bobwildhorror Reviews

The Haunted World of El Superbeasto (2009 Video)

A Plea to Rob Zombie

[1/10 · 3 July 2010]

Let's get this on the table before I start. I'm not a tremendous fan of Rob Zombie. His music leaves me cold and I've run hot and cold with his additions to the torture porn sub-genre.

This isn't to say that I don't appreciate his artistry or attention to detail. He really seems to dig the seventies/eighties horror classics that he pays tribute to. His films generally feature unusual characters and there's always a moment or two where he pleasantly surprises me. But EL SUPERBEASTO did nothing, nothing at all, to challenge my perception that he's content appealing to the lowest common denominator.

This is another instance where I'm stunned by the positive reviews I'm reading. This film seems to exist solely to titillate 13-year old boys. It's full of crude sex and excrement jokes, hundreds of them. I dare you, in fact, to find thirty seconds of this flick that doesn't feature one or the other. Go ahead. If this film was a drinking game, you'd be under the table by 10 minutes in.

The sad thing was that I was actually looking forward to seeing this. The character design really looked fabulous. I even thought animation might free Rob from the need to revel in mutilation and torture. I guess it did to a certain extent, although this was replaced by juvenile, extremely juvenile, pandering. This is the type of movie I would have laughed endlessly at when I was nine years old, if I could have convinced my parents to allow me to watch naked animated chicks shooting guns (which I couldn't have).

Come on, Rob. I know you've got a great film in you. While the whole head banging thing is no longer my bag, you have grown into a real artist over the years. This was a wasted opportunity. Despite some good animation and a multitude of missed opportunities, EL SUPERBEASTO was beneath you.

Taken (I) (2008)

Hateful and Insulting

[1/10 · 18 February 2010]

I always root for the little guy, whether it is the character or the filmmaker. It's why I love independent film. It's why I applaud Charles Bronson and Bruce Willis and all the films where they stand up to some half-baked criminal scum. It's why I wanted to like TAKEN, this scrappy little picture that took on big money titles and thumped them at the box office.

But TAKEN is a troubling case. As much as it pretends to be a "revenge" picture – and it is as predictable as the worst of them – TAKEN is a movie filled with dangerous, racist ideas. It makes troubling statements about America values, the exploitation of our fears, and the way we vilify sex but glorify violence. What does it say about us as a society that TAKEN, easily one of the most violently offensive movies I've viewed in years, became a box office sensation? Or that it remains so highly rated by IMDb users?

Liam Neeson stars as an ex-CIA agent whose daughter is kidnapped by sex traders in France, now the most dangerous country in the European Union(?). He immediately vows to kill these scum; you've got to see his ridiculous negotiation scenes to believe it. And then he proceeds to follow through in a manner that would make Charles Bronson blush. He tracks hordes of these foreign devils down and breaks their necks or shoots them or guts them or chases them into oncoming traffic. He shows no mercy. He's so busy smashing skulls open twenty at a time, that he can't be bothered to rescue other teenage victims of the sex trade.

Apparently only his daughter, a pony loving virgin (I kid you not), is worth saving. The rest of the kidnapped girls, dozens of them, are left in drug-induced stupors to be continually raped by bearded Albanians. Not only is TAKEN absolute rubbish, it is absolutely insulting to women, the French, and most intelligent life on this planet.

I've never done this before, but shame on all you who found entertainment in this vile excuse for an action film. And shame on Liam Neeson for having participated in this misogynistic excuse for entertainment. It really is that bad, an externalization of the fear of the foreigner, written by Frenchman Luc Besson at a time when his country is attempting to outlaw Muslim attire.

The fact that this movie received a PG-13 rating, despite scene after scene of violence and teenage rape is incomprehensible. Way to go, America.

Blood Car (2007)

An Amazingly Good Time

[10/10 · 17 June 2009]

I'm amazed by the venom lavished in some of these reviews. These people have totally missed the point. BLOOD CAR is not a Hollywood construct. If you're looking for transforming car-bots or superhero-style CGI, then this is not the place for you. BLOOD CAR is a throwback to the John Waters' school of shock schlock. It's rude and crude, but it's also a tremendously mature satire of U.S. consumer culture (particularly our consumption of energy at the detriment of the rest of the planet).

It's the future. Mike Brune plays Archie Andrews (yes, you heard right), a kindergarten teacher with a penchant for lecturing kids on the Kyoto Protocol. In his spare time, he's attempting to construct a car that runs on wheat grass, a vegan alternative to excessively costly oil. He cuts himself by accident and viola, stumbles onto an alternative energy source that's a cheap in comparison: human life.

