This film reminded me a lot of Naked Lunch crossed with Bill And Ted's Excellent Adventure in some ways (if you've seen all three of these movies you'll know what I mean). You have a guy (Dave) and his friend (John) who end up stumbling across a drug that opens their minds (both figuratively and literally) to another world. There is some good humor here and some of the scenes make you laugh (the meat man being one). The story is obviously over the top, but that is what makes this film fun to watch. You have to go in to this movie with an open mind (being under the influence might help to) and don't take it too seriously, that being said I can see some people doing just that and they won't get it. It has elements of horror, good old fashioned special effects - some new also, some comedy, and the obligatory nude scene. As I said, some people won't like this movie, but I enjoyed it. Fun to watch, so for that and the reasons I gave earlier, I give this a 7 out of 10.
Add a Review
-
"John Dies at the End" is not a film for everyone. It's incredibly strange, practically impossible to describe and has no conventional plot elements. It's really like combining "Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey", "Men in Black" an "Evil Dead" film and lots of LSD. It's incredibly strange and trippy...and something conventional film viewers probably won't enjoy. As for me, I enjoyed it once I stopped trying to understand it!
The story is a bizarro tale of Dave and his friend, John and their weird lives once they try a weird drug they dub 'soy sauce'. Once it's in their systems, they get caught up in a weird battle between parallel worlds and none of it makes the least bit of sense. What follows is one weird CGI explosion after another--and I do recommend you try it if you have a high capacity for the strange. I would try to say more...but this film truly defies description though it does look like the filmmakers possibly intended to make sequels. -
zentist-563-9769862 January 2013Like many independent movies, this one has a interesting idea at its base and some fairly decent acting but runs out of steam far too early. The end is almost Austin Powers like (i.e. silly). The technical quality fairly good but it is never able to get over the weak story line in the second part of the movie. I imagine Paul Giamatti's involvement was to lend a bit of credibility to the project. However, it is fairly clear that his scenes were shot in a single day (all are in the same Chinese restaurant), so the result is actually the reverse since the commercial motive of the casting is so evident. To sum up, they had me interested at the start and hopeful in the middle but bored and disappointed at the end.
-
I'm not even sure where to start with a movie like JOHN DIES AT THE END. It's one of those movies that just seems destined from the start to be a cult classic, but I'm not so sure. I love a good WTF movie that I can share with friends over a few beers, but a good WTF movie does more than baffle the audience with the bizarre. A good WTF film will have an awesome story (e.g. cyberpunk Nazis on the moon = IRON SKY) and an engaging hero/protagonist (e.g. Rutger Hauer in HOBO WITH A SHOTGUN). Keep in mind, my examples are just movies that I personally enjoy in the WTF genre but the same principles still stand. I can't really agree that JOHN DIES AT THE END has either (much less both) of these qualities. I am a huge fan of Cracked.com and I've been following the site since I first stumbled across it while searching for a time-waster while I worked tech support. Their content is most often hilarious and generally a bit informative too. I'm totally down with supporting their writers in whatever endeavors they pursue if it means more of their excellent product. JOHN DIES AT THE END (written by senior Cracked editor David Wong) is on my shortlist of novels I'm planning on buying from Amazon, but I was excited to find out that a movie would be released in the meantime and that it would be directed by Don Coscarelli. BUBBA HO-TEP is another great WTF film, so naturally I was expecting great things with the movie. The ultimate reality: it falls short of being the movie I wanted, but it has inspired me to move a little faster on picking up the novel.
To start, and you'll probably hear this from anyone who's seen the movie but not read the novel, JOHN DIES AT THE END doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It feels like there's a plot in there somewhere. I just can't find it. I've uncovered bits of it and pieced it all together but there are still a lot of holes. I've pretty much given up on figuring out the plot in its entirety until I read the book. For now, I only know what I've seen in the movie. David Wong (Chase Williamson) and John (Rob Mayes) are a couple of stoned losers who encounter a new drug known on the street as 'soy sauce.' Soy sauce has the ability to give its user supernatural abilities that I don't quite understand. Communicating with the dead and the future and other dimensions, I think. And inexplicable knowledge. Anyway, David and John discover an evil plot involving body-snatching white bugs/fuzz and plans of an entity of pure evil from an alternate universe to dominate our world. See what I mean? I'm not even sure. And everything I've read tells me it's explained 100 times better in the novel, so I haven't given up hope. But, as a movie, it's lacking. Honestly, my interest waned around the time David was kidnapped by an annoying ghetto white kid (Jonny Weston) and the detective investigating the weird goings-on (Glynn Turman) went totally mental.
