Reviews

I'm going to start out here saying that this is a low-budget movie, and if you want the dazzling special effects or the awesome gore effects of a Romero movie, you will be highly disappointed. If, however, you are more like me, you might come to appreciate the movie as one that is campy, light-hearted twist on the zombie movie that manages to rise above the muck that is typically low-budget fodder.

First, the acting is actually decent. Not awarding-winning by any means, but decent in that it can pass as plausible. The lead couple (played by Jim Townsend and Christine Egan) and do a tremendous job keeping a sense of sincerity in their roles. They are very "normal" people you could meet at the grocery store, and their sincerity adds to their likability. This is one movie in which you actually like the lead characters. Further into the movie, we're introduced to a couple of nerdy students and a couple of cheerleaders. The nerds are a bit over the top, but they definitely add some comedy and light-heartedness to the movie, reminding us that the movie doesn't take itself too seriously. The cheerleaders do add sex appeal (there is a very brief topless lesbian scene - nothing beyond a PG-13 rating), but it is refreshing that the actresses are attractive as well as "normal." Again, the cheerleaders are like a couple of girls you'd meet at the mall, not sultry models who have nothing in common with the rest of the average world. These young women are attractive in a normal sense.

Basically, the plot involves a winery being the site of a zombie attack, zombies who thirst for wine and not flesh. I will not give away any specific details about the plot (you will have to see the movie yourself to see how it ends!), but I will say that I found the movie an enjoyable viewing because of its slightly different take on zombies.

I give the movie 8 out of 10 stars. If you do not enjoy campy low-budget movies, you will probably think I'm being too generous. But I write these reviews with the overall fun factor in mind - how pleased I was with the viewing experience. The movie is an original piece, the location is memorable, the characters are likable, and the movie is nicely paced with appropriate moments of drama, humor, and camp. The movie is not without gore, but it is limited to pretty much what you can find in make-up kit you'd buy at the Halloween Store. The violence is also minimal and often implied. Again, there is a brief topless scene by both of the cheerleaders, but surprisingly it works well within the context of the story as well as remind us that the movie is campy and light. I am looking forward to seeing what Mr. Townsend will come up with next!

In the world of CGI special effects, along comes this movie from the early 1980's, which completely makes me fall in love with old-school visual effects and that certain magic of fantastical puppet creatures. I won't get too much into the plot, because is it is a fairly simple straightforward adventure movie. What I will focus on, however, is why this movie still has a place among today's finest visual movies and why this movie belongs in everyone's movie collection.

The world that Jim Henson and Frank Oz creates in this movie is completely original, from the landscapes down to the mystical creatures that inhabit it. The movie asks us to throw away everything you've come to know about standard fantasy, and to enter a make-believe world that is simply a magic feast to the imagination as well as to the eyes. I totally loved all the puppet creatures. They are so original and beautifully constructed, they almost look life-like. They are simply astounding.

The world is so rich that it lends itself to other adventures. I would've really liked to have come back into this world in a sequel, or trilogy. There is honestly enough richness to this world that it begs to be visited perhaps by other characters with other stories of their own.

It is something of a children's movie, but it's also a good viewing for adults. There are elements in this movie that strike a fundamental cord in all of us, bring out the fantastical curious little child in all of us, and make us believe in other worlds with wonderful creatures. I will cherish the movie and watch it time and again when I want to feel like a kid again, when the world was worth exploring and when it contained beauty and mystery, love and heroism. Thank you Jim Henson for this extremely organic and tangible world - I LOVE IT!!!

Plot - I won't get too much into the plot of this movie, because it's really just a flimsy skeleton-of-a-story to bring together a handful of hip and gorgeous actors and actresses. Really, the story is about a couple young fellas in the desert who end up becoming involved in a plot to kill a gang of outlaw marauding vampires. That's the sum of it, and I won't tell ya how it ends up.

