring as sin. That's what this is.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Creepy Incest Version of 'Freaky Friday'
5 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
If father and daughter incest is your thing then you'll love... NO! You should be in jail! No one should want to watch father daughter incest fan fiction!!!

This film was big hit with cheesecake eating house wives (like the ones whom convinced me to watch this) because Oprah's book club went really off the deep end with bizarre sex fan fiction about 15 years ago!

If I'd actually researched the premise of this film before seeing I NEVER WOULD HAVE SEEN IT!

So just like 'Freaky Friday' a mother and teenage daughter switch bodies. Here's it's in the hospital after a fatal car accident where the mother's body dies. But somehow her soul takes over her daughter's body.

The mother/daughter tries to convince her husband Fox Mulder of this as he obviously does not believe her. He eventually does accept the fact that his wife is indeed trapped in his daughter's body but a conflict still remains... He won't have sex with her! GOOD! Mulder is the only sane person in this movie! How fxxxed up would he have to be to jump in bed with his own daughter?

So this is the plot of the ENTIRE FILM, her failed attempts to seduce her own father! WTF? 'The Quiet' was less creepy than this as it clearly did not endorse father and daughter incest! Besides, in that case his daughter was Elisha Cuthbert.... I'm just saying the dad was only human.

If this wanted to be some kind of incest sexploitation film that's one thing but if you're trying to be taken seriously as drama than THIS cannot be your premise.

Spoiler warning! The ending is just tacked one. About two months later without ANY EXPLANATION the daughter's soul just reappears back in her body without any memories since the accident. THANK GOD! She'd be traumatized for life!

The mother, somehow just knowing this would happen made her a video explaining how they switched bodies.

Avoid this film at all costs! It fails on every single level and has one of the most fxxxed up premises outside of the exploitation genre.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Carrie (2013)
6/10
Carrie's New Power, Sloppy CGI
20 September 2015
IMDb calls this a "reimagining" (no such word in dictionary) instead of a "remake." That's just plain silly.

IMDb also credits Stephen King as the author of the original novel which the actual film credits DO NOT!

Actually this is more of a retelling of the classic 1976 'Carrie' scene for scene line for line. "They're all going to laugh at you!" Begging the question why do we need a SIXTH (by my count) remake of a film which is already beloved?

Because, Carrie needs to unleash her new supernatural power, really sloppy CGI! Worst of all they mix in real fire with bad CGI Playstation fire which of course only highlights how fake the CGI looks! Come on guys. Cavemen had fire. You don't need to CGI it!

As negative as I'm being I actually did enjoy this film much more than I expected simply because it stayed about 95% true to the original. That's right, they actually recognized what a great screenplay the original was and stuck with it.

The remake also corrects the major major problem which I and many fans had with the original, the slow as sxxx pacing! It was dragged out way to long. The remake gets to the point a whole lot faster. For example, Carrie crashes the boy's bike about 20 minutes in in the remake. While the original took an hour and a half to get there.

The 5% change in the screenplay is mostly for the better and some things are spelled out more clearly. For example, the bully Sue Snell clearly does feel remorse for her actions in the beginning and clearly tries to save Carrie from the pig's blood in the climax while in the original it's implied that she set Carrie up to go to the prom with her boyfriend so she'd be voted prom queen and could be targeted with pig's blood.

There is also a further explanation for why they chose pig's blood and not paint or manure. In the remake a cell phone video of Carrie's opening menstruation scene is shown on a big screen TV during the climax, hence the blood connection.

The screenplay changes for the worse are really the rest of the climax. I cannot imagine the climax in the original going any better. I loved the way the doors just open for her and then close behind her locking EVERYONE to burn to death as the deserve to for laughing at her covered in pig's blood.

The remake goes overboard on CGI and silly levitation shots. Worse yet, there are survivors! There are fire trucks and ambulances and we see people being treated for injuries including Ms. Desjarin the gym teacher! WTF? The original was so much better! No one was able to call emergency services because everyone died!

The second biggest problem to the FX or rather lack there of is the casting of Chloe Grace Mortez. Not that she's a bad actress, but she's the prettiest girl in school and she's being bullied? Come on! Sissy Spacek was great at portraying Carrie as the ultra nerdy shy girl whom would be bullied. We're supposed to pity Carrie, but it's hard to pity the prettiest girl in school. The remake could have easily solved this by casting an overweight or simply unattractive actress. But no, Hollywood couldn't do that.

So all in all this REMAKE is worth a watch as it corrects the major pacing problem of the original and the production quality is strong except for the shoddy FX.