And that's the big problem here: weirdness without any sort of context becomes dull real fast. For the first 45 minutes of the movie or so, I was loving it. The meat monster, the ominous Jamaican, the messed-up/dark sense of humor to the whole thing it was great. But once the "story" kicked into gear, I lost it. The best way to describe JOHN DIES AT THE END is this: it feels like a 100-minute trailer for a really awesome six-hour movie. There's a lot of interesting stuff going on here and the whole movie feels like it's on the verge of greatness but it never pays off. There's a lot of cool stuff that's introduced or mentioned and never fully explored. What was the deal with Roger North (Doug Jones)? And what about the alien slug with teeth that appeared three times in the movie? Was it a tool of good or evil? How exactly did Korrok's plan (Korrok being the ultimate evil entity from an alternate universe) involve the body-snatching bugs? If Dr. Marconi (Clancy Brown) was so awesome, why wasn't the movie about HIM saving the world? Seriously. Marconi was probably the coolest character in the whole movie and he's the most wasted. Brown gets higher billing than Paul Giamatti in the movie but he's only in it for about 5 minutes. What's the point of his character? He's stone-cold awesome in the few instances we see him in action, but we send David and John to help save the world? Where did the soy sauce come from? Is it a creation of Korrok? Did it have anything to do with the white bug swarms or not, because I'm getting mixed signals.
More questions than answers with the plot, but at least some of the humor works well. Chase Williamson is pretty decent as David Wong and Rob Hayes did a great job, but I think a lot of fans of Cracked might agree that this movie would've been exponentially funnier if Daniel O'Brien and Michael Swaim had been cast in the lead roles. People who aren't followers of Cracked won't know who those two are, but it couldn't have hurt the movie's success seeing as how the release was so low-key to begin with. JOHN DIES AT THE END is a mildly entertaining distraction that will frustrate anyone in the market for a solid story but there are some good laughs to be had. If anything, I can say it's got me that much more interested in reading the book. -
John Dies At The End is an adaptation of David Wong's book of the same name written and directed by Don Coscarelli (Phantasm, Bubba Ho-Tep). While not familiar with the book, the bizarre and surreal story does seem like a perfect fit for Coscarelli as his films have alway had a touch of both the surreal and a bit of offbeat whimsy. The film starts out with David Wong (Chase Williamson) telling his bizarre tale to a reporter, Arnie Blondestone (Paul Giamatti). Wong starts to spin a tale involving himself and his friend, John (Rob Mayes) and their encounters with a powerful drug with a mind of it's own called "soy sauce". This bizarre narcotic not only gives the user (if they survive it) heightened psychic awareness but, opens doorways to alternate dimensions. But, once doors are opened they are opened both ways and can John and David stop the beings from the other side from entering our world and making it their own. John Dies is a very strange yet amusing head trip of a movie that won't appeal to everyone but, under Coscarelli's guidance, will entertain those who like a movie that isn't afraid to be weird and unconventional. Coscarelli moves things along briskly and we find out what's going on along with David and John as the story unfolds in flashback. The story focuses mostly on David as he's is trying to find out how his friend John's sudden bizarre behavior one night ties in with meeting a very strange Jamaican (Tai Bennett). As he tries to figure out the surreal occurrences now happening around him, he is drawn into a tale that is the stuff of hallucinogenic nightmares and it becomes a quest for he and John to save the world. Coscarelli wisely uses live effects for most of his surreal sequences and otherworldly creatures and what little digital effects there are, are used sparingly and are decent enough. The live action animatronic creatures and gore are very well done by Make-up FX master Robert Kurtzman and his team. Coscarelli is one of those filmmakers that is very adept at making good use of a small budget and probably would be lost on a Hollywood blockbuster and it is one of the things I like about him as a filmmaker. And here he achieves a lot of visual impact on his small budget. The director has also cast the film well,too. No great performances but, everyone is efficient and effective in their roles and approach the material with appropriate seriousness but, not without a few winks at the audience. Clancy Brown in particular seems to be having fun as a TV mystic but, keeps his performance grounded enough to not spill into camp. And there is a delightful cameo from Phantasm's Tall Man, Angus Scrimm as well, to please fans of that series. All in all, this isn't everyone's cup of tea but, if you like stuff offbeat and a bit out there, and I do, then this is a fun low budget fantasy that is refreshingly and unapologetically weird in a good way.
