Reviews

A group of spoiled self-centered morons spend their time having sex with each other and molesting anyone that they happen to stumble across on fire island... but apparently that's okay, because everyone seems to enjoy it. Except for the two straight fishermen that are forced to "69" at knife-point. It's political in all of the worst ways from that time period (or any time period for that matter). They complain about censorship, Vietnam, the establishment and, well, basically anything that tries to force them to do anything that they don't want to do. However, that's not the worst of it. This movie also manages to commit the greatest crime that a movie can... it's boring. Not even the sex and nudity can prevent this from being a complete waste of time.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to call anyone stupid. On the surface this movie seems pretty simple. With all of its biblical allegory it's plainly a two hour abbreviated version of the Bible, right?... Well no, not really. Actually it's based on the gnostic Nag Hammadi texts. And if you've never heard of it, don't worry, most people probably haven't.

Not to get too sidetracked, but (to be brief) the Nag Hammadi texts were written in the early ADs, lost, and then rediscovered in Egypt in 1945. They were originally declared a heresy by the early church. After their rediscovery they saw a slight resurgence in more modern times with people like Carl Jung and Aleister Crowley; in Hollywood with directors like the Wachowskis and Darren Aronofsky; and in music with bands like Tool. To fully understand 'Mother!', requires an understanding of what exactly that sect believed. I'm not trying to push any one kind of belief by explaining this.

Gnostisism claims that there was one true God, a shapeless form of energy and light. He decided to create more beings and did so by taking pieces of himself and forming them into living beings called 'eaons'. One of the aeons was a female named Sophia. Sophia also wanted to create something, but realized she couldn't without help. She was able to create a helper though and that helper is known as the 'demiurge'. The demiurge was the one who managed to create human life on earth.

Back to the movie. Who is Jennifer Lawrence supposed to be? A lot of people are saying that she represents the earth and the movie is telling how humans are hurting it/her. They're mistaken. The house they live in represents the earth. The endless forest surrounding them is space. The 'Mother' is Sophia. Her husband is not the Judao-Christian God. He's the demiurge. The demiurge is a malevolent creator, two steps down from the "True God", and he has little similarity to the God found in the Bible.

However, being a Jewish sect the gnostics do follow the stories in Genesis. So yes, the man is Adam. Yes, the woman is Eve. Their children are Cain and Abel. The crystal they're told not to touch represents the tree of knowledge.

One other thing that I haven't seen anyone mention: In one scene as their home (the earth) fills up with people a couple of them break the kitchen sink causing the house to flood and their creator to get mad and remove them... that's the biblical flood story.

If it seems like I gave some kind of college lecture instead of reviewing the movie all I can say is that the explanation of the source material will help people understand the movie better than my opinion on whether it's good or bad. With all this in mind you can make up your own decision.

I've never seen the director's name before, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that he is a member of the awful metal band that appears in this movie. The whole thing is basically a music video and wouldn't be of any interest to anyone other than the band and their zero fans. There's really no movie here. In between songs the 'actors' argue with each other about religion, because, you know, being evil is a job requirement if you're going to be in a band.

I suppose the long pointless strip-club scene would have to be the highlight of the movie, but no, even that could've been better. If you are going to put strippers in your zero-budget shot-on-a-flip-phone piece of trash movie the strippers might as well go all the way, but no. Just T&A (and 3 or 4 terrible songs). The band sits in front of the stage and don't drop a single dollar.

Awful.

The camera work in this movie is truly awful. Nearly every shot of this movie is 'too close' to whatever is happening on screen and made even worse by the hand-held camera shake. Particularly when anything even remotely interesting is happening. There's barely a scene where you can clearly see what is happening on the screen... which is unfortunate, because occasionally something happens that you might actually WANT to see. Throughout the whole movie there are two colors: black and a reddish haze. Which I understand is to make it look more 'post apocalyptic', but it just doesn't work to create a film that people want to look at.

And then there's the script... or is there? You'll probably need subtitles to figure out what they are mumbling in the dark (when they bother to speak at all). All that said, I can only assume that anyone who enjoyed this is really good at using their imagination and creating a picture in their own head of what is going on. Personally, I don't really think it's worth the effort of trying.