The film hardly misses a beat from there. Despite its limited finances, it's a laugh riot of low-brow humor. Regardless of what the filmmakers might claim to the contrary, it's nice to see a film with a point -- any point -- in this era of pointless spectacle. BLOOD CAR might be the ultimate statement on U.S. car culture, all apologies to American GRAFFITI.

Mustang Sally (2006)

Did Any Other Reviewers Actually What This Film?

[2/10 · 6 June 2009]

I try to be very tolerant of independent films. It has to take a lot of moxie to get any film made, let alone one on a limited budget, and MUSTANG SALLY wears its limited budget like a badge of honor. It looks like it was shot at a friend's cabin over the course of a couple days by some frat boys and their girlfriends.

Not that this is a bad thing. Sam Raimi showed everyone the possibilities of low budget horror (and the woods) with EVIL DEAD. But MUSTANG SALLY has none of the crazed energy of Sam's picture. In fact, it's difficult to classify it as a horror film despite its original title. There's nothing supernatural about it. There's nothing particularly bloody. Even the "sex scenes," which seem to be the main reason for this film's existence, are badly shot teases. There's no real nudity, just endless groping and rolling around. Lots of it. Sequence after sequence after sequence...and when that's not enough, the filmmakers split the screen into four segments so we can watch simultaneous rolling and groping.

*SPOILERS* What's the plot? As close as I could figure, a bunch of party animal frat boys overhear some bikers talking about a local whorehouse and decide to pay it a visit. The madame of the place (EG Daily of PEEWEE'S BIG ADVENTURE fame), is only to happy for their patronage, although she looks a little drug-addled and seems to be stumbling through her appearance. The guys hook up. There's groping and rolling for a good half hour of the picture. When the novelty of filming these sequences wears off, the girls try and kill the boys. And then there's a confusing revelation in which Miss Daily reveals that she was raped by the boys' fathers, had a bunch of kids, and has enlisted the aid of the bikers for payback. Why she went to such elaborate means for this revenge scheme is beyond me. It's never explained what association she had with the bikers or why the girls were so eager to assist her in this insane enterprise. It's suggested that there's some kind of relationship -- are they her daughters? -- but EG has little remorse when some of them are killed (and the others just disappear from the plot at the denouement).

Forgetting logic, because EVIL DEAD used very little and was still a classic -- here's the biggest problem: MUSTANG SALLY is either a sex film with no sex or a gore film with no gore. The "effects" are laughable. Gunshots, stabbings, gougings, are all done in cutaways. We see the after effects, but never an impact, which is unusual for this type of picture. But since there are no such distractions, this leaves us with endless dialog sequences that appear entirely improvised. Did I mention endless? All the guys speak in stilted "teen speak" that verges on the painful. The girls mumble clownishly about adolescent sexual fantasies, some of which I have to assume is intended comically, but these moments are few and far between.

How does a movie like this get distributed the world over? More important, how does it pick up so many rave reviews on IMDb?

Shark Attack 3: Megalodon (2002 Video)

As If the Jaws Sequels Weren't Insult Enough

[1/10 · 22 March 2009]

This is purportedly the sequel to what I must assume were equally vile predecessors, but it needs little introduction. There's a killer Megalodon, a prehistoric shark that happens to look exactly like a conventional shark. It's haunting a beach area while being pursued by a couple of talent impaired actors that spend most of their screen time screaming. The script borrows so liberally from JAWS that you'd swear this was conceived by a couple of crafts service people who had worked on the original. If anyone ever doubted the genius of Spielberg, watch five minutes of this turkey and you'll be convinced.

SHARK ATTACK 3 is bad. Really bad. So bad that I couldn't sit through the entire picture (and I've made a habit of reveling in low-budget trash). Watch the prolonged sequence involving a para-sailor whose boats is attacked by the wicked beastie and you'll know exactly what to expect of the rest of it. Variations on the same three shots must have appeared 30 times in this sequence.

Truly horrific. I'm giving it one star for the shark's fake fin, easily the funniest prop I've seen in ages. You could actually see the creases in it. Nothing like the sole prop in your feature being shoddily put together. It's a sure sign of class.

Return to Sleepaway Camp (2008 Video)

Revisionist History

[1/10 · 3 March 2009]

It amazes me how revisionist we movie fans can be. We love to look back on bad horror films and claim, in retrospect, that they deserve points for intentional camp. Where would Roger Corman's career be without this? Where would the SLEEPWAY CAMP franchise be? I should have known better than to watch this, as I found the original badly made/acted and offensive. But the RETURN TO SLEEPAWAY CAMP box had the look of a better than average sequel. And it had been twenty years since the original, twenty years that the writer/director had to mount an effort superior to his overrated debut.