-
macstar-9928431 July 2022Had much fun with this! 7.5!
If you want to have a good time and when you are 'open' for something different, you will like it.
It's a nice genre mix of comedy, horror, splatter, fantasy and scifi! -
Fluke_Skywalker11 July 2013'John Dies at the End' is like the Matrix. One cannot be told what it is. They must see it for themselves. Veering wildly between inspired and tedious, it ultimately comes off like a (very) strange mish-mash of better and more coherent films like 'Ghostbusters', 'Dude, where's my car?', 'Bill & Ted's Excellent Adenture', 'Big Trouble in Little China' and the TV show 'Supernatural'.
Director Don Coscarelli ('Phantasm', 'The Beastmaster', 'Bubba Ho-Tep') is the king of quirky cult cinema, and he's certainly in his element here. But the increasingly odd plot mechanics at play in 'John' are beyond even his skill to corral into something approaching entertainment.
'John Dies at the End' is not a good film, but it's so *odd* that I feel I have to recommend it for the experience alone. -
sinsecticide27 May 2012...and it was. I also expected it to be funny, and it was that too. I had not read the book previously and knew nearly nothing about the story, but if you've seen the trailer, that is pretty much adequate preparation for the strangeness you subject yourself to as you watch this movie.
Several scenes are just outright setups for jokes, and if this film was just set em up, knock em down - it would not be worth an 8. What makes this movie better than that is that it is, at it's core - psychotic in the best way possible. You never know if what you are seeing is real or not, and just when you think you couldn't see or handle anything weirder, something hilarious happens to shift gears. -
sebpopcorn20 January 2013This movie has one good idea; a drug that lets you see beyond reality. Sadly though, that's it. The rest of the movie is just a badly told mess with no real ideas and a somewhat irritating cheap look about it. I have to be honest I really couldn't be bothered to watch it to the end. It has none of the consistency or style of a movie like for example "from beyond" which tells a similar story but makes it watchable. There's a couple of mildly amusing bits, but they are right at the start and from there on the film goes nowhere.
It's a shame because it did initially look interesting. Although billed as a comedy there are very few attempts to make you laugh. Depressingly the first review on IMDb I saw for it predictably described it as genius. -
eric_ems16 January 2013As a long time fan of JDaTE I had followed the making of the movie for some time and was really excited that it was not only finished, but could also be streamed before it's even in theaters. Having known the financial constraints they had to work with and expecting some changes in the adaptation process I was still very underwhelmed after watching.
As a stand-alone movie, it's worth a watch - the acting is good, the effects are decent, and it's fun. As a book adaptation it's really disappointing. When it boils down to it, this is pretty much just random parts of the book mashed together with a lot of details (including some pretty major ones) changed to make it (kind of) flow together. Rather than take the clearly-defined first part of the book and loosely adapt it, they took the whole book as only someone with extreme ADD could read it then mash it together as only the same person could watch it. There is so much amazing material that was wasted here while simultaneously ruining any chance of a sequel that isn't as hacked together as this that I want to kick a puppy and cry myself to sleep. I almost wish they'd changed even more stuff (Bark-Lee and Amy NotHerLastName were a good start) and just totally disassociated it with the book - they honestly wouldn't have had to go much further with it and I could still dream of a real JDaTE movie getting made. -
oecobius3 September 2013This flick starts out with an interesting premise about a mysterious drug that lends its users superpowers but seems to have a mind and will of its own. That plot is shafted about a third of the way into the film in favor of one gimmick after another, each more cliché and unfunny than the last.