Also good to see a cameo by Hart Bochner playing a slime ball the way only he can.

Best of all, NO JOHN TRAVOLTA! That's a major improvement.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Silent Warnings (2003 Video)
4/10
A Fitting Title
9 September 2015
Just to clarify, the open title clearly reads 'Warnings' NOT 'Silent Warnings' because IMDb can't get basic facts right.

I was bored last night. I went into this not knowing anything about 'Warnings.' But it becomes obvious by the opening credits that this is merely a 'Signs' rip off.

It honestly isn't that bad, it has likable... alright, not dislikable characters played by decent actors, and decent FX. Decent as in no horrible CGI. When something blows up the film makers actually... brace yourself, blow up a model rather than using fake CGI flames! It's truly sad that this has better FX than any Hollywood film I've seen in a long time.

The film opens with dangerous loner corn farmer Stephen Baldwin shooting at grey aliens in his corn fields. Stephen Baldwin has replaced Chris Mitchum in being the king of low low low budget films.

Baldwin dies within 120 seconds of screen time, not by the aliens but because he was shooting at the aliens while his truck was leaking gas. So the aliens aren't dangerous? Baldwin just dies by his own stupidity? Baldwin of course gets top billing with his name above the opening credits despite the fact that we just saw him die! Does he come back? Nope, that's the last we see of him.

Cut to six college friends going to fix up the late Baldwin's house so it can be sold. Just as guess but aren't corn farms usually valued by their farming land? Isn't the most likely buyer going to be another farmer looking to expand? He isn't going to care about fresh paint on the shack Baldwin was living in!

How are six college kids going to fix up a house? They don't have any experience! In fact we don't even see them buying supplies! Also unrealistic is that fact that a dangerous loner's hideout has six nice bedrooms with six beds for them to all sleep in. Why would a dangerous loner have five guest bedrooms?

Anyway, we go through most of the same build up as 'Signs' except with college kids. The characters honestly aren't that annoying. The weakest is by far the token black guy. He listens to rap because... he's black. That's his character.

Crops circles appear, there are nightly intruders in the corn fields, and local yokel sheriff Billy Zane says he'll investigate.

The kids also find video tapes Baldwin made warning of the aliens. Interesting, since we clearly saw him using a digital camcorder in the opening! How'd they end up on VHS?

Finally one of the girls goes missing in the fields. All they find is her bracelet and surgical hip pins. Talk about finding a needle in a hay stack.

This leads the teen to the startling conclusion that... the aliens' one weakness is... iron. No kidding, iron. Why? Because, they state, surgical hip pins are made of steel which comes from iron. So iron is the only way to protect from the aliens. So the aluminum foil hats really do work? After all, aluminum is also made from... iron.

In the climax Sheriff Zane and the kids are hold up in the house with aliens right outside. They're actually smarter than Mel Gibson's family as they realize the best way to defeat the aliens is... guns. Yeah, shoot the bastards! It worked in 'Aliens' than those things were a lot scarier.

They can't call for help because cell phones don't work out in the... wait. It was just then I realized that for 90 minutes NONE OF THE KIDS had used a cell phone. No horror movie trope about cell phones not working out in the country, they just don't have them. Seriously, this issue is never brought up! No one calls for help.

Zane sacrifices himself by setting the stove gas line on fire so the surviving three kids can escape. I hadn't seen an actual model house blow up in so long that I'd forgotten what it looked like. As I said, better FX than all recent Hollywood films which have yet to create a believable CGI explosion.

As the kids drive away they hear on the radio that alien invasions have been occurring all over the country.

At least the alien invasion was a surprise which explains the kids' being unprepared. Mel Gibson's family had major warnings from the news and they still failed to prepare by, stocking food and water, getting weapons, getting the asthmatic son's inhaler, or even bringing in the dog from outside, or simply leaving town!

As I said, fun for some laughs and not annoying. Just don't expect too much.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Interesting Premise Goes Nowhere
8 August 2015
What is 'Gnaw Food of the Gods' about? Well it starts out very exciting with grandmotherly scientist introducing our hero Dr. Hamilton to a ten foot boy screaming out them to, "Get the fxxx out of my room!"

Wow! What a great scene! A super growth hormone has turned an innocent child into a monster and now a cure must be found. This movie really had me hooked. However, besides two other short scenes that's the LAST WE'LL SEE OF THAT STORYLINE!!!

