Believe it or not but I really wanted to like this movie. Waited for a DVD release, pre-ordered and then, when it finally arrived, I can't believe how the good storyline was wasted. On paper everything looks good but that's it. I have no idea why film drags for 2 hours when it should be maximum 80 minutes long and then, maybe there would be more tension in it. Because it is that long, it has to rely on acting and here comes the biggest failure. Leading actor Robert Seay is just beyond terrible. For the first few minutes I thought he will do just fine. Contract killer doesn't have to look tough after all. However, just after those few minutes I realized how big failure of an actor he is. Emotional scenes don't exist because this guy can't act. He's trying to look tough, talk tough and act tough but he's not tough, he's not smart and he just makes you laugh like hell when you see him trying. With a lead like that, your movie has to sink. Rest of the cast is pretty much horrible like that but it doesn't show that much because they usually appear on screen for a minute or less. There is however one man, doing his job right. It's Mark Rolston, fantastic actor who's trying to save this film. He can't do that because he's alone and his screen time is limited to few scenes. It's hard to say if he's a good guy or the bad guy after all but Mark does his job with charisma as usual. Tom Sizemore is top billed but to any fans out there(if he still have some fans that is) -he appears in one scene only. This scene however have to be seen to be believed. Not because he's doing great job but because he's high as hell. Yup, we all know Tom likes drugs and it doesn't bother me at all if he does them in his free time but being so high on the set is just...wrong. If you ever wondered why he's not in a big movies anymore - here is your answer. He has a monologue here and it could sound well if provided by other name actor but it wasn't. I hope his name helped to sell the film because his acting was just plain horrible. Kodi Kitchen is a leading lady and to be honest she does a fair job. She's not that much of an actress but around so many amateurs, she shines. 'Crosshairs' tries to be a thriller but there is no tension at all. There is action at all. If you expect any shootouts, fights or anything like that - forget it. All they do is talk. Leading guy fires his gun two or three times during the whole film, no one else tries to. I'm giving it 3 stars for Mark Rolston and because technically it looks good. If you want to skip any action and base your film on acting, you need to have a good actors. Otherwise it doesn't make sense.
I have to say, I was looking forward to see this movie since I first heard of it. Storyline seemed to be really interesting. Finally I was able to catch the German DVD release of 'Robin Hood: Ghosts of Sherwood' and I must say it was a huge letdown for me. The biggest problem with the movie is It's non existing budget. They shot it in 3D which was probably quite expensive alone but sorry to say, it was just a waste of money and those money could(and should) be spent on something else. You simply can't do a movie set in a medieval times with knights, sword fights etc without the real budget. It's not about putting 4 guys in the armors, give them fake swords and tell to 'make an impression'. I knew from the beginning that It's gonna be really bad movie, when I saw sword fights(well 'fight' is not an accurate word) in the first 5 minutes. There was no choreography whatsoever and it looked so amateurish it hurts. It reminded me various 'castle tournaments' I have seen many times. The difference is, those shows were done for 5 years old kids and no one cared how badly they looked but this is a movie, serious one....well at least it tries to be. IMDb states that budget was around 200 000 euros which is impossible, highly doubt it could be more expensive than 100k, rather less. It was shot in Germany and must I say - locations look great. The forest is really interesting, castle looks cool so does the river but unfortunately the locations and a score are the only good things about this film. Since it was shot in Germany, it has German cast and the director decided to go with English dubbing which unfortunately doesn't work and is superbly annoying. It would work better if the makers would go and hire German actors who could actually speak in English. Most of the cast are amateurs(director's friends I guess) and we have two exceptions. FX Legend Tom Savini plays sheriff of Nottingham and Kane Hodder plays Little John. I know that Savini likes to act in low and no budget movies and to be honest he can even give a nice performance but here, he's just awful like everyone else plus his screen time is extremely limited. Little better can be said about Kane Hodder who also has a strange tendency to appear in a movies as an actor lately. Well, I know he is Jason Voorhees, he is Victor Crowley etc but for God's sake he is a stuntman, without any acting talent. Surprisingly he's probably the best actor in the entire movie. Appears on screen 20 minutes before the end but from then, he is in pretty much each scene. If you are looking for a horror movie, better look somewhere else. It's being promoted as a horror movie but there are very few horror elements in the entire movie. For the most part It's just an adventure movie(boring one) with German woman and gay looking Robin Hood slowly falling for each other. The horror part starts in the last 20 minutes or so. Robin and his pals are turned into flesh eating zombies and run no budget havoc in the forest(which means they don't do anything really). There are few cheap gore tricks and two nice decapitations but It's just non existent for a movie which lasts for almost two hours. I really wanted to like this, I knew It's gonna be low budget but it was beyond bad, mostly because it was boring and English dubbing sucked big time. I know for sure that I won't watch this again in my life. I have seen worse movies but still it was very close to the bottom of filmmaking. I will give it three because of a beautiful locations, nice score and two names which were still kind of relief when compared with dubbed amateurs.