Before the concept of the drug is even introduced, though, I was annoyed by the protagonists--two effete, whitebread nobodies trying too hard to be clever. I tried to ignore the obnoxious leads when the movie gave us a few intriguing and clever concepts, but it rapidly devolved into a dull, pandering non-story filled with incredibly lazy dick jokes. Overall, the movie feels like a modern follow-up to crap like "Dude, Where's My Car" and "Little Nicky".
The script forgets it has a plot and is a disjointed string of chapters connected only by the dislikable characters. If you just want to see some low-budget special effects and 2 or 3 heads exploding, this movie will make decent filler. If you want to be entertained or thrilled, skip it.
The film also introduces a chick who joins the two losers on their adventures, but her character is never developed, and she's just there for the pandering, rather sexist wish-fulfilment cliché of "boring pothead miraculously has a hot girlfriend." And speaking of clichés, all the minority characters die (even though the titular John survives). -
KM_39119 February 2012When I heard that the director of Bubba Ho-Tep had made a new movie, I had to see it. It was a midnight movie at the Sundance Film Festival, and it did not disappoint. Buckle your seat belt if you get the chance to see this one, because there are lots of twists, turns, and unexpected surprises. If you have a hard time with a story that goes to unexpected places and keeps you on your toes, you may not enjoy "John Dies," but if you appreciate absolutely unfettered creativity and a willingness to include everything but the kitchen sink, then you should run to see this movie. Here you've got mind-bending drugs, time travel, exploding monsters, an alternate universe, and laughs – lots of BIG, all-out laughs – and Paul Giammatti! Far too wacky and weird to ever be mainstream, it's the kind of movie that true film fanatics will always cherish.
-
Just caught an early screening of JDaTE at the Philly Film Festival... and I can't say I wasn't disappointed.
The book is one of my favorites, so needless to say I loved the source material and was especially amped for the film having just finished the John and Dave sequel, This Book is Full of Spider. I also really enjoyed Coscarelli's Bubba Ho-Tep and thought he would be a great director for this franchise.
So where did it all go wrong? And what did it do well enough to still garner a 6 or 6.5 rating?
For starters, the acting was very good; especially for relying on two unknowns to carry the picture. Both Williamson and Mayes really nailed their roles down to the smallest idiosyncrasies of character. Paul Giamatti was his usual, solid self and everyone else either died quick enough or had their character lobotomized so much, that their performances didn't really matter.
The film also did a great job of harnessing the bodily humor and slacker hi-jinx that made JDaTE such a hilarious novel.
Which leads me to where they failed... one of the biggest shortcomings has to do with a deficiency of the novel, which is pacing. JDaTE is really a few stories woven together by a thin overarching plot. Coscarelli stayed almost 100% faithful to the source material, but just lifted different scenes from each segment of the story and patchwork it into one nearly nonsensical film (this is a very apparent problem, since once the movie deviates from the order of the book, things start to really go down the tube.)
Being a fan of the book, I have to wonder why Coscarelli didn't just stick to the first "story" that ends in Las Vegas. Instead we get elements of other parts, including a kind of cheesy and dumbed down version of Korrok.
Along the way basically all character development aside from Dave get shaved out of the story, the biggest being the awful portrayal of Amy... who was nothing more than eye candy in the film (a fresh feature of the novel was her joyfully written character, who was 1000x more attractive despite being described as looking plain.)
But plot and character wasn't the only things that Coscarelli short changed. For a horror comedy, there was little to no horror! One of the spectacular qualities of the novel was the ability to scare you one moment and have you laughing out loud the next. The adaptation was really a one trick pony, a comedy with monsters.