Impressions/observations - What I will discuss is the "meat" of the movie and why this movie falls extremely short of a good solid vampire movie. First off, I was very disappointed in the way the vampires are portrayed in this movie. There is absolutely nothing supernatural about them - they don't have superhuman strength, don't fly, don't really have anything about them that makes me believe that they are supernatural predators. They are about as ordinary as a gang of unruly youths, except that they have to be killed only under certain conditions. But I don't recall ever seeing them do anything in the movie that would suggest that they are, in fact, vampires. Not only do they carry guns to kill people with, they need cars to get around. I mean, this movie really gave the vampires a very "mortal" feel to them. They got lots of attitude and desire for blood-letting, but then again so do the thugs in a Charles Bronson movie. If you want supernatural thrills and chills - this movie falls flat on its face. It's just a reason to get a couple young hunks and an attractive girl together in a plot to kill some rather boring vampires.

Gore - Not nearly enough to satisfy horror movie die-hards. The gore really comes down to maybe a few buckets of fake blood, but nothing to pop your eyes out or lose a kidney over. The killings are very non-traditional killings for a vampire movie - relatively tame with minimal blood. Too many scenes that cut away to another scene just as you'd expect so see some guts flying out. Again, compared to vampire movies like the very bloody and gruesome Underworld trilogy, this movie is very very tame.

Nudity - A few scenes involving the attractive lead actress. I particularly found these scenes rather annoying - nonsensical nudity tossed into a movie, and from a girl who's entire character is nearly comatose and sickly. Although she is pretty to look at, the lead actress's character is so paper-thin and shallow that all she really is in the movie is a silent and underdeveloped persona that, through some odd and contrived arrangement of the plot details, needs to be in the movie. I don't mind actresses baring their skin when the role calls for it, but please folks, put it into context of a movie that makes sense. The first images of the movie showing her in the shower washing off the blood from her body was, in all honesty, nearly the point I wanted to throw the remote at the television and give the movie no further viewing. But I held back my inclination and decided to give the movie an entire watch.

Action - Lots of it. Car chases, explosions, all the stuff of low-budget movies. There is nothing in this movie we haven't seen on a single episode of McGuiver. Again, the action is plenty but nothing remarkable. All pretty standard here.

Overall - I gave this movie 2 points out of ten, and primarily because, for a vampire movie, it is a step backwards. This movie adds absolutely nothing to the vampire genre and actually "mortalizes" the vampires. For most of the movie, I was thinking OK this is a joke - we're all going to be told at the end of the movie that they really weren't vampires all along. But they were vampires in the end, just extremely boring vampires that were way to human for my tastes. No fangs, no special powers, nothing supernatural about them. And please, hip does not equal scary.

This movie, though often described as a low budget Mad Max or Road Warrior movie, is more comparable to Wheels of Fire. It is low budget pleasure that features silly or nonexistent acting, crazy choreography, and a wonderful cast of actors and actresses you've probably never heard of. Yet, this little gem is downright action packed fun, 1980s style! The movie is set in a futuristic post-holocaust world that is largely made up of desert, dunes and rocky hills. The largest and most precious commodity in this world is water, and those in control of water sources control the most power. The plot ultimately involves a small community defending a secluded sanctuary - an underground water source - from a wicked tribe of Road Warriorish thugs. Lots of crazy car chases, gun-toting warriors, cheap special effects (pyrotechnics), and stiff choreography during the fight scenes.

One fella stands out as the main character, a roguish silent wanderer named Stryker on a personal mission. He's a satisfying lead, meeting every cliché of the strong silent type. His dialogue is scarce, and his ability to express emotion comes across as forced. But he's extremely suitable for his role, however, given the handful of actors and actress he is working with in this movie. If you're not fond of the strong silent lead, you have a host of typically attractive 1980s female desert warriors, some donned in what appears to be football shoulder pads (sorta like Road Warrior). The main villain, unfortunately, never gets any sort of identity, not even to the point of cliché. He's just a mean thug who can't talk without sounding like he has a mouth full of marbles. The movie tries to build him up as someone foul enough to peak Stryker's persistent and stubborn indifference, yet, as a movie villain, he simply fails to impress the viewer as a credible threat to someone as collected and methodical as Stryker.

