It would be easy to list those ways in which we are warned, well before watching, that this is surely going to be a lackluster mess. It would be easy because there are a great many of them. Instead of focusing on that, let's just cut to the chase, and talk about things like the glaring CGI of muzzle flashes from the soldiers' firearms, or the script that quickly comes off as dubious, halfhearted, and no more than perfunctory. There's Kevin VanHook's middling direction, and action sequences that are, shall we say, variable in their strength (though some aren't half bad!). There are some recognizable names and faces appearing in this TV movie, but neither they nor any others on hand are specifically being required to act - though at least they're having a good time? Ludek Drizhal's music is the most purposefully bland pablum I've heard in a film in quite a while, and that some cues play to the light humor that's peppered throughout is A Choice. Practical effects and special makeup look great; on a reported total production budget of $2 million, the same won't necessarily be said of instances of digital effects. But we knew all this before we ever pressed play on 'Slayer,' so if we don't like the viewing experience, we have no one but ourselves to blame.
Dialogue is generally painfully blunt and exact, and often simply bad; with exceptions in both directions, the scene writing is mostly only rudimentarily serviceable. We do at least have a complete, cohesive story on our hands; how compelling it is constitutes another matter. In fairness, there are actually some genuinely good ideas scattered around; then again, some ideas are not so great. But hey, it's not like anyone involved had any illusions about what they were making - schlock this mediocre doesn't happen by accident. That does beg the question of who might actually enjoy this, what merit this held in the eyes of those who participated, and how the Sci Fi Channel could have ever seen fit to greenlight it in the first place. It's not significantly fun or thrilling; what gap could a consciously low-grade production possibly fill? I don't have the answers to these questions. I just know that the picture offers little more than the most baseline level of diversion that any conglomeration of light and sound does. VanHook and his cast and crew succeeded in making an almost perfectly tiresome, dull, unexciting feature. But to what end? If someone does manage to extract meaningful entertainment here then I'm glad for them; I just don't know how they do it. Watch 'Slayer' if you want, but I just can't offer a major reason why you should.
Dialogue is generally painfully blunt and exact, and often simply bad; with exceptions in both directions, the scene writing is mostly only rudimentarily serviceable. We do at least have a complete, cohesive story on our hands; how compelling it is constitutes another matter. In fairness, there are actually some genuinely good ideas scattered around; then again, some ideas are not so great. But hey, it's not like anyone involved had any illusions about what they were making - schlock this mediocre doesn't happen by accident. That does beg the question of who might actually enjoy this, what merit this held in the eyes of those who participated, and how the Sci Fi Channel could have ever seen fit to greenlight it in the first place. It's not significantly fun or thrilling; what gap could a consciously low-grade production possibly fill? I don't have the answers to these questions. I just know that the picture offers little more than the most baseline level of diversion that any conglomeration of light and sound does. VanHook and his cast and crew succeeded in making an almost perfectly tiresome, dull, unexciting feature. But to what end? If someone does manage to extract meaningful entertainment here then I'm glad for them; I just don't know how they do it. Watch 'Slayer' if you want, but I just can't offer a major reason why you should.