So I'm going to be one of those guys and recommend that you skip the movie and check out the book. If you've already read Wong's work (Jason Pargin) check it out and enjoy it for the fun cheese factor, but don't expect anywhere near the depth that the novel provides. -
imapotato197522 July 2013I really couldn't make it through this unfunny,non scary comedy horror film. One of two films I actually shut off in recent memory (other being the horrible Burt Wonderstone) Then again, doubt I am in the demographic and was not lighting a bong every 30 minutes. What I can say, is that the sloppy jump cuts, the inaccuracies of camera angles with character interaction and the HORRIBLE acting makes this one of the few 1's I have ever given out to a movie. You can show closeup of vomit...but can't have an actor show consistency in different shots.
The bad acting is apparent from having Paul Giamatti in the film. Giamatti is a good actor, yet he shines in this and using him as the measuring tool, one can see the two male leads as very community theater-ish.
If you like 'stoner films' I would assume you'll love this, if you are looking for something unique, this isn't it -
ferguson-610 February 2013Greetings again from the darkness. It's been more than a decade since writer/director Don Coscarelli added quirky humor to his toy box with the wonderful Bubba Ho-Tep. Previously Coscarelli was known for his classic horror franchise that started in 1979 with Phantasm (and three sequels). Coscarelli has a real knack for oddball humor and along with the source material from David Wong's book, he delivers a comical, cross-dimension, alien-fighting, time travel buddy film that draws recollections to Men in Black 3, Big Trouble in Little China, and Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure.
Coscarelli has had his opportunities to join "big budget" Hollywood, but has always chosen to remain true to his roots in horror/fantasy for his loyal followers, resulting in many cult films and midnight movie favorites. In this newest story, Dave (Chase Williamson) and John (Rob Mayes) are slacker buddies who end up feeling the effects of a new street drug called soy sauce. The story is told in semi-flashback form as Dave meets with a reporter played by the great Paul Giamatti. As Dave tells the story, we get the visuals as if they were currently happening. This works because it's never really clear when we are in the present, past or future.
This is one big fun and entertaining ride if you let it be. Terrific characters are provided by Clancy Brown (Shawshank Redemption) as Marconi, some type of powerful mystic (or something else); Glynn Turman as a relentless, yet beaten down detective; Doug Jones (Pan's Labrynth) in yet another creepy role; and Fabianne Therese as Amy, whose missing limb plays a vital role.
Further analysis would prove meaningless as the sole purpose of this film is to entertain and engage. It's escapism at its finest and yet another creative gem from Don Cascarelli. -
Roweee31 December 2012I went into JOHN DIES IN THE END knowing nothing about the plot or premise and came out none the wiser. I'll give it props for some interesting and compelling elements that raise it above your average horror/comedy film but the film's script and direction is a confusing mess. You would think the movie would at least make sense of its title!
My main issue is the poor characterization, meaning I cared little for these characters and confused about their motivations. The fantasy elements made me question the reality of what I was seeing, removing much of the thrill of danger these characters are supposed to be in. Why are these seemingly random things happening? Will any of this be explained to my satisfaction? Is it all a dream? Are they just all on drugs?
What's disappointing is this could have been a much better film. Reading up on the book it is based on seems to fix my gripes but that just highlights the poor script choices that were made. -
John Dies At The End Upon seeing the face of Paul Giamatti depicted on the poster for this film, I decided: "Why not?" It's a film adaptation of David Wong's book and the trailer doesn't give too much away, while still grabbing your attention.
So, let's start with my pre-viewing thought: "I wonder how they are going to play with the fact that they tell us 'John' will die at the end, while still keeping the element of suspense the film seems to hint at having!" Those of you who have seen this will know, John does not die at the end. What a waste of a great title. This was the worst thing for me. But now that it's out of the way, I can focus on why this film wasn't all that bad.
Starting the low-budget (which is, unfortunately, frightfully apparent, but at least they try and work off it!) 'flick', we are met with a charming little riddle, although, I reckon, most got it in the first few seconds. This really did set the mood however, a dreary atmosphere of doubt and slight confusion is well-drawn from the books by the adaptation. Following this we saw the duo of practically non-existent actors - surprisingly well cast for the part - fighting supernatural apparitions and such like. The best spots of acting really came from both Clancy Brown (or Victor Kruger as many will know him) and Giamatti, with a surprisingly short but enjoyable cameo (we'll call it) from Kevin Michael Richardson as 'Korrok': the eye thingy; which is really all I can call it without giving anything away.