Instead the movie quickly degenerates into a cheap giant killer rat movie. Not that we ever see the giant rats. No, instead we just get POV shots of people screaming. I'm reminded of 'Grizzly II The Concert.' The first rule of a monster movie is to have a monster!

If you're still having any thoughts of wasting your time on this snore fest I'll summarize the plot so you can see how horrible it is.

So Dr. Hamilton brings the growth hormone back to his cheap lab at a community college to find a cure.

Dr. Hamilton also just happens to be giving extra credit lessons to one of his students who's joined an animal rights group protesting the community college's animal experiments on... rats. Yes just rats. I had no idea there was a save the lap rats movement.

PETR People For the Ethical Treatment of Rats breaks into Dr. Hamilton's lab and frees his lab rats whom predictably get into the super growth hormone.

Giant killer rats on the loose at a community college. Oh the horror. The police are always on scene but they don't actually do anything until the end!

This is why giant killer rats aren't as scary as an actual swarm of rats. They're big, they're easier to kill! Just shoot them! No, the rats don't start breeding rapidly like real life rats. There are only a dozen of them. Shoot them! They're hard to miss.

Of course they're would be other easy ways to kill giant rats like... rat poison. Just use a large dose.

In the climax the rats attack the school's synchronized swimming event. The police arrive and... shoot them. Yes that's how you kill animals. Just shoot them. They could have done this days ago!

Dr. Hamilton protests this, pleading for the life of his beloved pet rat. When your pet is as big as a wolf it's time to put it down. If they're expecting anyone to feel emotions for the death of rat it won't work.

So what becomes of that poor little boy? The movie doesn't care. It's too focused on rats... oh wait there are no rats just POV shots!

Skip this whole mess of a movie. Even if you like giant killer rats you'll hate this movie because it doesn't even have giant killer rats just POV shots!
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Case 39 (2009)
1/10
Makes 'Troll 2' Look Like 'Citizen Kane'
29 July 2015
There's no mystery why this movie was shelved for four years. It's horrible!

So imagine the production quality of Chester Novell Turner with an actress best known as the bimbo from 'Love & A .45.'

The plot: Since the trailer can't seem to get anything right, this is actually a 2006 I mean 2010 version of 'The Bad Seed' with needless jump scares thrown in and laughable "action" sequences.

Renee Zellweger stars as the only attractive single English speaking social worker in America/Canada investigating a little girl Lilith (get it?) who's.... get read for the shocker.... falling asleep in class and getting bad grades! Oh the horror of her abusive home!

Officer Ian McShane is also along for the ride to put another nail in his career as a respected actor, once again doing a bad American accent. Why would they hire the most Irish actor in history to do an American accent? It's like casting James Earl Jones as a mime!

Anyway, Zelweger and McShane arrive just in time to save Lilith from being cooked alive by her parents.

After the parents are sent to prison Zellweger predictably becomes Lilith's foster mother.

Now enter Bradley Cooper who's... some shmuck Zelweger meets at a bar and exists only for Litlith to reveal her dark side and kill him via bad CGI hornets in his mouth. Officer McShane is predictably her second victim followed by Lilith's parents.

So based on Lilith being creepy and bratty Zelweger concludes she must be a demon and decides to kill her. Yup, despite the fact that all four of her victims have died via super natural means which Lilith wouldn't have been able to do Zelweger just decides to kill her with sleeping pills and then burns down her own house.

What a shock... it didn't work and Lilith is still alive to continue her horrible reign of... demanding ice cream.

So Lilith is some kind of demon? It's never explained! But Zellweger is finally able to kill her via driving her car into the water. So fire doesn't kill her but water does?

And Zellweger lives happily ever after without her job, house, or car. Since she destroyed these things all on her own her insurance won't pay. Oh, and she'll have to answer to the police for why she drowned her foster daughter after failing to burn her to death! The movie ends as if none of these things are going to be a problem for her.

So in conclusion, if you find bratty kids demanding ice cream scary and foster parents that simply presume kids are demons whom need to be killed noble then this is your movie.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Apply Razor To Wrists and Repeat
25 July 2015
Well what can be said about the conclusion to a trilogy of horribly made dark comedies? It does stay true to the first two films as being completely devoid of any entertainment value.

This time the production quality far worse! Worse than the first two films? How bad could it really be? I'll sum up the production quality this way, it's the worst I've ever seen for a Bree Olsen film! Yeah, that's bad!

I've actually heard some defense of Tom Six's film making as being "realistic" and "gritty." NO! It's just lazy. If the director doesn't care about the camera being in focus, the set being lit, off set noises remaining on the soundtrack, or actors missing their lines and not doing a second take it's just lazy. It shows the director doesn't care and the audience will respond in kind.