I absolutely loved the first two in the series. The third was way too Hollywood to be good, but I guess some people might like it. Even Bloodline could at least make it to the theatre. Hellraiser: Inferno is HORRIBLE!!

There is nothing good about this movie! About ten minutes into the movie we see Pinhead for about (literally) 2 seconds. After that you have to wait until the last five minutes of the movie to see him again. Everything that was good about the other Hellraiser movies, 1 through 4, is missing from this worthless piece of trash. Anyone who gives this a good review or a rating of over 4 has obviously never seen another Hellraiser film. I won't be surprised if we never see another one.

I have to admit this definatly rips off Dawn of the Dead, but so what? Every time a good movie comes out there are a thousand other movies that rip it off. How many stupid early 80s sci fi movies do you know that rip off Alien!?

Anyways, at least they picked a good movie to steal from. Dawn of the Dead gets a perfect 10 in my book, so this has to at least be entertaining. The gore is great, the dubbing is bad, and the storyline if fairly good. At one part in the movie we see a bunch of natives in the jungle and some animals killing each other which is obviously stock footage (like Ed Wood would use). Stupid stuff like that should make you laugh, not get you mad. What were you expecting when you rented 'Night of the Zombies'!? Of course it's not going to be Oscar material. I give it an 8 out of 10.

This movie isn't really that bad, but when you rent an early 80s zombie movie you expect to see some gut-munching. This doesn't really have much blood at all. Director Joel M. Reed is the genius who made Bloodsucking Freaks. Jamie Gillis acts better than expected, and the story is interesting, but...

I'm glad I rented it. Wouldn't want to buy it though.

This is basically another one of those cannibal/jungle movies. It's true this movie is nothing but gore and nudity, but that's all you should be expecting from this kind of movie.

A young girls parents are killed and decapitated (in a fairly gory scene) and she is taken prisoner by a group of headhunters. They strip her and trade her as a slave, so she spends the rest of the movie running through the jungle naked. Unlike a lot of these kinds of movies it actually does have a plot and it's supposedly 'based on a true story'. Definately worth a rental.

If you use words like "atrocious banal" then you probably will not like this movie.

The first ten minutes of this movie were pretty good, but it's all down hill from there. This is the same 'there's a virus loose in a town and the military comes to quarantine it' theme that you've probably seen about a thousand times before. I give George Romero's zombie movies perfect 10s, but this is just plain boring. Not too many people actually go crazy, it's mostly just the military and civilians shooting guns at each other. I will admit that at times these scenes can be interesting, but over all I'd say that this is one of his worst (Season of the Witch being THE worst).

I can't stand it how they take good movies that made money twenty years ago and try to remake them with new special effects. I'm sorry, but I'm just not impressed by computer animation. The thing that I found the dumbest was the little tatoo she had that spread all over her arms and face at the end. Why am I complaining about that? Because it just shows how Hollywood will use any chance for stupid computer effects. Was that supposed to be cool? This is'nt worth the time it takes to sit through.

Why take a movie from twenty years ago and make a sequel? Are people really having that much trouble thinking up storylines nowadays?

I'm surprised this movie doesn't have a higher rating than it does. Horror movies about heavy metal bands are always stupid, but this one kept me entertained the whole way through. Unlike other movies like Black Roses or Hard Rock Zombies, this one was actually funny and pretty well made. Definately a good movie.

A drill guitar!? Give me a break. Is this supposed to be a musical? The killer looks like one of the guys from Grease and is just as stupid. Oh well, if you've seen the first one you'll probably rent this too. Just don't rent it for more than a dollar.

Normally I love movies like this. The late 70s and early 80s made the best stupid horror movies. However, this is just plain stupid. Its not scary, not funny, not anything. It's got some of the usual gratuitous gore and nudity, but most of it is just so boring and the plot is so stupid that it doesn't matter. I'm willing to suspend my disbelief for this kind of movie, but it couldn't even keep my attention.

About 95% of this movie is the usual running through endless corridors that you see in a lot of horror movies. The fast-forward button comes in extremely handy. The monster is really lame looking and kind of reminds me of Rawhead Rex (which was bad too, but not as bad as this).

