23 September 2007 | gavin6942
Using Snoop Dogg's Name To Promote A Film Doesn't Make It Good
This film contains three interwoven tales from the hood, with Snoop Dogg (sometimes as an animated gangster and sometimes as a man in hell) narrating between segments. I use interwoven in the loosest sense because they really seem to have connection at all. I will discuss each one briefly.
The first segment was about a woman named Posey who is granted satanic powers by a homeless man (Danny Trejo) and can kill rival gang members by simply crossing out their spray tags. It's really stupid. The plot is weak, Posey's acting is awful. Even Trejo and Billy Dee Williams cannot save this one. There is a great death scene involving a beer bottle, but that doesn't make up for the rest of this segment.
The second segment was actually really good. A redneck and his girlfriend move into a home for retired veterans, with one of them, Roscoe, being played by Ernie Hudson. Hudson is great, as is the rich redneck. The deaths here are weaker (other than the explosion scene) but the plot is much better -- this was written as a real story and not just a throw-away idea. In fact, it could have been its own movie or at least an episode of "Masters of Horror". If you only watch this part, you might find the movie watchable.
The third part was just foolish. Because these are tales from the hood, of course they took the stereotype route and one man escapes the hood by rapping. But he becomes haunted by his friends that he left behind to die. Some of the makeup here is pretty disgusting, which I mean in a nice way, but the overall story is just an excuse to show a guy in the studio rapping. If you already have Snoop Dogg in your cast list ,you don't need to add another man rapping.
I suppose the problem of the film as a whole is that it was written and directed by different people in different segments. Compare this to "Creepshow", which is a lot more consistent. The best part -- part two -- was written by Tim Sullivan, the man behind "2001 Maniacs". It shows. I may not have been the biggest fan of that film, but Sullivan knows how to tell a story that horror fans appreciate (and he has some weird obsession with Confederate sympathizers). The other writers? I have no idea who they are.
Other reviewers have called this film the "Hood of Horrible", and I want to jump on that bandwagon. It wasn't well made, it was poorly written for the most part, and although even some of the worst films can still be enjoyable, this one just wasn't. The odds of me seeing this a second time are pretty slim. If you get the chance to see it the first time, pass up on it and watch James Franco's "The Ape" instead.