Sandcooler

The original "Corpse Grinders" made a load of money, but it's not exactly riveting cinema. The idea of guys making cat food out of human corpses is kooky and weird. However, the movie doesn't do much with that bizarre premise. It moves at a glacial pace and almost feels too competent, which is a weird thing to say about a Ted V. Mikels film.

That brings us to "Corpse Grinders 2", the very belated yet very memorable sequel. By this point Mikels had retired from Hollywood, but he was still making 'movies' in and around Las Vegas. Calling them movies is generous, because they were shot with a consumer-grade video camera and ignore insignificant details like plotting, acting, basic common sense, lighting and sound. I love this phase of Mikels' career. He didn't have to listen to anyone anymore and throws any idea he has at the screen, helped by dozens of mostly elderly partners in crime.

The cast of a later Ted V. Mikels is always really bloated. There are waaaaaaay too many people in this movie, making me wonder if he just gave anyone who showed up to audition a role. Do we really need this many government agents? Granted, he does have some star power in here as well. Liz Renay and Dolores Fuller were both scream queens in the 1960s and didn't mind doing nonsensical bit parts in between casino visits. Flora Myers on the other hand has done some other films under the pseudonym 'Great Granny Gigi'. I urge you not to look that up, but I'm sure you will.

The main plot is basically the exact same thing as the first one, though it does amuse me how cool everyone is with the corpse idea now. In the original film, it took a while before they got this preposterous idea. In this sequel, Landau and Maltby (nephews of the original characters) decide on it the first time we see them. How do they get corpses? Easy, they just pay the caretaker of the cemetery fifty bucks for every corpse he digs up. Even if you forget the part where he's incriminating himself: he has to dig all the way to the corpse (they tend to be six feet under), fill up the hole again AND get rid of all the evidence. What is the hourly rate for this guy? Pumping gas would probably be more lucrative.

The subplot about the alien race doesn't interest me that much, but Mikels sure thinks it does. These 'cat people' are on a dying planet without food and water, and the neighboring 'dog people' (seriously, what was this guy on?) are ready to invade. They solve all this by... buying some cases of cat food. Congratulations, you have sorta kinda solved one of the three problems. I've got to be honest here: these aliens have too much screen time. In fact, they take over the whole finale of this movie, giving us a huge anti-climax to boot.

That shouldn't suggest I didn't like this movie. I adore it. It's a director with nothing to lose doing whatever he feels like, helped by what I assume to be friends and acquitances. If only we could all retire in such a manner.

Look, I'm going to level with you here. "Savage Streets" is not a classy movie. The production values are low, most of the acting is hammy and at one point a dude yells "I'm going to hide the salami so far Christopher Columbus won't find it". That's not a line I'd quote amongst friends, or anyone for that matter. With that said, it's a perfect child of its time and a really entertaining romp.

"Savage Streets" was directed by Danny Steinmann, who's had a bizarre career to say the least. Most of it consisted of quarelling with producers. After he shot his debut (adult) film "High Rise" without any real trouble, he ended up directing the 1980 horror film "The Unseen" (which, sure enough, mostly remained unseen). Apparently he hated the final cut so much that he took his name off, going by 'Peter Foleg' instead. He also did a "Friday The 13th"-film, which got cut rather severely because Steinmann put in too much nudity. You know you need to hold back when even the "Friday The 13th" franchise thinks you're too sleazy. For "Savage Streets" he actually came it as a replacement for original director Tom DeSimone. Weirdly enough, producer John Strong still ended up directing a good chunk of this film, including the climax. Which is strange, because Steinmann definitely knew how to shoot climaxes (I'm deeply sorry).

While "Savage Streets" immediately captures the right atmosphere and does plenty to keep the pace high, it's really Linda Blair who carries all the weight here. Her charismatic performance as the angel of vengeance works well for this story, if you're going to rip off "Death Wish" you need a Charles Bronson surrogate you can side with. I wouldn't say Blair's character is sympathetic, but you're still along for the ride because everyone else is even worse. The ending fight is strangely rewarding, but as per usual you need the dumbest criminals imaginable to make any of this work. Would you really follow your nemesis right into a warehouse when she's CLEARLY carrying a bow and arrow, making no effort whatsoever to hide it? These guys would. Then again, you probably shouldn't be in a street gang when you're pushing forty anyway.

I should note that genre veteran John Vernon plays an absolutely amazing bit part here. He portrays just about the meanest, least empathetic school principal in movie history. I love it. Nobody can dismiss and ignore a crying girl quite like John Vernon. Perfect casting there!

In recent years, we're seeing more and more of what is generally referred to as 'geezer teasers'. Stars who are very much past their prime can be hired for one or two days to get the most rudimentary shots, then everyone else finishes the movie using voice-overs and unconvincing body doubles. Nicolas Cage, Bruce Willis and John Travolta are repeat offenders, but Seagal certainly takes the cake (in more ways than one). "Sniper Special Ops" is another one of his bizarre cut-and-paste movies.

I've got to say this movie almost feels like outsider art. For obvious reasons I wasn't really paying attention anymore by the end, but I'm pretty sure Seagal is never in the same shot with any other actor. He's almost like a plug-in effect, they just use whatever footage they have of his face and splice it in randomly without any rhyme or reason. It feels like how Ed Wood 'shot around' Bela Lugosi in "Plan 9 From Outer Space". When I can comfortably make that comparison, your movie may not be very good.

Seagal sits on a chair for most of his screentime here, waiting to be rescued by actors with a much smaller paycheck. Tim Abell is the actual main actor and he's pretty good, but it's tough to get past the obvious bait and switch operation. Hell, the box even boasts an appearence by 'Van Dam'! A minor character is played by an actor named Rob Van Dam, so why not cater to the all-important demographic of confused people at truck stops. It's all rather shameless, even to writer/director Fred Olen Ray's questionable standards.