Forget all that. RETURN TO SLEEPAWAY CAMP is as bad as cinema gets. It's amateurishly acted, badly scripted, and features some of the most obnoxious characters its ever been my displeasure to view. Sequences appear to have been randomly assembled. Even the death sequences, the bread and butter of the slasher film, are so badly put together that they're laughable.

There's also the basic plot (which is about as basic as you can get). Slasher kills. The problem is that the official red herring is such an obnoxious character that we never care whether he did it or not. I was actually hoping someone would just kill him fast and refund my rental money.

I realize that I've been overly critical of some films on this site, but this is not one of them. Contrary to anyone's assessment, the SLEEPAWAY CAMP franchise is not the result of high camp. It's the result of bad film-making.

Frankenstein vs. the Creature from Blood Cove (2005)

Truly Enjoyable

[8/10 · 22 January 2009]

Every once in a while I stumble upon an independent movie that succeeds on sheer bravado and love of its inspirations. The horribly named FRANKENSTEIN VS THE MONSTER FROM BLOOD COVE is one of those. In the tradition of Universal monster mash-ups like THE HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN comes this story of a mad scientist who is endeavoring to create a race of super-monsters to fight terrorism. Or some such nonsense. Despite any delusions the filmmakers might have had about topicality, the framework is just an excuse to hang as many creatures as possible on the story.

And creatures there are. Not content with Frankenstein's monster and the Monster From Blood Cove (an endearing Creature From the Black Lagoon type beast), Writer/Director William Winckler introduces a slew of loosely related beasts. A werewolf shows up for no apparent reason, only to be gunned down within minutes. The ghost of Dr. Frankenstein even drops by to choke(?) several victims.

As if that weren't enough, this black and white tribute throws in every stock supporting character/location from the Universal classics. There are Gothic looking exteriors. There's the mysterious gypsy woman who issues cryptic warnings. There's the disfigured/conflicted lab assistant, played by monster designer Chris Knight.

And if this weren't enough, there are also nods to the films of Ed Wood (the obviously cornball dialog, the lawn chair/lab table the monster lies on, etc.).

But this isn't Mel Brooks, people. This is low-budget film-making. It may be sincere and creative, but those looking for sophistication would do well to pass on this. The acting is universally bad, even by the standards of these films. There are some intrusive nude photo sessions/stripper performances that seem to have been randomly added to titillate adolescent boys and pad the running time (girls strip, dance, and then get killed). And there is an offensive gay stereotype that is repeatedly played for "comic" effect.

But all this is secondary to the creatures. Rubber-looking they might be, but they're retro-cool and well executed…and they are what lift this production to a noteworthy level. Their battles might be a letdown – more Godzilla than Universal – but perfectly in keeping with the limited intent. This is definitely a deserving entry in the low-budget monster sweepstakes.

Amazons and Gladiators (2001)

Sometimes Breasts Aren't Enough

[2/10 · 15 January 2009]

Thank the gods I didn't pay to rent this. Obviously intended as a cheap T&A knockoff of GLADIATOR, this flick is lamer than your average episode of Xena.

A bunch of Amazonian warriors hide in the woods outside Rome, intent on battling the mighty Roman army. They revel in their sisterhood, which would be fine if this was a woman's rights movie instead of a sexploitation flick. The only things viewers are asked to revel in are fur covered push-up bras and midriff bearing outfits (hardly the best protection against the brutal weather). But this isn't a skin flick, my friends. It's a badly scripted, badly acted, B movie. Cleavage is a secondary consideration.

My favorite piece of cheesy dialog, and it's difficult to single out one exchange in a movie rife with it, occurs between the Amazon leader and the newest arrival.

Leader: "Your training begins tomorrow." New arrival: "What training?" Leader: "Amazon training." Need I say more?

Crazy Eights (2006)

Predictable Waste of Time

[4/10 · 14 January 2009]

Being named to the After Dark Horrorfest must be a mixed bag. On the one hand, your independent horror flick gets great distribution and promotion. On the other, it gets saddled with unrealistic expectations, the result of the festival's hype about releasing films that are too scary and subversive for Hollywood. I've yet to see one of these films that lived up to these inflated expectations. Most are just variations on a theme, with CRAZY EIGHTS proving no exception.

This picture offers us a combination of THE BIG CHILL and CUBE (or any number of Twilight Zone episodes about people being stuck in strange environments). A group of childhood friends regroup after the death of one of their own and find themselves stuck in the basement of an abandoned research hospital. Of course, they share a horrific secret: they were all test subjects in a psychological experiment that went awry. They hallucinate. They scream and cry. And then they run off by themselves, character after character, so they can be conveniently picked off by an evil entity.