Now add a drug called 'Soy Sauce' (or 'The Sauce' as it is often referred to) and we have a half-decent film. The exclusion of CGI, for the most part, was welcome due to the film's real reversion to how things used to be done, showing that we can make them like we used to. There were some sections of the film which used CGI and, therefore, I can see why they chose to refrain from it's use; it's no 'Lord of the Rings'.
Attempting to mirror those fun qualities one can find in films like 'The Evil Dead' and 'Faust' (1926) we can see the angle with which the director, Don Coscarelli, attempted to tackle this film, but it really isn't one of his best.
I can't believe I'm saying this again, but, it just did not live up to the book, nor to other Coscarelli films such as 'Phantasm' and 'Bubba Ho-Tep'. Read the book first. Then, if you like, watch the film. It isn't bad but its not great either, nor is it 'one for the experience'. You could most certainly live without watching this film but it isn't one you will regret spending the time to watch. -
SnoopyStyle28 October 2013There're a lot of great crazy ideas coming from the comic horror novel of the same name. There's enough weirdness and crazy visual to make Cronenberg proud. A drug called Soy Sauce has some weird effects. Then there's a Jamaican who seems to read your mind. John and David has to figure out what's happening with the help of Amy's missing hand.
The first half has some amazing things happening. It'll leave you scratching your head while keeping your eyes locked on the screen. It's not obvious what's going on, but strange apparitions keep coming.
The lead actor Chase Williamson is not the most charismatic actor around. It would be so much better to have a recognizable actor in the role. Paul Giamatti needs to find somebody on his contacts.
The second half is way too much. It goes to another set of explanations where it rushes through a whole lot of story. Somebody is obviously trying to jam a big book into an indie movie. It's way too ambitious. The story loses cohesion and collapses from story overload. -
BA_Harrison5 May 2014Not long into John Dies At The End, I stopped taking notes. There seemed to be little point: I really didn't have a clue what was going on (I think I lost the plot when the door handle turned into a huge dong and a monster formed itself from joints of frozen meat). While I usually enjoy trying to decipher mind-bending hallucinatory films that play with the concept of time and reality, this one throws in so many insane ideas at such breakneck speed that it proves impossible to unravel—it's an ambitious, wildly inventive, visually interesting, gory, incoherent mess that proves kinda hypnotic due to its sheer craziness, but it's an incoherent mess nonetheless.
I persevered with the film, opting to let the madness wash over me, secretly hoping that all might become a little clearer towards the end. Sadly, I wound up none the wiser concerning the plot, but just a little bit pleased that I had discovered a movie in which a man's moustache detaches itself from his lip and flies around a room like a bat. That level of abject weirdness you simply do not encounter every day.
5/10, simply for being so consistently bonkers. -
this movie proves that there are still FILM MAKERS in genre pictures. In a world full of kissing vampires and "found Footage" crap, "John" bring to the screen what seems to have been lost since great films like Altered States, and Videodrome. it is unapologetic in its movement, and daring with its story. Quite frankly, i felt this movie was giving me a high five the entire time watching it, saying "hell yeah we're going to go to the loony bin together"! i don't think I've seen a film this daring in a long time! and a huge tip of the hat to Paul Giamatti for having such a faith in genre film, i love knowing that the people on the screen weren't just collecting a pay check, but truly wanted to be there. All in all, if you don't have the good sense to let a film take you in exciting new directions than "john" is not for you. If you want to see one of those sparkling little shooting star moments where Hollywood accidentally lets loose an innovative and God forbid ORIGINAL film, than you simply NEED to go see "John Dies", you'll be a better film fan for it!
-
mojo42x31 December 2012I have a feeling that I would have really loved this movie had I not read the book first. I realize that most people say that about book adaptations, but it was rather glaring to me. Things have to be cut for time and budget , sure, but it feels to me that they just ripped the guts out of it. There was so much gold just left out. If Peter Jackson can drag The Hobbit out into three films, then surely this should have been at least two. Sorry, I feel that I'm more venting that reviewing, so here it is: If you like strange, then watch the film and probably enjoy it, and THEN go read the book and really enjoy. But please watch it before you read the book.