I was hoping that 'Chernobyl Diaries' is gonna be a good movie. Whole idea of making the film in such a place is excellent, storyline sounds great too but execution...well It could be better. There are a good things about this project - settings are amazing, even though most of it was a real deal not a studio work I really feel this is how Chernobyl looks like today. Cinematography is quite well, same with editing. Acting is decent but the characters weren't developed too well, I never cared for any of leading characters. Dimitri Diatchenko was cool but his part was just too small. The movie has a pretty good first 30 minutes before the horrible happenings will occur. Later on, instead of being more and more interesting and thrilling it gets boring. Sure - people are running around in the maze of dark corridors but...nothing exciting happens. Ending is a typical cliché disappointment you would expect. All in all - It's good enough to see it more than once, mostly because you can actually feel the atmosphere of this abandoned place and It's thrilling BEFORE you will realize what really lurks in the dark. There are many plot holes but it doesn't affect the movie that much.
I can't believe I actually spent a few quids on a DVD with this movie. Hey, it has Andrea Roth in it - can't be too bad, right? Wrong! Dead wrong! I always liked Roth, she is very good actress and It's always a pleasure to see her, especially in a horror film. What I failed to realize, this movie was written by a guy who wrote a few of 'Saw' movies. That explains pretty much everything and to be honest it looks and sounds just like the another part of 'Saw' series. What I mean by that? Mostly that It's horrible but let's see - editing is a nightmare, you can barely follow what happens on screen because the shots are so quick and very often blurred. There is a lot of violence and gore but not always visible properly because of the lousy editing. The killer goes into random people's houses, tortures and kills them oh and he also leaves 'gory' traps everywhere. Sounds much like 'Saw' doesn't it? Why in the world the killer is doing that, we will never know just like we will never see his face. All we know, he's pretty much unstoppable. There is not much acting here - for the most of time we see lead actor running around the house, trying to save the owners and escape. Andrea Roth is top billed here but she has maybe 3-5 minutes of screen time total and 2-3 lines or so(plus scream!). Ending leads us to a sequel(which they made this year) but It's still so horribly moronic I couldn't stop laughing. I wish I could say something good about 'The Collector' but I can't. Just by being another 'Saw' version it failed in my eyes in the first place but it also fails as a movie. If you like new MTV generation 'torture porn' movies - you will probably love this but if you are all about old time movie-making, just like me - you will hate it with a passion from the beginning till the very end.
'Millennium' is quite ambitious movie, a little too ambitious for my taste. Very slow paced, quite naive and not written very well. There is an obvious amount of cheese in here(including 'future' human with a rubber head) but for the most of time It's damn serious movie. Kris Krisstoferson gives a really good performance and Cheryl Ladd is OK for the most of her screen time and that's it. Lawrence Dane and Gary Reineke of 'Rituals' both appear here in a small parts as well. Special effects are usually decent but sometimes they make this cheesy impression while movie tries to be dead serious. 'Millennium' suppose to be a thriller but there are no thrills here, really. It's rather slow paced SF drama. If you like movies like that, you won't be disappointed but if you expect something to keep you tense and entertained for a whole time, It's not your cup of tea.
'Assault Platoon' is one of many Filipino movies about Vietnam War, Prison camps etc. 7 former soldiers are hired to rescue prisoners from Vietnamese Prison camp. Obviously nothing is easy as it would seem to be... Antonio Reyes tried hard to make a very serious movie instead of regular Filipino trashy commando flicks. Can't blame him for trying but he really failed to deliver any entertainment. You can't go too serious with a same budget(very low) and very same faces from usual Filipino b- grade films. Storyline is pretty much the same like in million other war flicks, characters are not well developed, acting is non existent, special effects(if any) are cheesy and that would be completely cool with me if there would be a space for entertainment but sadly there wasn't. Everything is death serious which took all my fun. I was expecting something like Teddy Page movies and got a poor version of 'Platoon' or 'Rambo 2'. 'Assault Platoon' is obviously watchable, easy going movie but nothing to get excited about. Robert Marius plays the lead and he does a good job as usual with fighting/shooting/ shouting, not much space for acting and I believe he had better acting gigs('Cop Game' would be a good example). There is quite a lot of cheap shootouts, some fights and tortures but no - It's not gory, not that brutal as Filipino movies usually are and not that tense like I was hoping it would be. All in all, 'Assault Platoon' is rather forgettable movie. Too serious to be fun and to cheesy to be serious. Watch it once if you can find it, but It's not worth paying fortune to track down a copy.
'Escape from New York' is a cult classic but a sequel doesn't come any close. Kurt Russell is washed up in here, never was a fan of his acting but could always appreciate him if he did a good performance. Here - he didn't. I mean he's still Kurt but his acting here could have been a lot better. There are nice supporting parts by Steve Buscemi, Stacy Keach and Cliff Robertson but nothing to be crazy about. Whole film is rather fast paced and we do have a lot of special effects on a good level which is always nice to see in a blockbuster movie. Music score by John Carpenter is probably the best thing in entire movie - It's tense as it should be which is great. I liked the satire on politics and society and there is nothing really bad about 'Escape from LA' but It's just not near that raw, brutal and tense as the original was. I found the movie to be OK at best. Russell couldn't keep me interested enough. Maybe one day I will give it a chance again but for now, I don't feel like I need to own it in my collection.
'Sliver' is easily one of the worst entries in Sharon Stone's filmography. Written by a Joe Eszterhas - the genius who gave us 'Basic Instinct' (which obviously made Sharon famous) the film lacks to deliver. It's suppose to be a tense thriller but there is nothing tense about it. Whole thing lasts for almost 2 hours and is horribly boring for the most of it. Sharon Stone gives a decent performance as she always does but she's very, very far from her top. It's not 'Basic Instinct', hell It's even far from 'Year of the Gun'. William Baldwin is annoying as usual but he does his 'creepo' part quite OK. It was nice to see Tom Berenger, he was probably the best thing about the movie, his acting was kinda memorable so was his character. If you are looking for a tense, erotic thriller, you will be disappointed. It plays better as a drama, there is no suspense, no action, no real twists, nothing you would be excited about. 'Sliver' is barely watchable once. Do yourself a favor and pick the better choice.
I remember seeing 'Demolition Man' for the first time in mid 90's when it came out on VHS. It was a huge deal then, fast paced, loaded with special effects...After watching this today, I have very mixed feelings. It's not a horrible movie by any means but It's also very, very far from the top. Sly Stallone gives a decent 'tough guy' performance, he used to deliver way better acting now and then but he's fine and he has a few nice on liners and Schwarzenegger joke rocks. Unfortunately he's the only one decent here. Wesley Snipes does his 'black gangsta' routine but he's not believable at all. Just a big, black guy who tries to be funny and scary all the time, but he's just too weak actor to deliver serious performance. Sandra Bullock has very little to work with here, she's more of an eye candy than actress in this movie. Special effects look dated in many scenes which is not a good thing when you know it was $57 mi lion dollar movie. All in all - It's obviously watchable film but I would say, one of Sly's worst entries and almost two hours? Way too long for such a movie.
When you count on some movie to be good and then first credits appear and RHI Entertainment logo pops out, you know, you are in trouble. This is exactly what I have experienced with 'Avenging Angel'. Western starring Kevin Sorbo? Why not? Wings Hauser as a main villain? More than awesome. Unfortunately the movie itself wasn't awesome at any point and even though it was watchable, I am disappointed. The biggest problem I have with it is a slow pace, I mean very slow pace. Barely anything happens on screen, it was made for TV so forget about any real violence, forget about tits, forget about bad language, forget about over the top performances. Kevin Sorbo is aways good to see but man, he doesn't have much to play with here. He never was a great actor, more like a decent TV name and he does a decent TV job here. He doesn't seem to be much in his character, he's still Kevin Sorbo. Wings Hauser is pretty much useless here. I mean, he's Ramrod (from 'Vice Squad'), he's top notch actor but he's wasted here. We can only see him in a 3-4 short scenes, most of them are useless for the movie, Hauser appears only to remind local sheriff that 'squatters need to be gone'and disappears for a long time.Set design is decent, It doesn't exactly look like an old wild west but they did the best they could with a budget. Some actors like the sheriff and a leading lady are highly annoying and pretty wooden. There are no real shootouts, Kevin Sorbo shoots dead a few people and that's it. He also has one(one!) fight in the whole movie and looses. All in all It's a cliché western without an actual action, without any thrills with some serious script issues(sheriff who killed Sorbo's family and burnt his church can't recognize him after a year or so even though he looks exactly the same as he looked then). It doesn't work as a cheesy movie and it doesn't work as a serious film either. It's OK to watch once and forgot about it.
Brett Kelly - super cheap director located in Canada with a huge potential to become 'worst director ever born' (nomination for 'Worst movie ever made' is also a must for pretty much every single feature he directs) did it again....I mean seriously? 'Jurassic Shark' (yeah I know it rather wasn't original title and was changed because from the marketing point of view it sounds 'hot') is one of the worst piece of garbage you will ever encounter. It makes Asylum movies look like a spectacular Hollywood blockbusters(but then again Asylum spends at least 50-100k for their movies). Kelly's modus operandi is 'we have a free 10k, let's shoot the movie') and it shows on the screen. Acting was never even remotely close to decent in his movies but with 'Jurassic Shark' it reaches the bottom(or something below bottom if it exists). Two blonde bimbos(not really attractive by any means) sitting in bikini on the beach for the first few minutes of the movie are asking to be bitch-slapped for doing what they are doing(which I don't know what is but not acting, that's for sure) and the director should be mutilated for casting them. As far as the special effects go, there aren't any, but if you are asking about 'horrible special effects wannabes' - yes sir, there are quite a few. From the piece of wood called 'shark' to cgi shark which looks so bad, that I don't even know what can I compare with it? (probably only sand castles build by mentally disabled 5 years old kids). I could go on and on(others did it as I see) but I really have no desire to write any longer about this piece of garbage. There is absolutely nothing good to be said about this movie and even though Brett Kelly did one watchable movie in the past 'Prey for the Beast' (and remember, I said 'watchable' not 'decent') I won't be fooled ever again and won't buy any of his movies again. Let them stay where they belong - in a trash bin.
I can't believe I was waiting so long to see this....
Another movie which I wanted to see badly since I first heard about it turned out to be a complete disappointment. 'Eyes of the Woods' were shot around 2008 and finally got It's DVD release this year. After watching this, I know why it took them so long. There were 3 or 4 directors, none of them had a clue about directing and the movie become a mess because of that. I have seen pretty much everything in movies but the editing in this movie beats it all. It really looks like it was edited by a monkey and makes very little sense when it comes to what happens on screen sometimes. Acting is beyond bad, no wonder - most of actors are amateurs, not even lovely Alissa Koenig from 'Zombie Wars' could shine in this one, also because there is a lot of sound issues. The only thing really worth watching here is a creature which is extremely well done with all practical effects only, no cgi. However this doesn't help much with a quality of the movie. There is some really nice looking gore at the beginning but It's all within first few minutes. Later on we have maybe one nice gore scene and lots of blood but that's pretty much it. Can't even remember the music which means It was far from impressive. Movie doesn't last long but It's quite boring for the most of the time and because acting is so horrible, it makes it even harder to watch. DVD says It's a special edition with audio commentary and stuff but there is nothing like that to be found on the disc. Hell, there is not even menu on the disc, at least I couldn't find one. Film just starts playing and It's unable to jump to the menu. Film also stops few times for a few seconds, it might be a DVD fault but there was no scratches on my disc at all so I don't know. All in all I can say It's one of my worsts experiences, really wanted to like it, creature looks so cool but because of bunch of people without any single idea how to make a movie, it failed miserably in 'unwatchable' category. I highly recommend to avoid this one. If they don't respect you and deliver something which should never leave editing room, you shouldn't buy it for your hard (or not) earned money. One point for the creature is all I can give.
'Under the Gun' is one of those movies which can be hit or miss. It's not really martial arts movie, It's actually much more than that. Norton's character is running the night club which he wants to sell and get away with his wife but obviously one last night in the club turns out to be the worst night of his life. I have to say that I was impressed with Richard Norton's performance. This is the first time I have seen him doing real and I mean REAL acting. Usually his movies are packed with top notch martial arts but not acting. Aside from Norton, we have Kathy Long who's top billed but appears on screen for a few minutes only but she does have a two very nice fights. All other actors are pretty much unknown and rather weak(especially one eyed policeman) but it doesn't affect the movie. There are not many fights but those we have look very good, especially Kathy Long ones( 'cause they are very dynamic). Besides the fact It's much more of a thriller than an action film, It's very fast paced. Definitely worth to see, just to realize that Richard Norton is pretty good actor.
Steven Seagal was is and will be the man because of his early movies, but as we all know, he sinked into weak dtv movies heaven and gained some weight(OK little more than 'some' for an action star). I found most of the new Seagal's movies rather weak although rather watchable(OK, 'Into the Sun' might be an exception here) but I see them getting better and better every next year. 'Driven to Kill' was really cool and 'Maximum Conviction' doesn't fail either. Hell It's one of the Seagal's best. It's also the first movie where Steven is not on screen all the time. He's technically the lead here but we don't get to see him that much. His sidekick is Steve Austin who does a competent job as an ass kicker like he always does. He also seems to be comfortable with being number two here and even gets his ass kicked big time. The lead bad guy is Michael Pare who's good as usual. His character is obviously nothing new here, It's rather cliché mercenary working for the government. He's ruthless, he doesn't like to talk too much but you know he's not the guy you want to mess with. Someone said that 'Maximum Conviction' is Seagal's own lower budget 'Expendables'and I have to agree. Sure, It's not a huge budget movie with all stars cast but there are enough well shot shootouts and fights to keep you entertained. Plus It's really violent, brutal even gory sometimes. Seagal has some cool on-liners so has Austin. It's well shot and edited. I'm hoping Steven will keep rocking with his next movies.
'Bachelor Party in the Bungalow of the Damned' is another 'Brain Damage wonder'. If you are somehow familiar with a 'products' they release, you already know what to expect. I usually try to avoid any BD features whenever possible however, sometimes you just see the title, cool DVD cover and can't resist, especially if the price is low. Well after watching this piece of garbage I would really like to have my 3GBP back. I mean, you can buy a beer or a cheeseburger for that amount of money and at least you won't regret doing this! Aside from the cool title, everything else is on the lowest possible level here. Cinematography is as bad as it can be, acting is non existent and those amateurs extremely annoying(hell they even have Lloyd Kaufman in a completely moronic cameo). Cover says, there are gonna be monsters, strippers(means nudity!) - no way! There is only one scene with a laughable makeup, few fake fangs(so called vampires), few bits of cgi blood(done absolutely horrible) and there are two shots of naked breasts alright but the owners of those breasts are so horribly ugly that you won't care at all. Possibly the best thing about this crap is music - no, It's not good by any means but at least it sounds like a music not a poor substitute for it like in the most of no budget 'movies'. I wish there would be 0 in IMDb rating, in this case I really do. Because atrocities like this should never be made, never. Please do yourself a favor and try to avoid this movie and if you happen to pay for it, you are eternally doomed - just like me.
Alligator X is another 'hot syfy channel feature'. My expectations with such a title were extremely low but I had to try, It's still creature feature for God's sake! Well, it turned out to be typical syfy crap. The only somehow good actor is Lochlyn Munro who always tries his best. Here he plays small town sheriff and I have the mixed feelings about his creation. His acting is OK but the character is so typical and boring that you really don't care for him. Unfortunately the rest of the cast is just beyond bad. Lead girl is horrible, bad guy is even worse and his supporters on the same level of garbage. I found it strange since all of them have some acting record and should at least know how to act but no. Cgi creature is pretty good actually. Sure It's still cgi and no good cgi by any means but let's not expect 'Rogue' here, It's just a Syfy Channel and I have seen much worse cgi in their movies. Cinematography and music are OK at best, can't say I remember score much though. There is no gore, very little blood(some digital too) and the whole ending is just a joke. No suspense, no interesting characters, no special effects really. One of those movies you watch once in your life and forget about it 10 minutes after you watched it. I can't say I had a good time seeing it, nor it was worth the money but it could be worse, and I was expecting worse so I won't be bashing it more than I actually should. I'm pretty sure most of the people will find the movie horrible but for a one viewing, why the hell not?
I had no real expectations about this movie. The title 'Cowboys and Zombies' says it all. I was pretty sure It's some kind of Asylum project but it turned out to be completely independent feature made for extremely little money(IMDb says 30k). Having no expectations I was pleasantly surprised. Sure It's not really a good movie but at least It's watchable. The only thing which makes it hard to watch is acting. Being a low budget movies fanatic I'm used to shitty acting but what we have here is beyond amateurish. Leading guy(can't say actor) is a joke, he's playing tough as nails bounty hunter but his voice sounds like 5 years old kid and he's laughable through whole movie. Nothing good can be said about the others(Indian, girl and German) but at least their voices aren't funny. So the acting sucks BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIG time but when it comes to the other aspects It's way better. Special makeup/effects are very well done for a no budget movie. There is quite a lot of graphic gore which looks nasty, zombie make-up is quite good. Editing and cinematography is quite OK for a budget, there are some boobs as well. The other thing that looked amateurish were shootouts. They rather reminded western shows from theme parks than real movie shootouts. All in all, I had a decent time watching this even with an amateur actors ruining the show. OK to watch once for gory stuff and decent looking zombies.
I wanted to like 'Prowl'. I really did. Unfortunately all the potential was lost on the way. I have no idea why they had to shoot the movie in Bulgaria, most of it happens in a abandoned warehouse anyway. Acting is decent,the girl who played Amber was very cute and quite good but the script doesn't deliver any thrills and with every next minute you care less and less about what happens next. All characters are your typical teenagers without any background story(except for Amber) and they die so quickly you won't even care for any of them. There is some gore in it(and plenty of blood) which was well done but because in many moments the movie is almost pitch black, it doesn't impress like it could. Not much can be said about the vampires, there is not many of them and make-up is rather weak. Cinematography is so so and I didn't liked the editing much. There is no suspense whatsoever, action is kinda fast paced but still rather boring and ending is quick and extremely disappointing.I was expecting some good, interesting movie but 'After Dark' series gets worse and worse every next year.
There were times when I got super excited about any new upcoming creature feature. Then I discovered Syfy channel productions and my excitement went down a bit. Years later I discovered Asylum and lost pretty much all hope for a good monster movies with old school special effects. I used to the fact that Syfy can't do any good movie, it would be just against their rules and then I bought 'Mongolian Death Worms'. I know, title says it all but I couldn't resist. I used to read a lot legends about the cryptozoological creatures known as 'Mongolian Death Worms' and thought once - hey, maybe Syfy Channel will make the movie about them. And they Did! What's more surprising, this movie is actually not that bad. I mean - obviously, It's still Syfy channel with all It's glory - cgi creatures, one good actor surrounded by a bunch of amateurs, moronic script, cliché storyline etc but It's watchable. CGI is actually very good(for syfy features), worms sometimes look like they would be actual puppets not cgi so the job is well done here. Acting is shitty as usual with an exception of Sean Patrick Flanery who did a good job with what he was given. His character is not interesting at all but his acting is good, makes him easier to watch and hear. Unfortunately he has no one to work with. Victoria Pratt might be considered 'hot' by some people(not me) but her acting is bad and when you combine it with usual doctor/scientist character she can get highly annoying. I was thrilled to see Andrew Stevens since he's credited to be in the movie but sadly his part lasts for like 30 seconds. I wonder why Stevens couldn't take on one of the lead characters. He was a producer, his company co-founded this movie and being legendary actor he could do a good job for a movie by acting in it. There is no gore whatsoever, whole film is kids friendly but It's still OK to watch, even with a Texas trying to be Mongolia, even with George Cheung trying to be Mongolian sheriff(driving American pick-up with a 'police' plate written on it) and stuff. I won't watch it again and It's not a good movie for sure but It's not that bad either. Give it a try once, if you feel you want to.
When I bought UK DVD of 'The Fields' I had some expectations, not much but some(plus 3d cover is great I have to give them that!). It's being promoted as a horror movie although some websites claim It's more of a psychological trailer. Well It's not much of a thriller in my book and certainly there is no horror at all. I should know better that Cloris Leachman would not participate in a horror movie about haunted cornfield but hey I gave it a try. 'The Fields' turned out to be one of the most boring movies ever made. And I have seen a lot of boring movies where nothing happens but this flick beats it all. Acting is obviously solid with Miss Leachman as Grandma and Tara Reid as mother(but she only appears in the beginning and ending of the movie). There is no thrills, suspense, gore or anything like that. The only thing they do in the whole movie is talk. Talk, talk, talk, sometimes they shout and that's it. I also have to say that the kid playing the lead is extremely annoying. I don't see any reason to give it more than 1. It's obviously bigger budget movie with good technical aspects(although editing is crappy many times) in it but It doesn't matter when the movie is so boring, characters one dimensional and nothing, absolutely NOTHING happens during the whole movie. Watch it on your own risk if you are looking for a long nap, because the only thing this movie actually delivers is sleep.
Stevan Mena is back with another pointless movie after his 'priceless' Malevolence' experience. This time Mena actually has a big budget, some name actors and all technical equipment needed but movie still sucks on most levels, mostly because of the story/script. This suppose to be a realistic film about the serial killer but It's not. Simply because it looks like a slasher movie you have seen thousand times before. There are no surprises(well,one maybe) in the plot and killer is such a cliché. Acting is rather weak - lead actress is pretty much terrible, her boyfriend too. Michael Biehn does a competent job here but he doesn't have much to play with and his part is not all that big. Good news is - John Savage, actor of one voice tone and one face expression, finally acts(usually he just 'appears')but he only appears in two short scenes and is pretty much useless for the storyline. There is quite a lot of graphic violence and gore but it only makes it worse for the viewer who's not exactly 'torture porn' lover and unfortunately this is a torture porn kind of movie, nothing more. Cinematography is nice, some special effects are OK done but with over 2 million budget It's a must. If you liked the first part, you will probably like this prequel. I know I won't watch this again. 3 out of 10 for two decent actors and cinematography, making this easier to watch.
Unbelievable, but Todd Jason Cook did it again. After such a nightmare like 'Evil Night' he managed to release on DVD most of his home movies and I was dumb enough to believe this is something else, something better perhaps. Well unfortunately it's not. 'Night of the Clown' is even more amateur than 'Evil Night' (only 'actors' are director himself and his wife). There is no real plot, just killer dressed as a clown killing everyone in Cook's character's house(there is explanation for that but you really don't want to hear it). Death scenes are very original but that doesn't really matter since they are done so badly, there is no fun from them at all. DVD has same quality like 'Evil Night'.Image is little better though. We have some extras like an interview with director Cook(in the movie credited as Vladimir Theobold, Man this name just couldn't be real). From this interview we can see that Cook is very good comedian or very self impressed person. He believes this movie has a cult status(well for him and his neighbors...maybe) and people wanted him badly to release it on DVD. He also confirms it was shot by him and his wife only and never supposed to be real movie which it isn't. There is also an interview with a cat who was in the movie(quite funny actually). 'Night of the Clown' is pure garbage, but for some reason it made me laugh few times(because it was so idiotic, but still...I was laughing) so I will give it two. I promised myself I won't ever again buy any Todd Jason Cook movie(he made a few more of them). They have great titles, but they are simply not worth ANY money. I know that titles like 'Demon Dolls', 'Death Metal Zombies' or 'Evil Night' may look like proper fun, but believe me they are not. It's not a low budget, It's a home movie made by director and his wife. If you have to watch home tape go with Paris Hilton sex tape. At least it has some action...
I bought 'Evil Night' on DVD released some time ago by the director's company. First of all I have to warn everyone who would possibly think about buying it. Be prepared for worst transfer you have ever seen and I mean it! I have no problem with dvds with good VHS quality,not everything has to be remastered and as a VHS collector I know not everything is perfect, but image in 'Evil Night' is terrible and few times it 'jumps' strong like it would be heavily used rental tape. I know that director of the movie probably hadn't any better version but releasing it on DVD and charging around 15usd for a copy is just unfair to the audience.
About the movie - It's beyond bad. I know it was made for joke but for God's sake it should stay as an amateur effort in director's cellar. Plot is very simple. Class nerd drinks serum and after that he changes into different person to kill people who tortured him in school. What can I say - I saw many movies like that and none of them were so bad. It feel like a copy of forgotten flick called 'Horror High'(aka 'Twisted Brain) which was recently released by Code Red DVD. I didn't liked 'Horror High' much, but comparing with 'Evil Night' it is truly masterpiece. There is no gore because there was no money and everything looks terrible. Don't believe it was made for 20k. It's impossible. One thousand dollars maximum and even this is too much! I don't feel any happiness giving it 1 but truly this is all what this piece of crap deserves. Do yourself a favor and avoid it at any costs.
'Killzone' is precursor of legendary 'Deadly Prey' directed by David A. Prior for AIP two years later. Plot is very similar. Col Crawford runs a training camp for soldiers where they are working hard to be fit and ready to next missions. One of the soldiers named McKenna depressed after Vietnam war starts loosing his mind and he thinks he is in nam again. Brutally tortured by Crawford he manages to escape from the camp thinking everyone around is his enemy. He kills several soldiers during his escape which causes problems for Crawford who knows he crossed the line torturing McKenna and he can loose his position if anyone will find out about his methods of training so Crawford with his men goes after his prey with only one thing in mind - killing McKenna. Hoever he doesn't know there is a traitor in his squad... 'Killzone' is a beautiful and brutal movie about real friendship (McKenna- Mitchell) and hate(Crawford). Acting from main characters is very good. Ted Prior and David Campbell did amazing job as usual. Larry Udy was great as Crawford's main henchman too. Fritz Matthews is not the best actor in the world but he did great too and as usual shown some great hand to hand fights. Colonel Crawford is one of the best villains in the movie history. I wasn't expecting his character will be more vicious than his later part as Col. Hogan in Deadly Prey but he was and his fight with Mitchell is pure masterpiece. Killzone is not so gory like 'Deadly Prey' but it certainly offers some goods like decapitation and usual 'jungle traps'. Finally like in 'Deadly Prey' we have great ending and psychedelic sounds(seagulls!). If you enjoyed DP you should fall in love with Killzone too. To be honest 'Killzone' is much deeper and intelligent movie where you can see like a man destroyed by the war slowly becomes dangerous even for his best friend. 'Killzone' was never released on DVD and It's extremely rare on VHS so if you will have a chance to buy it - don't hesitate for a second.
No It's not a joke and I'm deadly serious. 'Deadly Prey' is one of the best movies in history and it has huge fan base everywhere in the world. Made for little less than 100k by great director David A. Prior 'Deadly Prey' offers pretty much everything what a fan of B class action movies could expect - plenty shooting from rifles and hand guns, gore, great hero, great villains,unexpected twists and great ending. Acting is very good though this is not a Oscar winning drama about ill boy who loved horses(if you don't know what I mean - Oscar winning performances are worth nothing). This is pure action movie and it has great action genre acting with stunning performances by Ted Prior(Mike Danton), David Campbell(Col. Hogan) and Fritz Matthews(Lt. Thornton). It also has two movie legends Cameron Mitchell and Troy Donahue and incredibly cute Suzanne Tara who is just perfect for the part of sweet naive girls. Music theme is a classic and vocal by Steve McClintock simply amazing. I could talk about 'Deadly Prey' all the time and I watch this every single month. Such a shame there is no DVD release for this gem. Don't want to spoil you fun so if you have seen 'Rambo' or 'Alien' you haven't seen anything. 'Deadly Prey' is a must see for everyone who loves b class movies. And remember David Campbell is the man and 'Ted Prior' is the man. Don't you dare to forget that!