CRAZY EIGHTS is competently directed. It features a great location (who can fault an abandoned, creepy hospital?). And the actors, including former porn star Tracy Lords, do a nice job.

But I was again struck by what the film didn't have: any kind of plausible explanation about the spirit infestation. Instead, we get lame J-horror borrowings. *BIG SPOILER* All this carnage was due to the spirit of one angry little girl. It's an angry little girl we hardly ever glimpse, which is a good thing in a film like this, but it's still a lame excuse for 90 minutes of supposed "terror." It's as nonsensical as its big-budget cousin, SILENT HILL, which used the same premise.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't a horrible movie. But neither is it a thinking person's horror film. I'm actually confused by who its target audience was. There's so little blood that it isn't pandering to gorehounds. CRAZY EIGHTS actually goes out of its way to hide the aftermath of the ghost attacks. And even if it did want to linger on the carnage, the effect would have been nullified by the muted color palette of the film. The entire picture looks like it was de-saturated. It's an odd and pointless approach…a perfect compliment to the plot.

Raging Sharks (2005 Video)

Hilariously Bad

[2/10 · 10 January 2009]

To be fair, I didn't watch this entire fiasco. I missed the beginning, which would have detailed some type of alien cylinder that is placed in the ocean, one that drives sharks into a feeding frenzy. One that apparently also provides them with super powers, like the ability to growl while they are under water.

But this missing piece only increased my appreciation for the horror that is RAGING SHARKS. Finally, a Sci Fi Channel acquisition that was so bad, so incompetent, that it descends into the realm of the ludicrous. This movie is Ed Wood bad. It's startlingly, stunningly bad, even by Sci Fi Channel standards.

My favorite exchange occurs when the hull of the sub/underwater station is compromised. There are explosions. There are fireballs. People run screaming this way and that. Water rushes into the structure. Pipes and walls burst. Then, Corbin Bernsen gets on the radio, looking rather dapper in the command set that he never leaves (like Basil Rathbone in an old Roger Corman movie), and puts out a desperate inquiry: "How long will it take to repair?" "About 15 minutes," comes the answer.

Or did I just dream this sequence? It's one of those movies where you can zone out for 5 or 10 minutes and miss absolutely nothing. At least he doesn't scream every line of dialog like many of the actors (who appear to have been plucked from a high school play). To be fair, it's probably not their faults. Many are shot in close up and appear to be acting in completely different scenes, even when they're having interactions. It adds to the insane charm of the piece, which is why I gave it a 2 star rating instead of a 0.

Great sets, though. A pity they were wasted on such an abominable piece of work.

Serenity (2005)

Interesting TV Show Extension

[8/10 · 4 January 2009]

I'm sure people will write more eloquent reviews than me. I'm not now, nor have I ever been, a fan of Firefly. Never watched it a single time. As a result, my prospective is a bit different from the multitude of folks who seem to have devoted their lives to this television program.

Despite the claims that SERENITY is a groundbreaking show, what I was faced with was a movie that borrowed heavily. There's a smattering of the original Star Trek (particularly during the finale, when Captain Nathan Fillion gets into a ridiculously prolonged battle with an assassin). There are some borrowings from zombie movies and the later Star Trek (particularly The Borg). There's even a post-apocalyptic strain that could have come from any of a hundred movies...and don't forget the seemingly innocent little girl who is a kung fu fighting machine. Aren't they all?

That said, the whole thing is presented with verve and style. The characters are engaging. And the faux western touches were enjoyable, although I got tired of the bad Southern accents. There are worse ways to spend a Saturday night.

The Lost Treasure of the Grand Canyon (2008 TV Movie)

Horrible Title, but Passable Movie

[8/10 · 21 December 2008]

While I long ago gave up hope that the Sci Fi Channel would use its considerable assets in the pursuit of artistry, I've got to give credit where credit is due. THE LOST TREASURE OF THE GRAND CANYON is a passable Saturday afternoon feature. It manages to overcome the typical pitfalls of a Sci Fi Channel movie -- badly rendered CGI monster, limited sets, silly plot developments -- to showcase some low-budget ingenuity. And it does it with Shannen Doherty in tow...yes, that Shannen Doherty, the infant terrible of eighties teen television.

Lest you think Doherty is the decisive factor, I want to clarify that it's director Farhad Mann's skill that elevates the picture. He has the good sense to keep the evil CGI god hidden for the majority of the movie. And even after it makes its obligatory appearance, he has the good sense to recognize that less is more. Unlike his contemporaries, who seem hell-bent on sticking their CGI creatures into as many frames as possible, Mann makes the monster secondary to the locations. Which brings me to the second major asset of THE LOST TREASURE: the photography. Mann also has the good sense to allow the beauty of the Grand Canyon to become a character in the story.

Even Clay Carmouche's screenplay is decent. It's got its share of "Oh, no" moments, but it's got an equal dedication to recreating the atmosphere of an Edgar Rice Burroughs novel. It even sets it in a Burroughs style milieu.

I'm not sure the picture deserves an 8, but in comparison to most of the Sci Fi Channel's oeuvre, it's a towering masterpiece. The only major issue I have is with the title. What did the Lost Treasure have to do with anything? It was mentioned, but almost in passing. Couldn't someone have come up with a better name for the picture?

Guess I shouldn't think too hard. Nobody ever promised that the Sci Fi Channel was going to actually feature thought provoking science fiction.

Sea of Dust (2008)

Heavy Concepts and Hammer Nods

[9/10 · 29 October 2008]

I saw SEA OF DUST as part of a NYC screening audience several years ago. I enjoyed the film at that time, so I was a little confused by some of the amendments that had been made since. Perhaps it's my memory, but there seemed to be chunks of exposition missing from the version that was shown at the Rhode Island Film Festival. I'm really not sure which version I prefer, but I can honestly say that I found something to appreciate it both.

Let me begin by warning everyone that this is not a popcorn movie. Although it's been promoted as a Hammer Films tribute, people expecting a showdown between Van Helsing and Dracula are going to be sorely disappointed. There's some cleavage, but no nudity (a staple of the British production house's later movies). And while SEA OF DUST is filled with gorgeous eye candy (it really is shot like a sixties film), and features Hammer starlet Ingrid Pitt, it's not like any of the company's pictures in tone or execution. This film is very dark, very confusing, and (at times) very funny. I don't remember the earlier version being quite as nutty as this one, but that's not a bad thing (especially the showdown in the Black Forest that plays like a Three Stooges short). And some of Ms Pitt's rantings are quite entertaining. It's like somebody wound her up and turned her loose.

The uniqueness of this film doesn't lie with the borrowed details, though. It's in the ideas. As an occasional Sci Fi Channel viewer, I've regularly taken the network to task for its one-note variations on a theme (CGI monster kills, then gets destroyed). SEA OF DUST is so full of ideas that you start to trip over them after a while.

But don't get me wrong. I'm not complaining. If anything, I applaud these guys for making such an enterprising low-budget picture and for having the courage to pack it with so many concepts. It's not going to be a picnic for people who hate to think at the movies (you know who you are). But for the rest of us, those of us who are tired of the formula of modern horror films, the predictability, the lack of respect for the audience, this may just be your ticket.

Legion of the Dead (2005 Video)

Dressed Up Skin-Flick

[1/10 · 28 September 2008]

Another brain dead selection from the production company Asylum. LEGION OF THE DEAD attempts to mix mummy movie with sexploitation flick. The result, hardly a first, looks like an inferior remake of the much-maligned LIFEFORCE. This time, instead of a naked space-vampire chick that sucks the lifeforce out of entranced males, we get a naked mummy-vampire chick that sucks the lifeforce out of entranced males.

Calling this movie a rip-off would be a compliment, however. It would ignore how really bad this film is. Unconvinced? Think about this: the best feature of the movie is the bad acting.

So what are we left with? There's laughable CGI. A "legion of the dead" that amounts to a few badly made up mummies. An Egyptian tomb set that appears to have been made of cardboard (but perhaps that's how California's ancient Eyptians once constructed them). I kid you not, people. This tomb was discovered in the woods of Southern California. And don't make me start on the script. Please. I don't want to think about it in any kind of detail.

Worst of all, I saw this damn thing on the Sci-Fi Channel, so the main reason for its existence (the nudity) was edited/blurred out.

Half Past Dead (2002)

So Bad It Was Painful

[1/10 · 7 September 2008]

What a dog. Saw this on a cable station the other evening. They actually changed the title to something less memorable. Must be the network was afraid too many people would recognize the original title of this train wreck.

This movie sucked on so many levels that I'm at a loss where to begin. The acting? Well, Steven Seagal will never get an Academy Award, but his efforts here left me dumbstruck. He's a gangster of some sort. You can tell because he speaks in a stilted "street" language that makes him sound impaired. To be fair, that's not his fault. It's obviously the result of a script written by a white guy who wanted to inject ethnic credibility into a prison movie...and failed miserably. Ja Rule comes along for the ride. The best thing I can say about his performance is that he wears a tank top to show us he's tattooed and prison buff.

Speaking of which, is Steven so out of shape that he has to cover his physique with heavy coats? Throughout the entire film he's sporting some kind of jacket. It doesn't matter where he is: in prison (where they apparently have no dress code for a star of Seagal's stature), on the run from the law, or in bed with his girlfriend.

And I hate to be harsh, but Don Michael Paul's direction does nothing to help the situation. An action movie requires action sequences, not badly choreographed fights that are shot from random angles. Even the explosions - and there are plenty of explosions - are boring. Apparently, they're also invisible explosions, because no matter how many buildings and cars Steven blows up, the law can't follow his trail of carnage.

This is really bad, bad stuff. I actually felt bad for Seagal. He never made masterpieces, but this is like a stick in the eye compared to UNDER SIEGE.

Death Proof (2007)

I've Got an Affinity for B-Movies, But...

[6/10 · 27 August 2008]

A lot has been made of this film's painfully slow pace. And there's no doubt that DEATH PROOF contains way, way too much dialog. In numerous sequences the film gets lost in minutia that does nothing to advance the storyline. It's not even minutia that develops the characters. It's minutia that reads like in-jokes for nerdy film fanatics, guys who probably wet themselves at the mention of every obscure seventies TV show Quentin throws at them.

But that's not the biggest sin on display in DEATH PROOF. The biggest is how the women, who are supposedly super-feminists, are used to fulfill every adolescent male fantasy imaginable. They not only talk endlessly about sex and "doing" it, they place each other in situations where they could easily be sexually assaulted (which are supposed to pass for funny in this picture). They drink and cuss like truckers, all the better to get them in the mood to put out. And they chatter endlessly, in stilted Tarantino-English, about scoring weed and car engines. And dare I mention that a good percentage of them are martial arts experts? Silly stuff, and easily forgiven, if I felt there was a point other than Quentin's intellectual masturbation. But this overlong film is simply a great ten minute car chase (and spectacular car crash) tacked onto 90+ minutes of dialog. In the end – and "the end" literally amounts to the film grinding to a purposeless halt – it all comes across as labored.

Quentin, you're too good for this.

Monster Ark (2008 TV Movie)

Absolutely Incredible - Offensive and Stupid at the Same Time

[1/10 · 10 August 2008]

A disclosure: I was actually looking forward to seeing this. I saw a titillating advertisement on the Sci Fi Channel regarding MONSTER ARK and thought, "Doesn't this sound like an interesting idea? A Noah's Ark filled with monsters somehow drifts into the present age?" Guess I got a little ahead of myself, because this is nothing but another in the Channel's endless barrage of CGI monster movies, squandering that clever concept in favor of a single creature of "darkness." One creature. Apparently, God commanded Noah to build an ark to transport this creature to the end of the world, drop it off, and then swim home to build another ark.

I feel for this director. I can see the wheels turning now: "Well, the concept isn't so great, but as long as I have a good script it will all be okay. What do you mean I wrote it? That's not good. Have you seen the rest of my credits? Okay, okay. Forget about that. The script might not be any good, but as long as I've got some great actors to pull it off... What do you mean the most visible of them is an ex-wrestler? And he's going to scream every one of his lines? Well, I'll make due, as long as I have an understated score to make everything creepy. What's that you're saying? It's going to sound like the charge of the light brigade? Well, forget all that. I can save this picture. All it needs is a great monster. That's all people really want to see, anyway. I'll just give them a wonderful, spine-chilling monster! What do you mean we can't afford a monster? You can't be serious. You're going to have someone design it with Lego's?" Better he just cross it off his resume and get on with his life. But this is the guy that brought us ROCK MONSTER, so maybe he considers MONSTER ARK a step up.

Let me be honest: this almost got my vote in the "so bad it's good" category. It's inept in so many ways that it becomes hilarious. My absolute favorite has to be Amanda Crew's character. She plays a "Research Assistant" for college Professor Tim DeKay...and does it entirely with a bared midriff. It doesn't matter what she's doing, she's got her shirt hiked up to expose her belly: in the lab, on the University grounds, in a military outpost filled with soldiers. She does it despite the presence of the Professor's wife (who divorced him because she believed he had an affair with a previous "Research Assistant"). But the most wonderfully offensive incidence has to be when she travels to a Muslim country, into a combat zone in Iraq, dressed this way. My mouth hung open in disbelief.

Thank heavens Declan O'Brien, the writer/director of this travesty, tied it up in the most offensive fashion he could: by showing the fallacy of Muslim belief, the inferiority of the Iraq people, and the crowning truth of the Judeo-Christian faith. That'll teach those savages! Unbelievable.

Cabin Fever (2002)

Unexpected, Creative Genre Outing

[9/10 · 19 July 2008]

I'm not one of those people who consider Eli Roth a classic horror director. But I do feel that he's got talent and good imagination, something CABIN FEVER demonstrates effectively.

This is an imaginative little film that never tries to be more than what it is: a B-Horror shot on a shoestring in the woods. But where many lesser filmmakers -- nearly every one who has tried to make a "teens menaced in the woods" feature -- follow the tried and true blueprint established by EVIL DEAD, Roth turns the tables. He imagines an environment where there isn't a serial killer/monster/demon lurking behind every tree, looking for an excuse to jump out. Where endless shots of running teen girls aren't intercut for jiggle effect.

What Roth has created is a horror movie without an antagonist (which is the cleverest aspect of CABIN FEVER). The monsters here are all internal, the kids turning on each other in believable fashion when they're faced with a desperate situation.

Don't be dissuaded by my review if you're a gorehound. There's plenty of blood and guts to be found. It's just not of the expected variety...

And we horror fans have to look long and hard to find a movie that defies expectations!

Hallowed Ground (2007 Video)

Okay Time Waster

[5/10 · 19 July 2008]

Compared to most of the dreck I've seen on the Sci Fi Channel, this wasn't bad. It had descent production values, acceptable acting, and a generally involving pace.

But as many other reviewers have pointed out, it's so ridiculously derivative that it's sometimes difficult to watch. CHILDREN OF THE CORN is definitely an inspiration. Creepy town. Creepy cornfield. Crazed zealots loose.

It's the climax that did me in, though. It was stolen verbatim from 1963's THE KISS OF THE VAMPIRE, although HALLOWED GROUND substitutes CGI crows for animated bats (and comes off the worse for it).

It's always frustrating to see a film with potential, particularly an independent film, fail to capitalize on its assets. An original idea is all that was needed.

Ghouls (2008 TV Movie)

Am I Really The First to be Subjected to This?

[1/10 · 13 July 2008]

It was only a couple short weeks ago that I was here, lamenting the Sci Fi Channel's wreck of a movie GRYPHON. I wondered if there was any way the channel could outdo itself given that travesty of good taste.

Great news, people! Sci Fi has risen to the challenge, delivering this pinnacle of ineptitude. This isn't just a bad film; it's a bottom feeder of epic proportion. And the irony...oh, the irony...is that Sci Fi felt this picture worthy of "Event" status. It's not merely a Sci Fi Channel movie, but a "Sci Fi Channel Event." From now on, I'm going to appropriate the term: "Honey, did you just smash the car into that telephone pole?" "No, dear. You're mistaken. That was an event." Where do I begin? Let's start with the story. Soap actress Kristen Renton travels with her father to a spooky foreign city that is under the siege of "ghouls." Apparently these creatures -- which manifest as either Nintendo-style CGI or rubber masked Halloween costumes -- are trying to destroy the world. Only one man stands between them and domination: a laughable Clint Eastwood clone complete with cowboy duster. Did I mention that this character is the last in a long line of Druids(?) charged with leading the "forces of light against the forces of darkness?" That the hundreds of years of skill handed down to him involve use of a shotgun? That, when all else fails, he tosses hand grenades at the offending creatures? Oh, people, you have not laughed until you've seen Clint Eastwood flinging grenades at Nintendo blurs in the city cemetery! To be fair, the city is a genuinely creepy setting. But any ambiance is scuttled by the muddled monster effects, the ridiculous gore effects, and the quick cutting designed to hide the muddled monster effects and bad gore effects...

And I have yet to get to the acting or continuity (where actors desperately try to escape the ghouls in one shot and then leisurely stroll into frame in the next).

I'm sure there will be those who will view my review as something of a challenge: "It can't be that bad." Rest assured, it can. It actually verges on the ludicrous.

And before anyone blames GHOULS' failings on budget issues, I will again assert that low-budget does not have to mean a ludicrous premise and bad effects/execution. These are the hallmark of the Sci Fi Channel.

Intermedio (2005)

Another Kids Running In Tunnels Movie

[3/10 · 12 July 2008]

Let's start with the pluses for a change.

First up: Cerina Vincent's body. I have no idea if she can act. I've seen her in numerous pictures but none of them has called on her to do more than run about and scream. INTERMEDIO is no exception.

Second up: there are some good actors involved, people without tube tops and jiggle.