Most of the movie is rather boring, but it does give us some delightful cheesy moments. Seagal shoots his sniper rifle is the laziest possible way, completely impervious to any recoil. At one point he has to drag away some dude and can't be bothered to do that. Instead, this guy is clearly on some kind of wire. Seagal is absolutely huge, how much effort would this take? The best moment comes near the end though, in the only scene where Seagal takes of his sunglasses (not a joke). It's the saddest attempt at a cool moment I've ever seen in a movie, though I am very relieved it did not lead to a sex scene. "Sniper Special Ops" is the worst Seagal movie I've ever seen, which almost feels like an endorsement.

Doris Wishman wasn't exactly the most technically skilled director (understatement of the year there), but she was great at one thing: coming up with an absolutely ridiculous gimmick and then playing it completely straight. That feels like a lost art. In an era where every 'cult' film is chock full of self-referential humor, revisiting "Deadly Weapons" is truly a breath of fresh air.

Take our lead performance by Chesty Morgan (for some reason credited as 'Zsa Zsa'), for example. It's absolutely terrible, but it's absolutely terrible in a genuine kind of way. She's not some edgy Kickstarter donor who hams it up on purpose in the hopes of becoming a meme. She tries to do a good job, but that wasn't exactly easy when directed by Wishman. The duo apparently didn't get along at all and this film (like most Wishman films) was shot without a finished script. Not exactly ideal circumstances for a first-time actress. Her co-stars don't do much better, although it was fun to spot the dad from "Last House On The Left" in a supporting role. Some filmography that guy has!

Another thing I really enjoy about "Deadly Weapons" is how unapologetically sleazy it is. I mean, what can I say about a movie that literally starts with a close-up of the main character's bare chest? I don't mean the first minute. It's literally the first shot of the movie. Having watched way too much grindhouse smut from the 1970s, I don't think I've ever seen that. I'm including adult films here. It's almost like Wishman said 'here's what you paid for pervs, now you can leave'. It helps that this opening sequence is accompanied by the greatest song nobody has ever heard. I don't know who Mike Lease is, but "Hard Selling Woman" desperately needs play on every classic rock station.

Obviously, this movie is not exactly perfect. For one thing, the pace is rather sluggish. Wishman struggles to keep her bare-bones revenge plot interesting, there's really not much going on here in terms of story. By the time the rather nonsensical ending twist comes in, you're not exactly that invested anymore. Even at a paltry 75 minutes, the movie could have trimmed some fat. Furthermore, it's also rather repetitive. Chesty Morgan's amazing anatomy suffers a bit from diminishing returns. If anything, "Deadly Weapons" proves you can get used to pretty much everything. By the umpteenth time Morgan takes it off, it barely even registers as nudity anymore.

These faults don't truly hurt the amazing charm this movie has though. Wishman is such a unique figure within the history of B-movies, her work is everything at once but never unmemorable. "Deadly Weapons" is no exception to that rule.

"Gunblast" starts of with a big surprise. Rather than the usual librairy music, Nick Millard uses a flamenco soundtrack that's actually pleasant to listen to and even fits the overall tone and setting of the story. I'm assuming he paid the artist (Anita Sheer), which is quite unique. Millard doesn't want to pay anyone for anything. I've seen this man play two or three roles in several of his movies. Why pay your neighbour twenty bucks if you can just put on a hat or cover your face? Seeing Millard make an expense that wasn't absolutely necessary is intriguing, and it definitely adds to the movie's overall atmosphere.

I've stated many times before that I like how you always see the same people in every Nick Millard movie. Watching his movies in like going to a reunion, every time you wonder what everybody is up to and who has put on weight. Whenever I hear Albert Eskinazi's monotone delivery, I feel like I'm coming home. Now let me crap all over that and say the real star of this movie is someone I've never seen before. Geraldo (actor's name unknown, a common problem in Millard movies) steals every scene he's in. He just shows up randomly, taunts people in the most casual, suave way possible and then kills them. The bar scene with Millard himself (his only role, amazingly) is so pointless and so awesome. You're a God amongst men Geraldo, why haven't you done anything else?

Another staple of Nick Millard movies is the random stock footage from his own adult movies. I've got to say this is the lowpoint of "Gunblast". Our main guy (Marland Proctor) goes to a strip club and sees a performer that's laying down on the floor, looking very bored while fondling her breasts. Is she okay? Do we need to call an ambulance? Marland isn't into it either, probably because he's not in the same place. Hell, he's not even in the same decade for that matter. Later on we also see a stock footage woman apply make-up for what feels like seventeen hours. These cuts are just the worst, surely Millard had better footage than this laying around.

If you're wondering why I haven't talked much about the story: there isn't much of it really, even to Millard standards. A Mexican governor (Ray Myles, performing under the name 'Ramon Milas') is also a heroin smuggler, Marland and the lady from "Mac 10" try to rob and/or kill him. There's not much development, just a lot of driving, eating beans and looking at nudie magazines. Compared to his other action movies, there's a lot less going on. By the time the movie reaches its predictable conclusion, it's tough not to doze of. We needed way less filler and way more Geraldo.

P. S.: I've seen Albert Eskinazi in like fifteen movies, and this is the first one that actually mentions his name in the credits! Man, why does Millard hate making credits so damn much? Does that even cost anything?

Nick Millard filmed "The Terrorists" in between visiting relatives in Munich, and that's pretty much what this movie feels like. It's basically a travelogue with some plot woven in for good measure. The 'story' is about a group of radicals trying to assassinate Jimmy Carter during his visit, but obviously Millard didn't have the money, energy or creativity to stage a thing like that. Instead, we get the next best thing: all gunfights take place in ugly hallways and a huge explosion that kills eight people is not seen, but just mentioned by a news reporter (Millard's wife, who else?). It's the lamest cop-out ever. I love it. I wouldn't want it any other way.