Dieter Laser returns in the lead as a Southern prison warden. A German actor doing a bad Southern accent fails for laughs on every level. NONE OF THE ATTEMPTED HUMOR works on any level!!! And this is 75% of the movie, Dieter Laser acting like Boss Hogg.

The other 25% are attempted gross out scenes of prisoners being raped in their kidney's and the cannibalization of human testicles. True to the first two films this gore is just plain silly rather than disgusting or morbidly humorous.

So what does any of this have to do with the human centipede? As the poster reveals, the warden concludes that the best way to maintain order in the prison is to create one giant human centipede. He gets his inspiration from watching.... 'The Human Centipede.' Because a movie within a movie worked so well in the second film.

Hence the few brief moments of the human centipede are only seen in the climax, which you could have gotten by just looking at the poster.

So if you're having any morbid curiosity of seeing this film. Don't!
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Not Direct To Video
23 July 2015
I just wanted to clarify that this film WAS IN THEATERS!!! It was not direct to video!!! IMDb IS WRONG!!! (as usual I have VHS of the TV ads for this film!

It received a large amount of free media attention due to the current president's brother Roger Clinton appearing in the film.

Once again, this was in theaters, it was NOT direct to video.

As proof I can break out my complete VHS of 'All My Children' for 1993 and show you the ads for this film! It was in theaters!

This film is in fact a very poor follow up to Stan Winston's cult classic.

It does not contain any of the characters from the first film. The story is merely a rehash of the original. A woman in run over by city slicker teens and a witch conjures the demonic monster Pumpkinhead to kill them.

So it's just like the first film sans the good FX and photography.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Jaws of Satan (1981)
3/10
Whacking Day In Springfield
16 July 2015
Right of the bat I'd like to AGAIN question IMDb's rating for this film! They list it as "R." Based on what? No sex violence or profanity! Also my VHS copy clearly states "PG."

As far as B movies go the production quality isn't that bad.

This is one of those films with a decent set up and NO PAY OFF!

I've seen several killer snake movies that turn out that way like Oliver Reed's 'Venom.' The creepy set up consists of a priest (Fritz Weaver of 'Scanners') being told by a fortune teller that his ancestors in England persecuted the pagan Druids whom put a curse on his family.

Wait! I just checked his flexography and remember he wasn't in 'Scanners!' So what else do we know Fritz Weaver from? A few episodes of 'L&O.'

Fortunately the priest knows exactly how to deal with fortune tellers. "A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortune-teller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death." Leviticus 20:27

But no, Father Weaver doesn't kill her a few minutes later, she's killed by the curse.

Anyway snakes on a train kill the conductor and the train car comes into town. Pretty soon there are dozens of fatal snake bites.

Just like every killer animalxploitation film the smart lady reporter wants to call in the feds for help, but greedy businessmen want to stop her as a public scare could hurt the business at the town's center of commerce, a dog racing track. Yup that's the key plot point of this movie a dog racing track.

Here the businessmen are so evil they even hire someone to kill the reporter. WTF? Isn't this going a little too far.

The head businessman's daughter really stands out as being cuter than Shirley Temple. When predictably she too is bitten I realized whom she was, Christina Applegate! Yup, and the businessman's wife is Christina's real life mother Nancy Priddy.

Unlike most killer animal movies there are no epic scenes of swarms of animals. Even 'Dogs' had that. Almost all the snake attack scenes simply consist of an actor screaming in pain and then collapsing to the ground.

There are a few boring scenes of snakes cornering people. Now I'm no zoologist but all the snakes appear to be cobras (probably only one cobra was actually used for filming). Since cobras aren't American I kept waiting for the reporter and the scientist to uncover some kind of dark secret that a cobra from Asia was on the train and began breeding with local snakes thus creating a heard of killer snakes? No, this is never explained.

The climax is also a major let down. The reporter and scientist track the snakes' headquarters to a cave. So can't they just seal off the cave? How are these snakes traveling tens of miles all over town to bite people?

Father Weaver accepts his fate and has a final confrontation with a cobra leading it into a fire. But what about the hundreds of other snakes all over town? Even presuming this cobra is their leader, killing it isn't going to simply make all the other snakes go away.

The movie's good for a few laughs or if you want to see Christina Applegate's debut, and isn't horrible. It just suffers from the most back movie problem, boredom!

The question still remains, was this part of a bigger conspiracy? Just an excuse to beat up the Irish?
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed