Monthly Archives: February 2015

Creature (2011)


I’m going to try something a bit different. Instead of diving right into why this is basically a $3 million dog turd, I’m going to start with what little positive attributes it actually has. Unlike most movies, it flat out tells you what to expect within the first 25 seconds: boobs and gore. We’re treated to some woman that has the bright idea to go skinny dipping in a alligator infested swamp, and has her legs torn off. Who is she? Don’t know. Is this pivotal to the story? Not one bit. Also, this co-stars Sid Haag. Even at his worst he’s still funny as hell, although I don’t think he was supposed to be funny in this. I thought I had more than two positives, but I guess not.

Now for the best part. The major fails include: mismatched prosthetics, a monster that is basically Swamp Thing’s inbred cousin, and actors that use every southern stereotype in history as a reference for a country accent. Speaking of inbreeding, that’s the main point of this entire movie. Inbred country folk in horror movies is absolutely nothing new, but it feels dragged out here. Also the story is quite convoluted. We started with a man that somehow mutated into a monster, then for the last 20 minutes, it’s some kind of god of incest. So to recap, we have one of the most used horror plots, but with incest-loving Alligator Jesus. Call me what you want, but that alone should have been hilarious.

Long story short, this gets 1/5. This is one of those movies where you feel like you’ve seen it before, only it has more incest, boobs, and dismemberment. I think this might be the shortest review I’ve ever written. There’s really nothing to this movie. It takes itself way too seriously, and it seems like the filmmakers were just overly ambitious about this project. Do I really have to mention the acting? To make matters even worse it only made $327,000 back of it’s $3 million budget, and it was released in 1,500 freaking theaters. Even the ending seems like it was thrown in just so the run time would hit 90 minutes. I’m really not mad at how bad it is. It’s more depressing than anything else.


V/H/S (2012)

MV5BMTUwODAxMzMwNF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMTk3MTQ5Nw@@._V1._SY317_In case you missed it, I wasn’t a huge fan of this two years ago. The overall concept is nothing original, but I respected the fact several directors took on different shorts. After watching it a second time I can honestly say…it still doesn’t work. V/H/S just shows that having more time to tell a story and a better budget doesn’t automatically mean it’ll be a good movie. So what goes wrong? I personally think it’s the whole found footage angle. I get they were going for something vintage with V/H/S tapes, but this was made in 2012. Think about how much we use our phones and computers. V/H/S tapes were made obsolete years ago, but now we’re supposed to believe they’re still valuable in the movie’s universe? It doesn’t make sense.

The acting is quite questionable at times, however I give everyone a pass considering what this is about. What I still don’t understand is how events play out. Why were those jackasses hired to steal a tape? Why do we spend a substantial part of the opening sequence just being subjected to how evil they are? I think the whole bit with those guys could’ve been left out altogether because they add nothing to the story except extra F bombs and irritating padding between shorts. I just reviewed 26 segments from another movie, so I’m not about to do it again here. Even if I did, I’d give them all the same rating just because you can’t really see the actual scary bits.

As I’ve said many times before, a horror movie is only effective when you can actually see what’s going on. V/H/S seems to pass by in a jerky blur, and you sit there wondering what just happened. What sense does it make to film something if your audience can’t make heads or tails of it? This time around, I still give it 2/5. I knew it was bad two years ago, but I didn’t realize just how little there is. I’m really hoping the directors involved continue to work on their craft. These shorts show there is some kind of talent there, but they all lack the skills to execute their vision. It’s disappointing because V/H/S would’ve been horrifying if they knew how to do just that.

Lust of the Dead (2012)



This review will probably be unbelievably graphic and just all around disgusting, and will offend people that are super sensitive.

You all should know me by now. A term like “misogynistic” rarely pops up in my reviews, unless I find a special starfish like Doghouse. I have seen a lot of crap in the (almost) 3 years I’ve been doing this. I have to say I honestly thought Antichrist was about as offensive as you can get in cinema. I think the universe might’ve taken that as a challenge. I’m honestly not sure what Naoyuki Tomomatsu was going for, and I’m really too afraid to look it up. Why? The zombies are men, overloaded on some kind of virus and testosterone, and kill women by raping them and ejaculating into them. You read that last part correctly. As if that plot isn’t horrible enough, we’re subjected to multiple 2-3 minute scenes of gang rapes, and penises being chopped or shot off.

I’m really not easily offended, nor am I easily sickened by scenes. But this is just freaking horrible on many levels. Where do I start? Rape being played for laughs? Some scenes where women begin to enjoy the sexual assault before being killed by sperm? Or perhaps the very squishy noises upon penetration? Nope, that’s not the worst part. I’m going to have to go with the Jesus incarnate that was brought into being by lesbian sex. Just when you thought this really couldn’t be any worst: baby Shinto Jesus is conceived from lesbians picking one of the worst times and places to bump uglies. How does that work? Screw you and laugh at the gang rape and violence against women, says the movie.

I have nothing else to add. If I allowed myself to give negative reviews, I would. But I’ll settle for zero. To add to the crap pile, I found out this is actually an ongoing franchise in Japan, and number 5 is on its way. I just don’t understand what genius thought this was a movie worthy of streaming because this really is just softcore porn. For all of my perverted readers, there you have it: I managed to find porn on Netflix. Lucky you, you sick bastards. The fact I ended up posting this on Valentine’s Day somehow makes it even worse.

The Phantom of the Opera (1989)

MV5BNTM0MTI3MDU5NF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNTQzMTcyMQ@@._V1_SY317_CR9,0,214,317_AL_Two thoughts immediately come to mind after watching this. One: Who thought a gory version of The Phantom of the Opera was a good idea in 1989? And two: What was Robert Englund thinking? Around this time he already had Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child. I know it sure as hell wasn’t because of money. Did he want to try to get out of being typecast…by playing another deformed, psychotic killer? I think the best part about all of this is just how Englund plays the Phantom. I think of it as Freddy Krueger if he existed in 1881, and instead of being murdered just opted to sell his soul to the devil. I might be harping on Englund the most, but I think we can be honest and say the only reason anyone would watch this is because of him.

First there’s the special effects makeup that looks suspiciously like another one of his characters.

477272_10151212726204580_1395720594_oI still can’t figure out if that was on purpose or not. I also don’t understand why he’s a burn victim if his skin is only deteriorating from being immortal. My all time favorite look for him has to be during the masquerade scene.

englund_phantomYou can’t tell me he doesn’t look like a pimp that’s going to a 70s Halloween party. Keep in mind this is supposed to be based in London in 1881. Everyone talks and acts like every bit of 1989, so it’s a good chunk of unintentional comedy. I’ll be honest and say I can’t really say anything about the performances from the rest of the cast. Even back in the day, Englund manages to outshine every person that shares a scene with him. It’s actually pretty impressive.

As comical as this is, I’m only giving it 2/5. The Phantom of the Opera is just one of those classics that doesn’t need yet another interpretation. Or if someone absolutely feels the need to put their own spin on it, it has to be done in a way that makes sense. You can’t take out the iconic parts from Phantom just to add mediocre gore. It was an interesting idea, but it might have been a little too ahead of its time.