I can go on and on and on about what's wrong with this film, but why bother? It's no fun pointing out the flaws of a movie that's supposed to be bad. And if the makers of this crap thought they were doing a masterpiece--may God have mercy on their souls.
I am just gonna be frank. I read a review for the movie in my Blockbuster Video Guide saying that it contains "exposed breasts galore." Well...they were right. Lots of gratuitous shots of large, surgically-enhanced (I'm guessing) breasts. What's a crappy horror movie without the gratuitous nudity? Exactly!
The acting and f/x (if that's what you call 'em) are so inexplicably bad that I had to wrestle my hand off the "Stop" button. Maybe it's because I'm an aspiring filmmaker and actor myself. A low budget is no excuse. Look what Kevin Smith did with the micro-budget comedy "Clerks." John Carpenter's pockets weren't exploding with cash when he made "Halloween." But when he did the killing sequences, instead of explicitly showing us the blood and gore, he left it up to the audience's imagination. And he still scared the pants off many viewers! In one scene of this movie, the villain sticks a sword through this guy's stomach and we suddenly cut to this stupid close-up shot of the blood dripping off the sword, as if we're supposed to believe it actually got pushed through his body. As for the computer-generated f/x...what the hell was that! They must've stole 'em off someone's screensaver!
If I have anything good to say, this film is good for a few laughs. Unintentional laughs, that is. They should've at least used a tongue-in-cheek approach. That way we can be laughing WITH them. And of course, if you wanna watch some good nude scenes that's a plus. But you can always save yourself the trouble and rent a flick from Surrender Cinema. That way you won't have to wear out the "Fast-Forward" control as much.
My score: 2 (out of 10)
I am just gonna be frank. I read a review for the movie in my Blockbuster Video Guide saying that it contains "exposed breasts galore." Well...they were right. Lots of gratuitous shots of large, surgically-enhanced (I'm guessing) breasts. What's a crappy horror movie without the gratuitous nudity? Exactly!
The acting and f/x (if that's what you call 'em) are so inexplicably bad that I had to wrestle my hand off the "Stop" button. Maybe it's because I'm an aspiring filmmaker and actor myself. A low budget is no excuse. Look what Kevin Smith did with the micro-budget comedy "Clerks." John Carpenter's pockets weren't exploding with cash when he made "Halloween." But when he did the killing sequences, instead of explicitly showing us the blood and gore, he left it up to the audience's imagination. And he still scared the pants off many viewers! In one scene of this movie, the villain sticks a sword through this guy's stomach and we suddenly cut to this stupid close-up shot of the blood dripping off the sword, as if we're supposed to believe it actually got pushed through his body. As for the computer-generated f/x...what the hell was that! They must've stole 'em off someone's screensaver!
If I have anything good to say, this film is good for a few laughs. Unintentional laughs, that is. They should've at least used a tongue-in-cheek approach. That way we can be laughing WITH them. And of course, if you wanna watch some good nude scenes that's a plus. But you can always save yourself the trouble and rent a flick from Surrender Cinema. That way you won't have to wear out the "Fast-Forward" control as much.
My score: 2 (out of 10)