Technically things happen in this movie, but none of it matters or makes any sense. At one point Ray Myles (sporting the best and worst Russian accent ever) tells the main villain he's going to turn him in, while in private and unarmed. This has got to be the least intelligent intelligence officer of all time. Most of the movie hinges on our heroes finding the terrorist leader, who is nicknamed The Professor. Eventually they get their big break in the case: turns out he's... a professor. Talk about hiding in plain sight! By the way: while the action takes place in Munich, The Professor still somehow lives in Millard's house. That place is pure magic, I fully expect to wake up there tomorrow.

Apart from the obligatory stock footage from his adult movies (six minutes, seriously?), this movie actually moves along well. I've never seen Millard use so many characters either, and only one of them is played by him. Some of them have got to be in-laws though, because the name Grabinger comes up several times. That's his wife's maiden name. I have to look up how to do my taxes every single year, but somehow I have brain cells that remember this very important tidbit. Anyway, there are many action set pieces throughout this movie and the editing actually makes them look pretty dynamic for once. The editing also makes them look like sight gags from "The Naked Gun", but that movie is an even bigger classic so why complain? This thing just flies by, and for once that's not just because it's 60 minutes long (it is though, obviously).

There is one slight downside to the movie though. The soundtrack is just complete garbage. I mean, Millard soundtracks tend to be minimalistic, but this just has some lunatic randomly beating a drum with no sense of rhythm. Is this supposed to be a military march of sorts? Thank God Millard found/fell asleep on a Casio keyboard for the "Mac 10" soundtrack. My ears are bleeding from this drivel.

"Mac 10" starts with a shocker, because Nick Millard actually used his own name for this one. Most of his movies don't even have credits, others were made under ridiculous pseudonyms like Jan Anders, Otto Wilmer or (I guess he ran out of inspiration) Steve Millard. He must have been proud of this movie, and I can understand why. Millard always brought his A-game for the action genre. Don't get me wrong, I love his horror movies, but they're essentially just his friends and family muttering around his Pepto Bismol-colored house waiting to be killed. In his action movies, he gives us more locations, more actors, more ridiculous plot contrivances and thus, more fun. Hell, this time he even throws in an awesome funky soundtrack.

When it comes to the cast list, things do get confusing again. The movie supposedly stars 'Lloyd Allan' and 'Christina Cardan', but they don't mention which characters they play. At first I thought these were fake names, but Christina Cardan has been in other films and probably plays the main character's girlfriend. Could Lloyd Allan be the hitman? He's played by the spider guy from "Crazy Fat Ethel II", so that's a gap we could fill in then. We actually get to see many familiar faces from other Millard movies, which always warms my heart. Millard has stated he always uses the same actors because it's easier to write if you know who you are writing for. While I guess that's true, these are probably just the only people willing to shoot with him for (next to) nothing. Not to be rude, but I don't think Albert Eskinazi did a dozen movies with Millard because of his incredible acting abilities. Millard himself actually plays three (!) parts in this film, hoping we're too dumb to notice. We'd recognise you anywhere, Nick!

This movie actually gives us three stories for the price of one, stories that are loosely related at best. The main story is about Marland Proctor shooting his gun to retrieve a briefcase, but apparently that didn't eat up enough time so we also get subplots (okay: completely different plots) of a guy cheating at craps and most baffingly, one where Millard plays a native American man. It never gets as borderline offensive as you think, thankfully. Millard genuinely seems to be enjoying himself in this role, mainly because he gets to kick ass once in a while. There's an almost child-like bewilderment to this movie, which is only enforced by the complete absence of gun effects. Whenever anyone 'shoots' a machine gun, they just shake it around a bit to make you think there's recoil. It's not exactly a perfect illusion, to put in mildly, but it is incredibly endearing.

"Mac 10" used to share a page with "Gunblast", because Millard's later filmography is so obscure that it's tough to get reliable information. Hell, I've seen some of his actors in five or six movies without knowing their names. Millard sadly passed away in 2022, taking much of that info with him. "Mac 10" is definitely one of his most entertaining movies I've seen so far, I can only hope it's the start of a career revival. Millard himself might be gone, but he has left behind a long body of work that will live on forever. Now let me try to get that soundtrack out of my head!

P. S: Many thanks to The Devil's DVD Bin for letting me see this film. He had to do unspeakable things to get his hands on a copy, but it's not like it wasn't worth it.

"Black Water" has plenty of negative user reviews, which I don't fully understand. Everything you need to know, including the flaws, is basically on the box. An aging Jean-Claude Van Damme is going to hit and/or shoot a bunch of cardboard villains on a cheap-looking submarine set, turn away if you're not into that. Then again, who is not into that? The writers do thicken the plot with a couple of twists, but these are so transparant that you just roll your eyes whenever they do one of their 'reveals'.

Dolph Lundgren is also on the box, but they must have had him for a single day. He pretty much sits out the first two acts, and I do mean that literally. He's conveniently stuck in a prison, occasionally reacting (without lines) to the action because otherwise we would forget he's there. Even in the final act, he doesn't really do all that much. Is Lundgren really a huge selling point at this stage in his career? It's nice to see these guys reunite after the success of "Universal Soldier", but Lundgren could be cut from this movie with very little consequences.

"Black Water" doesn't go much further than "Die Hard" on a submarine, but that's fine. It moves at a good pace, Van Damme still looks fit for his age and they do what they can with an obviously very limited budget. I've got to respect Van Damme for keeping a serious work ethic here. His movies have been going straight to DVD for more than a decade, but they've never become downright unwatchable like most of Steven Seagal's recent output. Fading stars from the 90s are often lured into 'geezer teasers', where they do the bare minimum and rely heavily on body doubles and ADR to 'finish' the 'movie'. Nicolas Cage, John Travolta and (unfortunately) Bruce Willis are noteworthy offenders here, churning out multiple movies each year that crash and die on some streaming service. Van Damme is clearly not like that, he still wants to make quality entertainment against all odds.

"Black Water" is not the best movie ever. Hell, it's not even the best movie named "Black Water". With that said, I enjoyed it for what it was.

Look: who I am to tell other people what they're supposed to do? It's usually tough to tell when something is 'too soon', the rules are not set in stone and everyone tends to have their own definition. I just know this. When you drive up near your holiday location and they're still picking up dead bodies from last night, GO SOMEPLACE ELSE. I know it means you've wasted a lot of time and money, but at least you won't end up with an eyeball popping out of your head. People in slasher sequels never seem to pick this up.

This third entry in the franchise is pretty unremarkable, apart from the fact that Jason wears his hockey mask for the first time here. Other than that, it just seems like a bland rehash of the previous movies. It's exactly the same, but with less memorable kills, a less interesting final girl and way more filler. The opening scene has nothing to with anything and is just there to show Jason is still alive. Firstly, we kinda assume that in a "Friday" movie (yes I know, Roy Burns and all). Secondly, this scene goes on about three times longer than it needs to. Start the actual movie already!

The acting is pretty subpar here, even for a horror movie. Rachel Howard's performance as Chili is an absolute work of art though. Without any exaggeration, I don't think I've ever seen a worse performance in a widely distributed studio movie. The scene where she discovers a dead body is an instant classic, it could legit work as a Mad TV sketch. What I would give to be a fly on the wall of this set. How many takes did they do, and how bad were the ones they didn't use? Did director Steve Miner ever consider just re-shooting with someone else? Surely, everyone on set must have understood this was wretched. Hell, maybe they thought it was funny, which it most definitely is.

"Friday the 13th Part III" is a very skippable entry to me. It's fairly nondescript apart from that one classic scene. "The Final Chapter" is so much better, this pales in comparison.

Even for a drive-in flick from the 1970s, "Lisa, Lisa" is a dirt cheap production. It was shot over the course of eight days, with most crew members working for just ten dollars a day. They filmed the movie on short ends, which basically meant everything had to be done in one take. That seems like a hellish task for a (mostly) amateur cast and crew, so it's a miracle the movie even got released in the first place.

Thankfully, all these technical limitations somehow work to the benefit of the movie. It has this weird other-worldly atmosphere, almost like you're watching a fever dream. I feel the same way about "Criminally Insane", which is one of my all-time favorites. "Lisa, Lisa" does not overstay it's welcome either and clocks it at a paltry 64 minutes, which makes me think we're dealing with an unfinished movie here. I mean, I know drive-in movies aren't known for their intricate plots, but this story has no meat to it at all. Writer/Director Frederick R. Friedel filmed the most rudimentary elements of a movie and called it a day. I love it. In a grindhouse flick, I wouldn't want it any other way.

Leslie Lee carries the movie with a strangely unsettling performance. She has about five lines total, but this adds a certain mystique to the character as well as the actress. This was her only role and it was rumored she had committed suicide shortly after the movie's release. This turned out to be false, but she still turned down an invitation to be interviewed for the DVD. I'm actually kind of glad she did. Apparently she now lives in Mexico with her husband and operates a diving boat. That's all I need to know, really.

"Lisa, Lisa" was on the Video Nasties list for years, but as per usual, I don't think anyone on that board even saw the movie. They probably just noticed the alternate titles, which are "Axe" and "California Axe Massacre". Especially the last one is pretty baffling, given that the movie is set in North Carolina. Anyway, there's hardly any on-screen violence in this movie, unless you can feel bad for a bottle of Heinz ketchup. The blood and gore is mostly implied. The bare-bones cinematography certainly gives this movie a sense of dread, but it's not exactly "Cannibal Holocaust". Then again, I'm sure the free advertising helped them out a lot.

"Lisa, Lisa" is an interesting curiosity. Obviously it's not a great movie, but I'm glad it's still around.

Megaboa" is a pretty by-the-numbers creature feature, you know the usual drill. Cardboard characters walk through the woods because you can film without permits there, get eaten, people mourn for about ten seconds and on to the next one. This movie doesn't stray much from that formula, and would be unremarkable if it wasn't for the Eric Roberts material.

Roberts is in this movie a lot more than I expected, actually. Usually B-movies like this just get him for a day and keep him in one location to get their name actor footage as quickly and cheaply as possible. There's a lot of talk about famous people phoning in performances, but Roberts often does that literally. His 'characters' in creature features are actually authority figures (generals, federal agents, things like that) that spend all their screen time speaking on the phone or through a headset. Just to see him in the same shot as the other characters was pretty shocking to me.

The best part of this movie is how laid-back his character is while there's a megaboa devouring everyone. I don't know if he had weed on him but geez, he doesn't care at all! He looks at drone footage of a gigantic, agressive snake like he's watching "Blue's Clues". My students are about to die? Ah, they've probably had a good life. His Southern drawl and big white smile just add to the fun. Did I mention he's in a lawn chair for much of the movie? And hell, a snake eating people will never not be entertaining, even with dollar store CGI and a truly anti-climactic ending. I guess I... recommend it?

Can "Ocean's Twelve" even really be called a heist movie? It's predecessor was tight, coherent and it trimmed most of the fat. This movie is basically all fat. Clearly the ensemble cast had a great time making it, but that doesn't translate to the screen at all.

The best thing about "Ocean's Eleven" is that behind all the glitter, it's a simple and well-crafted plot. Criminals try to rob a casino, the owner tries to prevent it. That's basically all you need. This movie is incredibly jumbled, with a bloated plot that just goes from one illogical, laboured twist to the other. There's nothing inventive about these twists. Our heroes basically do almost nothing and succeed through dumb luck. You're not supposed to film the first draft, but it seems like that's exactly what they did.

There's a lot happening in this movie, but at the same time the pace is very sluggish. In the second half we have a long (and I do mean long) sequence where Tess, played by Julia Roberts, pretends she's Julia Roberts. It's a fun idea, but it goes on forever and has very little bearing on the plot. Hell, the first act in Amsterdam is mostly time-wasting as well. This movie barely has a structure, you could mix the scenes randomly and it wouldn't much difference. What a far cry from the first one.

"Ocean's Twelve" also introduces the characters of the Night Fox and LaMarque. While the Night Fox certainly is a fun character (Vincent Cassel in a stellar role), both characters feel very much like a deus ex machina. They can be anywhere, at any time, doing just about anything. Obviously we barely see their heists, we just have to assume they use almost superhuman talents. Why write something clever if you can just have two 'master thieves' resolve every plot thread? For entertainment? That ship has sailed.

P. S: Screw this movie for hiring screen legend Jeroen Krabbé and giving him... zero lines. Hell, just use an extra.

I never thought I'd say this, but not even Gary Busey can save this sorry excuse for a movie. His confused ramblings are obviously the highlights, but who can really salvage a comedy with no plot, no jokes and absolutely no idea which direction it's going? It doesn't help that he clearly banged out all his scenes in one afternoon. He disappears without explanation for large chunks of the movie, which is rather odd when you're top-billed. In one scene he's asleep on a table and I'm not entirely convinced that was scripted.

Come to think of it: I'm not sure if any of this was scripted. Writer/Director Straw Weisman seems to go for the Judd Apatow approach of just giving a general outline for a scene and letting the actors improvise. This idea might work with actors who can you know, improvise. You can't just throw complete nobodies in the deep end and hope something funny will happen by accident. The absolute lowpoint of the movie is a scene where the obligatory villain shows up in an attempt to close the bikini model academy (what am I doing with my life?) down. I've just mentioned all the information this scene needs to convey. It lasts seven (!) minutes because none of the actors knew how to end it. This movie can't possibly have a blooper reel, because they used everything.

It's very tough to find a silver lining in this movie, even though I'm really trying. I guess the ending contest between the good and 'evil' academy is a fun throwback to 80s sex comedies, but like all sequences it lasts about ten times longer than it needs to. And as someone who actually enjoys noteworthy offenders like "Revenge Of The Nerds" and "Porky's"... how misogynist is this movie? Every female character is a complete airhead who does just about anything for cash and is only there to please the guys. Hell, at one point the good guys keep the models in the academy by... drugging them with brownies? Somehow they're completely okay with that when they wake up because movie.

"Bikini Model Academy" reminded me of recent David DeCoteau projects, which is never good. An hour of random footage is not a finished movie, no matter how many desperate young actresses are willing to take their tops off (three by my count). Now someone please wake up Busey.

There's really only one attraction in this movie: Sasha Mitchell's incredibly cheesy performance as the villain. Whenever he's on screen, the movie gets a sudden jolt of electricity. He's basically McBain here, just killing people in ridiculous ways and adding equally ridiculous action one-liners. Some have criticised his performance as 'wooden', but I think that's par for the course when you're playing a robot. This weird version of Sasha Mitchell is entertaining as hell!

The main downside however is that the central plot is barely about his character, so you don't see him that much. For most of the movie, we follow a school teacher that wants to testify against a student after a shooting. The principal and her own husband are against it for... reasons, but she works up the courage to you know what, who really cares? None of these characters are interesting in the slightest and some scenes feel straight out of a mediocre Lifetime movie. It doesn't help that every student at the school appears to be 37 years old, giving the whole thing a "Wet Hot American Summer" feel. Seriously, how many times have these 'kids' been held back?

Obviously, this was made for a much lower budget than the previous entries and director Mark L. Lester was not involved this time. Usually, that's a sign to go for broke and amp up the action. Instead, the movie is quite talky and the attempts at social commentary seem like an afterthought. With that said, I do enjoy the twist ending to this movie. I don't think any knock-off of "The Terminator" (which is name-dropped in this movie, by the way) ever went for this type of ending, so kudos on that. Combine that with some classic moments from Mitchell and the movie is actually worth checking out.

It's tough to rate a movie like "Ostermontag", because it basically does what it says on the tin. It's not meant to be clever, coherent or even entertaining. It's supposed to be disturbing, and it is. Writer/Director Heiko Fipper has created a very nasty experience. While most of the movie is tolerable because of the cheap effects and subpar acting, the ending scene is genuinely one of the most 'authentic' and nauseating things I've ever watched. It's almost like Fipper intentionally make the rest of his movie look fake just to shock us more with the ending. If so, well done I guess!

With that said, obviously this is a really bad movie. Most viewers don't understand the plot because you can only get this in German. I speak German and still don't understand much of the plot. It doesn't help that some characters look pretty similar, particularly when filmed with a toaster. In other words: for most of the time, I don't know who's doing what and why. To add insult to injury, the movie is very slow and most scenes go on for way too long. If you have this much filler and still only clock in at 64 minutes, you should probably write more.

Heiko Fipper only made one other movie. "Das komabrutale Duell" has a more comedic undertone and looks more like a lost Andreas Schnaas movie. "Ostermontag" is a much nastier watch though. If you're looking for something extreme it's definitely up your alley.

The home video market was known for false advertising in the 1980s, but this one is really pushing the envelope. I'm just imagining Sly fans who got suckered into buying this, only to find out this tape actually stars... his mother Jacqueline Stallone! For God's sake, at least give them Frank.

Even 'stars' is kind of an exaggeration though, because Jackie only shows up for the intro. Granted, she does spend said intro rapping and it's the absolute highlight of the video. The opening song is terrible and catchy at the same time. If anything, it does explain pretty well what this video is going to be. There's going to be foxy boxing with beautiful young (embarassed) models, and there's going to be a depressing amount of sexual double entendres. Hell, one of the first lines of the song is 'my name is Brooklyn and I perfected the way to get big things erected'. Somebody got paid to write that. Did I mention the song goes on for over nine minutes?

The makers know the fight scenes are pretty boring, so they've added some really weird skits. The most baffling inclusion is probably Traci Lords, who shows up as a commentator and gets picked up by one of those annoying 80s comics who can only do impressions. His first impression? You guessed it: Sylvester Stallone! Apart from some photos during the intro, this is the closest you'll get to seeing him in this video. Eventually, he manages to seduce her by doing an impression of... Richard Simmons? Hey, who am I to judge Traci.

"Stallone's Knockouts" is somewhat funny and interesting, though mostly for the wrong reasons. It's tough to figure out what their intended audience was. It has the writing of soft-core porn, but without any nudity. Seriously, what was anyone supposed to get out of this? Check out the rap though, that stuff is classic.

Finding a lost Nick Millard movie is always exciting, but I've got to be honest here. Unlike his other films/home videos, "Alcatraz Breakout" is an absolute chore to sit through. Millard tries to go for a serious prison drama here and ditches his classic exploitation antics, with predictably tedious results.

Millard regular Marland Stewart stars as a prisoner who's apparently an expert at escaping. Obviously we don't get to see any of that, they just explain it in one of the many excruciatingly long dialogue scenes. So they bring him to Alcatraz (on what is clearly a tourist boat) to break his spirit, but obviously the guy has a few tricks up his sleeve! Well, actually he's got one plan that requires cartoonish amounts of dumb luck and then another that just makes no sense whatsoever. Escape master!

The only real joy I found in this movie is seeing Millard try to recreate a maximum security prison with a budget of five dollars. I was kind of impressed that we see some actual exterior shots of the real Alcatraz. It's not even stock footage or anything, Millard actually went out and filmed this in his typical style. The interior is somewhat less impressive though. Everything is shot in extreme close-up in an attempt to hide how small and flimsy the sets are. Spoilers: this doesn't work. I'm also somewhat worried that the best prison in the world only has one guard, who apparently works there 24/7. Production values have never been Millard's thing, but that's much easier to forgive when the movie is just dudes shooting each other is someone's back yard. This all just feels a bit pathetic.

As per usual with Millard, it's always entertaining to spot familiar faces in the smaller roles. Dr. Bloodbath, the inspector that caught Dr. Bloodbath, the vampire from "Satan's Black Wedding" and Millard's wife all make an appearence, giving the movie a somewhat wholesome atmosphere. Okay, his wife may not have much of a choice, but these other actors enjoy Millard's company enough to work with him several times. In his interviews, Millard comes across as a likeable but somewhat delusional 'auteur'. This is the type of 'important' movie he really wants to make, action and horror are necessary evils to him. As I said, "Alcatraz Breakout" is really not good, but you've got to admire the guy for following his dreams.

I hesitate to even recommend this movie to Millard fans. I'm a fan and I never, ever want to see this again. They put in on a DVD with the marvellous "357 Magnum" though, so it's not like it isn't worth the money.

"Dracula In Vegas" is the closest Nick Millard is ever going to come to family-friendly entertainment. Granted, the movie has some profanity and Millard somehow uses the HIV virus as a running gag, but apart from that the movie is quite tame. There's barely any gore, lots of cheesy humor and the whole thing just has a very happy-go-lucky tone. And then suddenly there's a completely unrelated soft-core porn scene from a different movie, because that's just how Millard rolls.

Millard really seems to have fun with this light-hearted movie/home video, and the awful production values aren't really a problem this time around. In Millard's other vampire epic "Satan's Black Wedding", the plastic Halloween store fangs were a huge letdown because that movie had a genuinely creepy atmosphere for a while. Here it doesn't matter at all. Millard is clearly going for something more quirky here.

The fun thing about Millard movies is that the man is just in a completely different universe altogether. He writes dialogues like he's never actually had a conversation in his entire life. People leave long, awkward pauses all the time, because Millard doesn't bother to do proper sound editing. And if he did, nobody would like it. He's been using the same librairy music for decades, but just throws it in randomly without caring what the scene is about. Is our main character arriving at an airport creepy and dreadful? I don't really think so, but the soundtrack knows better. There's even some music from "Criminally Insane" thrown in, but sadly Ethel herself doesn't make an appearence this time around. Hell, he doesn't even reuse the credits from that movie. Traditions mean nothing to him!

With that said, this movie isn't quite as entertaining as his 'serious' horror/action projects. When bad film-makers are in on the joke, it sucks out (no pun intended) some of the fun. That's why people adore "Birdemic" and hate "Birdemic 2". Millard isn't trying to scare or shock us this time around, and you do miss that. It's an interesting project, but it doesn't have enough weird content to keep you entertained for a whopping 62 minutes.

Slasher Video managed to give this movie a DVD Release with all the trimmings. They've also done some great work with "Cemetery Sisters" and the "Death Nurse" movies. I'm wondering what other Millard movies they could dig up in the future, because I'll never get tired of his mystique and there's still way too much I haven't seen. "Gunblast" for example sounds amazing, and it's also nearly impossible to trace. It's all part of the experience, I guess!

"Vampire Assassin" is basically a scam, a bait and switch operation. Lionsgate bought the rights to a glorified home video, then put it in a nice box so you might mistake it for "Blade". It is NOT "Blade". It's a bunch of Z-list actors running around a backyard or occasionally an abandoned warehouse. There's some fighting going on, but it's never clear who's fighting who and why. Also, there are vampires somewhere in the mix.

Ron Hall is clearly a skilled martial artist (he was also in "Bloodsport 2"), but he's hardly a compelling screen presence. The man has one facial expression, and that expression is intense boredom. If you're lead looks bored throughout the movie, what chance does the audience really have? If Ron Hall has charisma, it certainly doesn't translate well to the screen. You get tired of his face very quickly, which is a bummer because he's in every scene. Mel Novak is a more experienced actor and fares slightly better, but can't hide how much disdain he feels for this 'production'.

The real nail in this movie's coffin though is the production values. There are none. The movie looks incredibly ugly and the sound is somehow even worse. The characters sound like they're talking into a tin can. I'm pretty sure they just used the on-camera microphone for this. That's fine for your Christmas party but come on, you're going for a feature film here. The weapons come straight from a Halloween store, with plastic-looking daggers galore. Again: this movie was released on an actual DVD. That you could actually buy in actual stores. It kind of boggles the mind.

"Vampire Assassin" boasts a 'special' apperance by comedy legend Rudy Ray Moore. He sits at a table and reads lines from a clearly visible script for two scenes, which I guess counts as special. He's still by far the best actor in this movie, despite the fact that he's you know, not a very good actor. Dolemite deserved better than this, damn it!

"Vampire Assassin" is the kind of movie that I'm hoping will slowly go away with the death of video/DVD stores. I mean, is anyone really going to put this on a streaming service? It's just trickery, selling a movie that's so clearly not a movie. For shame, Lionsgate.

I've got to be honest here: I pretty much liked this movie before I even saw one frame. I love both "Dolemite" and movies about making movies. Combine that with an Eddie Murphy who actually gives a damn and you can't really do much wrong anymore.

It's sad how the real Rudy Ray Moore never got to see this movie, because it's a great portrayal of what made him so endearing and likeable. Moore just never gave up and became a household name (well, a cult figure at least) against all odds. His movies just ooze a genuine love for film-making. "Dolemite" wasn't good on a technical level and the plot made no sense, but it gave the audience exactly what it wanted. Even decades later, it's one of the most genuinely entertaining movies ever made, without ever being in the same ballpark as competent. The boom mic is pretty much a supporting character, but that's all part of the charm.

This movie was written by Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski, who also wrote the biopics about Ed Wood and Andy Kaufman (and also... "Problem Child"?). They clearly know what they're doing and get their facts right, but it's the performances that really elevate this movie. It's not only Murphy. Wesley Snipes actually seems to be enjoying himself for the first time in years and steals every scene he's in. The cast gels together very well and all give believable performances.

The only small downside is that the movie pretty much ends at the premiere of "Dolemite". Granted, that's a great climax for this movie, but there's so much more to the life of Rudy Ray Moore. He was actually quite successful for a couple of years after that, before losing everything on the commercial flop "Disco Godfather". Throughout the 1980s he pretty much disappeared, but his career had a revival when rappers started mentioning him as a great influence. Dolemite actually made a comeback in the early 2000s with "The Return Of Dolemite". It's a chapter worth exploring, but with so much source material I understand you have to make a selection.

This movie has certainly revived Eddie Murphy's career, but more importantly it did the same for Rudy Ray Moore. Obviously, he's not around to enjoy it, but the Dolemite character is alive and well after more than four decades. Not bad at all for a movie that everybody tried to talk him out of. Rudy Ray Moore's story is an inspiration to all of us.

I have a love-hate relationship with Jim Wynorski. On one hand, I respect how he's been stretching minuscule budgets for more than three decades now. Low-budget directors definitely suffer from the disappearence of video stores, so the fact that he's still around says a lot about his perseverance. On the other hand, a lot of his movies are just a chore to sit through. For every 'classic' like "Chopping Mall", there are five Wynorski movies that are more like say, "Raptor". That's not exactly a great ratio.

This documentary follows Wynorski during the making of "The Witches Of Breastwick" (the title is the best part, trust me). Credit where credit is due: Wynorski is brutally honest here. He clearly doesn't care he's being filmed and is not holding back on the verbal abuse (I hope...). He wants to get shooting done in just three days, mostly by being unbearable towards his cast and crew. His crew, by the way, is just two guys. Hey, there's camera and sound, what else do you really need?

There are a lot of great funny moments in "Popatopolis". The best scene is the one where bona fide porn star Stormy Daniels (famous for different reasons now) does her very first soft-core scene. She's clearly not used to just pretending to have sex, so it's pretty much the least convincing sex scene since the pool scene from "Showgirls". I also love the scenes with Wynorski's mother, who has strict instructions never to watch any of her son's movies. She knows her boy is making a good living, and that's all she needs and wants to know. Her cameo in one of the Wynorski movies is just about the cutest thing ever.

There's also a bit of drama here and there, particularly around Julie K. Smith. Smith is a classically trained actress (she mentions this repeatedly), but got stuck doing T&A movies a long time ago. At some point Wynorski has her do about twenty takes because she keeps saying 'tow truck service' instead of just 'tow truck'. You'd think a guy that wants to finish a movie in three days wouldn't give a damn about such a detail, but Wynorski's mind works in mysterious ways. You see Smith get more irritated with every new take, while wondering why she still bothers to sign up for this. You really do feel for her.

"Popatopolis" is a brutally raw documentary that basically makes you a fly on the wall. It definitely provides an insight to Wynorski's career and how much he has to work to keep his show on the road. It's highly recommended for fans of B-movies.

If there's one thing I can give "Blair Witch" credit for, is that it makes everyone appreciate the original "Blair Witch Project" even more. It all looked so easy, didn't it? Just throw a cast of unknowns into the woods with consumer-grade cameras, then have them hear strange noises and run a bunch of times. There, your movie's done. If only it was so simple...

The thing this sequel/remake/reboot/cash-in misses so dearly is any sense of dread. The original was compelling because there was just something off right from the start, a creepy atmosphere that made you fear for the character's fates. We just hadn't seen anything like that before, and furthermore it had actors that improvised actual lines instead of just yelling character names to infinity. I swear: if you drink anytime these people shout the name of a missing (read: dead) character, you'll legit get alcohol poisoning. Which is only marginally more unpleasant than seeing this movie all the way through, come to think about it.

Maybe it's just hard to shock people at this point, even for a generally talented filmmaker like Adam Wingard ("You're Next" was pretty great). How many jump scares did the original have? Barely any, because there was no need. The situation was scary enough as it was. This movie constantly uses jump-scares as a band aid, because it has so little else going on. Lightning is simply not going to strike twice. If you're just going to make a bland rip-off of "Paranormal Activity", let this franchise die with a little dignity.

This is actually worse than the universally panned "Blair Witch 2", a sequel that was churned out in less than a year after the unexpected success of the original. At least that movie was something entirely different (maybe a bit TOO different). This just feels like the work of people who saw the first movie, then remade it without actually understanding why it worked so well in the first place. I couldn't wait for these people to die, and that's rarely a good thing when you're trying to make intense psychological horror.

Most aging action stars start phoning it in when they go straight to DVD. Recent Steven Seagal movies look like he spent about one afternoon on set, because all the fighting (and even some of the talking) is done by a double. Van Damme however is still dedicated, and I can only applaud him for that.

"6 Bullets" is essentially a complete rip-off of "Taken", with an American girl being kidnapped by European traffickers. Her father (who happens to be an MMA fighter, how unlucky can a trafficker get?) teams up with Van Damme to save the girl and get into some great action scenes. The editing on this movie is great, they don't need ten cuts a second because these actors can actually fight. Van Damme is in great shape here, even if he's essentially a secondary character.

What struck me most about "6 Bullets" is that Van Damme is actually acting here. His character is haunted by demons from the past, which is a huge cliché, but Van Damme turns out to be a good enough actor to make this material work. The supporting cast doesn't go far beyond serviceable, with Van Damme's children playing bit parts, but they don't pull you of the movie either.

At this point Van Damme has realised he'll never get on the A-list again, but he's still making good choices. It's always nice to see a new Van Damme movie pop up, which can't really be said about any other action star from the 90s. Of all the 'expendables', he's certainly aging the most gracefully.

Neil Breen is a director who doesn't care for filmmaking rules, mainly because he doesn't know any of them. You know how movies are supposed to be 'show, don't tell'? Neil Breen tells and tells and tells. Breen doesn't trust our brains to make even the most basic connections. In Breen's universe, a guy who just saw a car accident has to literally say 'I'm a witness!', because otherwise our feeble minds may not understand that complex concept. He writes dialogues like English is not his first language, or even in the top five for that matter.

Because his movies are so surreal, Breen has often been compared to "The Room"'s Tommy Wiseau. The main difference is that lightning only struck once for old Tommy. He hasn't made anything remotely entertaining since 2003. Breen however keeps churning them out, with no difficulties whatsoever. This is a guy who doesn't have to do any effort to stay weird, incomprehensible and because of that, incredibly fascinating.

I'm writing this review for "Fateful Findings", but it could work for any of his movies. They're all pretty much the same. Breen always casts himself as an implausibly perfect being who rids the world of all the evils. The evils are usually found in the big companies, who are driven by greed and don't care about people. I know this because the villains actually have to say that in all his movies. Breen doesn't even know the meaning of subtext, and that's why we all love him so much.

As interesting as his movies are to watch, a making-of would certainly be infinite times better. There are just so many questions that remain unanswered here. How much does he have to pay these beautiful young 'actresses' (models at best) to pretend they're in love with him? Why does a man who's clearly in his 50s keep casting himself as a thirty-something? Why do the characters pause roughly thirty seconds between each line? How do you hack the government on laptops that aren't even on? Why do we have to see Neil Breen semi-nude so often throughout his movies? For a guy who spells our every detail, Breen sure does leave plenty of questions.

Tommy Wiseau and James "Birdemic" Nguyen ended up ruining their charm by becoming self-aware, but I honestly don't see that happening with Breen. To him, there's clearly not a funny moment to be found in any of his movies, and that's why they work: because he takes them so damn seriously while nobody else does. Furthermore, his heart seems to be in the right place. He clearly wants to make a statement about all the injustice in the world, in between showing his abs. I applaud him for that, he's a so-bad-it's-good filmmaker I can really get behind.

First of all, what an amazing title. B-movie titles never really get subtle, but Don Dohler is playing in a whole different ballpark here. A blood massacre, that's the best kind there is!

Don Dohler is mainly known for making the same movie over and over again: an alien lands on Earth (usually a forest, as it is free to shoot there), gets into all kinds of PG-rated havoc, rednecks fire guns, the end. That synopsis fits "Alien Factor", "Nightbeast", "Galaxy Invader" and uhm... "Alien Factor 2". "Blood Massacre" however, is something completely different you don't exactly associate with Dohler. It's an ultra-violent horror movie where most of the cast members die horrible, gory deaths.

The plot is almost non-existent. A group of violent criminals (led by Dohler regular George Stover)goes from town to town robbing and occasionally murdering people. With the police (well, one inspector) hot on their trail they lay low in a farmhouse, but it's a horror movie so naturally the nice, friendly family inside turns out to be cannibals.

As limited a filmmaker as Don Dohler was, I've got to say this is one of his best movies. The suspense is actually build up pretty well, with the old farmhouse gradually revealing its secrets. It helps that Robin London (who, sure enough, only has one credit) gives a genuinely creepy performance as the family's insane daughter. Her bizarre sex scene with Stover is the highlight or the low point of this movie, I haven't decided yet. The minute you see her smirk at the main characters, you know they're in a heap of trouble.

The final act is obviously a battle between both groups, like "The Hills Have Eyes" with a budget of three dollars. Sadly, it's almost impossible to follow. For most of it the screen is almost completely dark, so you really have to squint to figure out which character you're looking at and whether or not they're being killed. The editing is also very confusing, most of the time you don't know when or where the action is supposedly happening. I do really like the random ending though, which borrows more than a few things from "Evil Dead".

Don Dohler wasn't very happy with this movie, which was released four years after shooting had wrapped up. He had to reshoot a lot of stuff at the distributors' request, which made him quit film-making altogether for nearly a decade. With that said, I really have a sweet spot for this movie in all it's micro-budget glory. It's a charming mom&pop-style slasher, just don't expect anything more than that.