I should have figured that any movie with the Poltergeist lady in it isn't going to be good. It actually starts out okay, but during the first murder scene you find out that the movie you're watching is a movie inside of a movie. There's people sitting in a movie theatre watching that movie. One girl in the audience is so annoying that I would have turned around and strangled her. A bit strange, but far from good.

I was expecting another stupid unfunny horror movie, but this was actually pretty good. Well written and well acted (by the nerd). Just listening to the Killer Nerd talk was enough to make me laugh. That guy should be in more movies!

The Killer Nerd finds a girlfriend and they get invited to a party. Of course the only reason they were invited was so they can be humiliated in front of everyone. They get their revenge with a gory throat slashing, a Psycho shower scene, and the Bride of the Nerd castrates some guy with her teeth. Extremely low budget, but good anyway.

A group of four aliens escape from prison and hide here on the planet Earth during the 1930s. After finding some guns and shooting people by the room-full, they decide to go back to their ship for a while(?). Fifty years later some construction workers dig up their ship, and they start killing again. Eventually some guy bases a comic book on them, and they think that it's been made by the aliens that chased them to Earth.

The storyline is actually a bit better than it sounds, but not by much. They kill plenty of people and there are a couple of topless scenes, but nothing to really put this above the usual 1980s crap movies.

Nothing but nonstop gore and nudity. In other words, a great movie! One of the best movies I'll seen. Women are tortured and killed in front of an audience and everyone thinks its a show. Brains get sucked through straws, eyes pulled out, fingers crushed, teeth pulled, etc. People are force-fed, beheaded, and thrown into a cage full of naked cannibal women! Every women in the movie has at least one nude scene. A perfect 10.

I thought it might be good to see a 1974 Dracula movie with blood and nudity. I guess not. We see Dracula maybe twice during the first half of the movie. Most of the time is spent listening to boring British dialogue, and occasionally someone will get shot. As a matter of fact most of the deaths in this movie seem to be by gun. Except for Dracula himself. That had to have been the stupidest way to die! He fell in a shrub and got caught on the thorns. Boring and stupid.

This was made on a low budget, but its still higher than the directors earlier movies (Gorgasm, Gorotica). The title actress does an excellent job. She takes her clothes off frequently for some fairly explicit nudity. The effects are nothing great, but they're not really that bad. Especially compared to Gorgasm. Not bad at all. I'm hoping that Hugh Gallagher keeps on making more movies.

I think this movie is great. They don't usually make movies like this nowadays. Extremely low budget and some of the acting is pretty bad, but why would you even expect the acting to be good in this kind of movie? The story is great though. Definitely in the vein of Nekromantik. A woman brings dead bodies to a gay guy with aids so that he can still have sex! Of course she has sex with the bodies first. Pretty sick stuff.

This is the first movie by the guy who directed Gorotica and Gore Whore. A woman places an add in the personals for the "ultimate climax". Which means you give her all your money and she kills you.

I loved the directors other movies, but this one is a little too low budget. You can obviously tell it was his first movie. The acting is absolutely horrible. It seems like he put his friends and family in this movie. The deaths are nothing special because the effects are so bad. This only has topless scenes, where as his other movies have full frontal nudity.

Who would have expected something so stupid from the man who made Dawn of the Dead. A telepathic monkey!? Give me a break. George should have stuck to zombies. Watching a monkey do tricks gets pretty boring after a while. The only thing worth seeing is when the paralyzed guy bites the monkey and flings him against the wall.

Ruggero Deodato made Cannibal Holocaust in 1979 and it was banned everywhere. He was in court of jail for the next three years on obscenity charges. After all that I think he was trying to tame it down a bit for this movie, because it's nowhere near as good. It's basically an 80s action movie with some cannibals thrown in (they don't eat anybody though).

This movie has none of the shock that his previous movies were famous for. If it wasn't for the fact that Divine is the main character there would be no reason to watch this at all. I absolutely love everything that he made up to this point, but this is just different. His other movies originally received an X rating, but by 1981 all of the theaters that would play movies like that were closed down. Otherwise I'm sure that Waters would have continued to make the best movies.