I rate this movie 9 out of 10 because for a low budget flick, it packs a lot of action, shoot outs, and car chases. One serious drawback to the movie, however, is the extremely boring set - desert. Probably 95% of the film was shot outdoors in what appears to be nothing but deserts and dunes. After watching this setting for about 5 minutes, the movie gets very claustrophobic and you get the distinct impression that all the different filming locations were done within a 5-minute walk of each other. But the movie is really a little unpolished gem. You have to love low budget antics to give this movie an entire viewing. It's one of those movies you'll either love or shut off after the first five minutes.

This movie is rated R for violence and nudity.

And I thought some of my low-budget B-movies were bad...

Flesh Freaks is easily one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The plot is simple - zombies invade a university after an archaeological dig brings back some type of parasite that turns people into zombies.

The main problem I had with this film is the very poor quality. It is appears to be filmed by a regular hand-held digital camcorder you can purchase at Walmart. Seriously, much of the footage shot for this film looks like someone's vacation video, with pointless and lengthy shots of sunsets, shorelines, jungle, and insects. The cameraman also was too jerky and moved the camera too much, which constantly reminded me throughout the movie just how amateur this movie is. The sound quality is equivalent to any hand-held camcorder - crappy.

The only good point I can say about this movie is the makeup is pretty good. The makeup artist did a great job with the zombies, and the zombie masks were pretty good for the quality of the rest of the film. Also, lots of blood.

Negative points about the movie: 1. Too long. Lots of unnecessary footage of wilderness, shorelines, etc.

2. Half of the movie was shot on location at a university (Christmas break?). This film appears to have been shot by film college students on location.

3. Absolutely no skin. Zip. Nada. No nudity.

Think twice about buying this movie. Or even renting it. It probably appeals to only those involved in filming it or acting in it. Really, the whole thing looks to be someone's pet project in a film class. Avoid this movie at all costs. Before you watch this dreadfully tiring movie, watch something remotely entertaining, like Lawrence Welk or Andy Griffith.

OK, if you've watched this film in its entirety, you probably really really hate it, or you liked it. I fall into the latter group of viewers, for I not only watched the entire movie, but I love it for being sooo bad. Let's be honest, it's a really corny zombie movie with terrible special effects and even more terrible acting. And it's the only zombie movie I've ever seen in which a zombie weeps tears. This review isn't meant to convince you to love it, but rather it is meant to persuade you to keep an open mind if you're thinking about renting this one and to remind you to take the movie as is - a low budget zombie movie. If you set your standards too high on this one, you loose all the fun out of it.

Plot - A group of campers find a mysterious graveyard out in the middle of the woods and inadvertently awaken the dead, who happen to be buried Confederate soldiers. The usual zombie attack ensues and the campers struggle to keep away from the undead menace. One overall problem with this plot is that it is very slow-moving. There are several minutes in the movie when you see nothing but someone walking around the woods without saying a word. Several long such episodes could've been shortened to quick key shots.

Movie mechanics - The film is terrible in technique. The acting is almost hilarious and the lighting inconsistency is a bit annoying. But these flaws in the film production make this little flick a gem. I was so horrified at the way the movie was filmed, I couldn't keep my eyes off of it. I was fascinated by it. It was raw. It was like someone picked up a camcorder and decided to make a movie one morning. It is simply fascinating.

Special effects - The special effects are very simple and ridiculous to the point of being comedic. In several shots in which zombies were supposed to be getting blown up by fireworks, the filmmakers decided to superimpose actual fireworks footage over the zombies. The effect was not only initially confusing, it was humorous. I will say the gore effects were satisfying. Every zombie movie has to meet a certain level of gore, and there is one scene in this movie in which someone gets eaten by a group of zombies, and the scene is literally 3-5 minutes long of nothing but watching the zombies eat the body and hearing the munching and crunching of the zombies. Again, the effect of this scene ended up being humorous. The makeup is equivalent to what you can find when you go to your friend's Halloween party. Nothing but white make up for the zombies.