-
evanston_dad22 April 2014The novel "John Dies at the End" is a messy but vibrant read. It was published originally in installments on the Internet, and it reads as such: disjointed, with plot strands trailing off into never-never-land, but full of such creativity and imagination it makes it easy to overlook its flaws. The book is like a little bit of Stephen King mixed with a whole lot of Douglas Adams.
I was cynical about a screen adaptation mostly because I knew so many of the fantastical beasts and incidents that people the novel were going to be given literal shape in the movie, and the tangible can never compete with the imagined. And that is a big flaw of the movie, but it's only one of many and isn't even the biggest. Probably most damaging to the film is the fact that the two young actors who play our protagonists aren't good enough to land any of the script's jokes, many of them lifted directly out of the book. The humor lands with a thud on screen, leaving us as an audience not even sure whether or not what we just heard was a joke. If I hadn't read the book, I'm not sure I'd even know that this material is mostly supposed to be comedy.
But the actors are only part of the problem. The script is a jagged hack job, faithfully adapting the first quarter of the book with dogged fidelity, and then compressing the last three quarters of it into a rushed and nearly incomprehensible mush. I can't even begin to imagine what someone unfamiliar with the source material would take away from this film's finale.
I knew we were in trouble from the get go, when our pair of protagonists go to battle against a supernatural being made out of meat, and the result is a scene that in the book was hilarious and in the movie is just...well...stupid. And that's a way to summarize the entire movie.
Grade: C- -
squelcho28 October 2012I haven't read the book, but I've seen the film. It premiered in the UK a couple of weeks ago as part of the London Film Festival. As a fan of Coscarelli's previous works, I wasn't going to miss a late night screening of this one. I saw about a dozen new films at the festival, but only one came close to being as wonderfully insane as John Dies at the End. I'm not going to throw spoilers, but if you can, try to see this in a cinema with a big sound system. There's as many audio gags as sight gags going on all the way through, and micro hommages to a few dozen cult classics. A very knowing work of art.
As with Bubba Ho-Tep, this film takes a mindbendingly outlandish premise, which through the course of events, and some wonderfully obtuse lateral thinking, persuades the audience that it's perfectly likely to be true. The boisterous audience at the showing I attended was fired up for the absurdism by Don Coscarelli's brief (unannounced) intro from the stage, but there's so many gags in this film that he could easily have taken a back seat and shamelessly guffawed along with the paying punters. If you like old school comedy horror, with a decidedly surreal tinge, go see this film. It's refreshing, but sadly all too rare, to run across a film that doesn't take itself at all seriously, but takes the process of film-making very seriously indeed. Script, cast, design, direction, and production values are integrated seamlessly into a sublime delirium that is much more than the sum of its parts. I can't recommend it highly enough in these gloomy times.
In case you're wondering, Don Coscarelli in person is one very amusing guy, and mercifully lacking in Hollywooden airs and graces. -
okiejory17 June 2013I'll start by saying I haven't read the book, but I haven't enjoyed a movie like this in a while. It felt like a cross between Donnie Darko and Dude Where's My Car. As crazy as that sounds, it works. It pleases the thinking brain while not failing to appease the 17- year-old in all of us.
If you want to be asked to flex your brain and still be able to laugh at sophomoric humor, than you will probably enjoy this movie too. Its the kind of movie that you will probably either love or hate. It is an instant cult classic!
This movie is not safe for children. -
tristan-992-8824061 January 2013I'm a fan of good horror and sci-fi, but this was bad. Really bad. It's like B grade 80's stuff with a ranting script. Itwas like watching a drug addict talk for an hour and a half. This movie was so disjointed - nothing ran smoothly or coherently. It's based on a book, so I have no idea why it wasn't planned out better. Also the CG was really bad - the overall movie felt like it was done on an extremely low budget.
I felt like I had to write a review on it, because the rating is way to high for what it really is. I'm sure the score has been manipulated - there is no way anyone would think this is higher than a four at best. Don't bother with it unless you're really bored.