Unfortunately, that's about it. Everything else is painfully derivative. Four kids get trapped in a Mexican town and are menaced by ghosts (or some such nonsense). They run around in tunnels. They run around in abandoned buildings. They run up and down ladders. They scream and pant and hug each other a lot.

The ghosts are either CGI blurs or people in glow-in-the-dark skeleton costumes moving in fast motion. The blood effects are goofy in the extreme (looking more like poster paint than spray). And there is some physical scuffling that has to be seen to be believed. My favorite moment? A ghost throws a pickaxe at Cerina and she suddenly demonstrates a Matrix-like move, doubling her body backward to avoid the weapon, then leaps about like a kung fu expert to fight off the villain. Hilarious stuff.

That's about it, really. This is another flick with no plot twists and no real sense of purpose (unless you count Cerina's fleeing nudity).

Wendigo (2001)

Low-Budget Classic

[10/10 · 3 July 2008]

Now this is what I'm talking about. Finally, a low-budget horror outing that uses its limitations to its advantage. WENDIGO, while occasionally flawed, is a triumph of the imagination. Granted, it leans heavy on EVIL DEAD style camera moves for its moodiness, but it's still a damn sight better than 99% of direct to video dross.

The story is pretty simple: a family takes a vacation at a remote cabin and are menaced by one particularly unhinged hunter. But director Larry Fessenden really knows how to build suspense and add layers of unsettling creepiness through the use of the mythical Wendigo. Is it real? Is it all in the boy's imagination? Is it an externalization of the child's emotional state?

Some have quibbled that the film is unsatisfying because it's left to you to decide. Don't be put off by such petty nonsense. A film that makes you think is not one to avoid. It's one to rejoice in.

Attack of the Gryphon (2007)

I Hate To Be Cruel, But...

[1/10 · 3 July 2008]

God bless the Sci Fi Channel. It never ceases to amaze me with its ineptitude. And GRYPHON may well be something of a pinnacle. I dare you to find a film that features a more pathetic CGI creature.

Beyond that, we get a plot that seems to toss every Harry Potter cliché imaginable at its audience. I can picture a bunch of guys in the Sci Fi Channel's boardroom shaking their heads in unison with an executive's ranting.

"What this story needs is more magic."

"Yes, RJ."

"And some knights. I like knights. They could fight each other with swords."

"Yes, RJ."

"And don't forget the women. We could make them witches. Witches in tight costumes. Did they have rubber suites back then?"

"Whatever you say, RJ."

It probably didn't happen that way, but it might as well have. The only pleasure here is seeing the painfully miscast Larry Drake struggle to deliver lines that sound like they were written to entertain kindergarteners.

Children of the Living Dead (2001 Video)

What in the World?

[3/10 · 19 May 2008]

Let me put this on the table first: I'm a Tom Savini fan. I was, anyway, until I saw this movie. I don't know if I'll ever be able to forgive him this one.

Actually, that's not true. As bad as Tom's part is, he has more charisma than 99% of the cast. And when a former makeup man outshines the "actors" in the film, you know what you're in for.

Now, I'm not going to be cruel. I know this was a low budget venture. I knew it when the monster showed up with rubber hands. But there's no excuse for some of the plotting. Why is the zombie massacre sequences inserted at the top of the picture, for instance? Is it to give Tom an excuse for his stunt coordinator billing? The story takes place "14 years" after this zombie holocaust, but it's as if it never happened. No one references it again. It's like the filmmakers were 10 minutes short and decided to tack on an unrelated opening sequence. Instead of discussing the hordes of zombies that descended on the area and required hundreds of men to subdue them, all the cast can talk about is Abbot Hayes (a mass murderer who lived in a farmhouse on the edge of town).

And how convenient is it for a group of teenagers who drive off a random cliff to get buried in the same graveyard? Oh, sorry...did I say buried? What I really meant to say was that they have their caskets left overnight in a field so that Abbot Hayes can resurrect them. Apparently, in this town they don't believe in interring the dead. They just leave them in a field. I think that's a form of child abuse in some states.

Insanity.

Nine Lives (2002 Video)

Ten Little Evil Dead

[2/10 · 5 May 2008]

I had no delusions going into this. Before I'd read a single review here, I knew Paris Hilton couldn't act. And she certainly didn't disappoint me.

But this picture has much bigger problems than her. In trying to meld TEN LITTLE INDIANS with EVIL DEAD, they've managed to dredge up every cliché possible. The result often plays like a TV movie. In fact, aside from a little blood here and there it played like a Movie of the Week.

Great castle. Most of the actors (save Hilton) were not so bad. Passable lighting.

But where's the originality? Any originality...