Why should I watch this movie? - This movie is low, and I mean LOW, budget. It resembles a family home video that was recorded back in the late 70's. It is simply a fascinating piece of work, and leaves you asking yourself why the crap anyone would have made a movie like it. But it was done all in good effort, and even included a gratuitous scene of a zombie feast.

What might keep me away from renting this one? - The gore level is not hardcore for zombie fans. While it satisfies the minimum requirement, there simply wasn't enough of it scattered throughout the movie to make the other parts of the movie somewhat interesting. Instead, there are really only 1-2 scenes of real gore. Anyone who needs a lot of gore throughout a movie, this one's not for you. Also, there is zero skinappeal. You only get a few shots in the beginning of the chicks in skimpy swimwear, but that's all folks. The movie is also ridiculously long. It could've been condensed a bit.

The proper way to watch this movie - When you're all alone, sit down with a six-pack (or whiskey, if you prefer) and pop some popcorn and watch this little gem under slight to moderate intoxication. This movie will not only be amusing, you might really really like it. I naturally love low budget crappy movies, so I am very glad I own a copy of this one. It has the proud honor of being perhaps one of the worst movies I had ever seen. And this makes it all the more lovable!

In reviewing The Entity, you must remember that the film is an adaptation of a supposedly real and horrific experience. I think the material is handled as best as it can, considering that the entire plot revolves around a woman getting raped by a malevolent ghost. This film could've been an instant disaster if it weren't handled with the sensitivity it was given. Movies about rape are emotionally charged, let alone a movie about being raped by a ghost. The acting is appropriate, particularly by the lead actress Barbara Hershey. The movie is essentially a balancing act between keeping it a creepy ghost story while at the same time maintaining a "realistic" rape-story. I think the movie succeeds in both tasks.

At base, the movie is a ghost story. It has all the elements of a creepy movie. I cannot call it a monster-movie because it doesn't focus on the monster, but rather the effects of the ghost on the victim, the trauma of the assaults, and the attempt to understand just what this spirit is. It's about as creepy as Poltergeist in that the movie's ghost is certainly felt as an invisible ominous force that can potentially harm people. And the fact that it doesn't degenerate into a monster-movie adds to the creepiness - you never really get to see the ghost (actually, you do but only in the form of light effects), and you never really get to understand what it is. That's part of any good horror movie - not entirely understanding what the monster is. And fear of the unknown is properly the basis of a good scary horror movie.

The rape of the victim is not, by any means, gratuitous. And that is another reason I cannot call it a monster-movie. Monster-movies relish in gratuities, and in this film, there aren't any. The subject matter is handled rather realistically and sensibly in a way that is convincing. Though there is nudity, it is brief (and I believe in some scenes, the nudity was actually fake props - I don't believe those were really her breasts, but rubber hollow replicas used in the "groping" scenes). The movie focuses on the effects of the assaults in a way that makes it a rape movie with a supernatural twist. But the emotional pain and trauma of the victim is explored and handled realistically (she seeks out counseling until she is convinced herself that she's not crazy).

All in all, I found this to be a creepy movie. It's not on the same level of horror as the Exorcist, but it does have its creepiness that, to me, makes it a successful ghost story.

This horror movie almost does everything right! It has fun with obvious character stereotypes, and it is fast moving all the way to the end. What it doesn't have in plot development, it certainly makes up in gore and stylized violence (I say "stylized" because the violence is meant to have a comic element, and is not horrifically realistic). It also has some fun monster-sex for only a brief second or two - nothing tasteless or disturbing. It doesn't have the creepiness of Evil Dead, but it has the underlying dark satiric humor.

Plot - a group of heroes and heroines get trapped one night in an isolated tavern out in the middle of nowhere by a group of monsters. Said heroes and heroines immediately turn against each other in a fight for survival in a very "George Romero"-ish way. It's unclear just what these monsters are, or what they are doing, but all that matters is they are hungry and horny, and staying alive becomes a battle not just against the monsters, but amongst the remaining survivors.

Why should I watch this movie? - Gore. Lots of gore effects for all you gore fans, and primarily consisting of buckets upon buckets of blood. And action. The action in this movie is non-stop, literally from the opening to the ending scenes. Also, there are some hot chicks in this movie, and something makes them a lot hotter when they are carrying guns and covered in blood.

What are some drawbacks to this movie? - Few monster sightings. While the movie has quick glimpses of the monsters, it doesn't really give you a good look at them, not nearly enough to properly call this a monster-movie. It's rather a creature movie in which we see mostly the carnage the creature leaves behind. Another drawback is, although there are the standard hotties in this movie, there is minimal skinappeal. I like to see naked hotties, and unfortunately, there is no fun nakedness in this horror film (ahhh.. remember the good ole 80's horror movies).

But, the good news is - The highlights of this movie far outweigh the drawbacks. You're still looking at a great horror movie, and I look forward to seeing more movies done in this vein. I give this movie 9 stars out of 10 because if you like gore gore gore, and a lot of action, this movie is a real cult feast!

I watched this movie and remember only one scene - the worm/rape scene. Then there was something about a spaceship and a mysterious planet and a pyramid. That all gets lost, however, to the only memorable and notable scene of the entire movie, and that is when actress Taaffee O'Connell gets attacked and raped by a huge worm.

Taaffee is a rather nice looking blond who ends up on this planet with her crew. They explore the planet a bit only to discover that they each will face their own personal fear. Somehow (is this related to the whole pyramid-thing?) their fear is made incarnate. Taaffee's fear is worms. While she is alone on the planet exploring, a maggot creeps up behind her, grows to enormous size and proceeds to attack, strip, and rape her. The entire scene would be simply crazy and almost comical if it weren't so darned erotic. Taaffee does a terrific job expressing her emotions - first shock, terror, and then resignation as she succumbs to the worm's attack. It is simply one of the most erotic scenes I've ever seen in a movie. And that is why I give this movie 9 stars out of 10. I would've given this 10 stars had the scene been a bit longer, but as it is, it is a wicked nasty little gem that you'll probably never see in a film again. The scene is R-rated, so no explicit rape, but Taaffee's moaning sure tells all. And you get to see several seconds worth of her naked torso and breasts, which is indeed a splendid sight to see. This movie is a must-have for this scene alone. I haven't quite found a scene equal to it. I'd love to see a remake of this movie!!!

This movie was made back in the early 80's, and while it has elements of Halloween, it does not measure up to the standard Halloween set in the slasher/horror genre. But I'm not going to compare this movie to Halloween, because it is an altogether different movie in its own right, with its own atmosphere and tone.

The first 15 minutes are all you really need to see of this movie, and really, it is because of the first 15 minutes I remembered this movie to begin with. A psycho escapes from the sanitarium in the middle of the night to begin what psychos do best - stalk. Early the next morning, he slips into a woman's kitchen while she is getting her breakfast ready at the sink, and proceeds to kill her by drowning her in the sink. This scene alone is among the most violent and realistic drowning scenes I've seen in any movie, and - let this be a fair warning - the woman's bathrobe becomes undone during the attack and her breasts are exposed. Honestly, this scene is really the only memorable scene in the entire movie. After that, the movie is rather slow and boring, with an attempt at character development and an interesting ending. As far as slasher movies go, this is a bit slow moving and doesn't really have much suspense. And for all you gore fans out there, don't bother with this movie, as there really isn't any notable gore.

I gave this movie 7 stars out of 10 only because the first minutes contain some of the most disturbing, cold-blooded, and violent attacks toward women I've seen in film. It was meant to grab your attention, and it certainly did.