Terror in the Tropics (Video 2006) Poster

(2006 Video)

User Reviews

Review this title
8 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
Modern attempt at Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid is an okay knowing comedy but where Plaid was mostly old footage, this is mostly new
dbborroughs5 February 2006
I had a bit of hope for this hour long film made up of footage from old Poverty Row movies. Certainly it had the possibility to seem like more than a home video mass marketed to the world. Unfortunately while funny this movie still feels like a home movie, but with stock footage spliced in.

The plot concerns the planned reading of a will on a liner at midnight somewhere in the tropics. The ship sinks and well...thats the movie.

The film promises Karloff, Lugosi, Chaney and others being lifted from old movies to interact with new footage. We get that alright, but mostly we get lots of new video footage made to look like scratchy black and white film, in which new actors prance about. Old footage is inter-cut mostly to set the scene, but very little of the old and new actually matches so its clearly just a put on. Its not very convincing and is very disappointing for someone like me was looking for a better constructed film.

Still if you know and love the old Poverty Row films, (its very spoofy) this might be worth a viewing. I would warn against buying this but it can be had for about five bucks, the price of a rental) so the choice is yours (Though if you can get away with not paying for it do so).

Disappointing.
9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
terror of acting
vampi19606 October 2006
being a fan of Bela Lugosi,Boris Karloff,and Lon Chaney Jr i had to see this.what tripe the only thing good about this is the clips of Lugosi,Karloff and Chaney Jr.along with all the vintage clips,that do not gel with the new black and white footage.not even close to Steve martins dead men don't wear plaid,that was done great.with all the technology we have now why was'nt this done better?if you are planning to shell out 5 bucks and some change,be warned this is really bad. but if you like Lugosi Karloff and Chaney Jr then watch their movies instead.even ed wood did better then this one.new actor mark redfield is pretty good as an imitation Bela Lugosi.the clips they use are; the ape,Mr Wong,most dangerous game,lost world,indestructible man. and devil bat.that notorious Bela Lugosi classic.i believe this production was very low budget,and it shows.1 out of 10.
12 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
You got to be kidding
connema7 April 2006
Take it from me as a camera man who worked for Republic Studios from 1946 to 1950 and then Warners Bros and Paramount from 1950 to 1993, this is a piece of crap. Sure it would be great to show it to your favorite friends at a house party but to try to sell this on a DVD is absolutely ridicious.

I have seen bad acting in my day but this is NO acting. The hero is almost laughable and he really thinks he is something judging from his comments on the specials. I hate to see his fan club. The old films did not jive with the action in many of the scenes. What the hell was that garden scene with three of worst actresses. I never seen a garden on a ship. They could not even emote. I would not mind it if they could have once ounce of acting but the only one was the guy with the Translvanian accent. I am sorry but this is not a clever film as some persons are stating. I would think horror film buffs would be insulted by this piece of film.
16 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Terrible! Horrible! Unwatchable Garbage!
reelthoughts28 May 2006
This isn't "so bad it's good"--It's "so bad, it violates the Geneva Convention's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment"! Only by reading the Synopsis can you even figure out the "plot" of this Straight to Video disaster. It's a hodge-podge of grainy stock footage spliced together with some of the all-time worst acting you'll ever have the misfortune to see. Comparing this incompetent, turgid, humorless mess to "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid" is like saying that "Gigli" is like "Citizen Kane". The talentless cast are costumed in cheap, J.C. Penney "Goin' to Church" clothes, and there isn't the slightest attempt at period hairstyles or make-up. If you really want to see how this sort of "homage" can work, check out "The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra"--It's clever, well-written, and best of all, performed by actual actors who aren't such agony to watch. For that matter, seek out the work of Phoenix artist Paul Wilson whose Sci-Fi short "The Attack of the 70 foot Courtesy Lady" leaves this film in the dust. The people in Terror In the Tropics look and sound like they were pulled off the street and given their scripts to read during the one and only take. This is an insult to Bela Lugosi, Boris Karloff, Lon Chaney, and anyone else involved in the films they cannibalized to make this schlock-fest! Money isn't the problem--A lot can be accomplished with very little expense. A good script, decent actors, and above Z-Grade costumes and production design should have been a given before the so-called director created this stinky pile of cinematic offal. Let's hope the "promise" of a sequel doesn't come true--That was by far the scariest thing shown in the whole movie!!
11 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Be Warned! A Real Disappointment Except for the Lecture!
Chance2000esl6 May 2006
Problems: 1) Although billed as "a loving tribute to Poverty Row," a lot of the old footage is not even from Poverty Row films-- much of it is from RKO's "The Most Dangerous Game," (1932), with some from the silent (!?) version of "The Lost World" (1926)!

2) Much of the old footage is just used as filler (the old shipboard footage) or as silent shots (for example, of Bela walking, looking or staring) often repeated;

3) Where is the pantheon of Poverty Row Master Thespians (Bela, Boris, Lon Chaney, Jr., George Zucco, John Carradine, Buster Crabbe, Tom Neal, etc.) emoting their lines as punch lines to the 'new' characters jokes (as in Woody Allen's "What's Up Tiger Lily?" or Steve Martin's "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid")? Even Mike Nelson's feeble commentary on the colorized "Reefer Madness" is funnier than this.

High Point: The long but extremely enlightening lecture by Gregory Mank which makes you give new respect to and admiration for Bela, John Carradine and George Zucco. That's worth the price of the DVD alone!
9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
I couldn't watch more than 10 minutes
Tipster1 June 2006
What a waste of time. I got about five minutes into it and became *very* antsy, and was soon fast-forwarding a bit, and pretty soon the desire to take my thumb OFF the fast-forward button was nonexistent. Actors Mark Redfield and Barry Murphy did very capable jobs, I thought, but no one else I saw gave anything like a good performance. Again, take this review with a large grain of salt because the movie was just so unbearable I couldn't make it to the end. Heck, I couldn't make it to the MIDDLE !!

I find myself unable to submit this review because it isn't long enough. Maybe this last sentence will put it over the top.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Amateur Filmmakers Add Stock Footage For Awful Film!
christopher_greenleaf31 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Note: There is an incredibly fawning and unbelievable review from a user who calls him/herself 'Son of Cathode' who claims that this piece of dog excrement is a "Merry, Mini Masterpiece" or some such thing! He also claims that this film is being unfavorably compared to 'Final Destination.' If 'Son of Cathode' had actually READ the review which mentions 'Final Destination,' he'd realize that the only comparison made was pointing out that the characters use the last names of famous actors/directors and that was done in 'Final Destination.' That is THE ONLY COMPARISON made between the two films. Nowhere was "budget or anything else ever mentioned! He then goes on to describe this ABSOLUE GARBAGE as a work of art made by "filmmakers." This wasn't a piece of art, it's a piece of something else. And these people are NOT filmmakers, they are talentless, pretentious hacks!!! This film is ONLY enjoyable if you like very, very, bad poverty row, public domain films from the first half of the 20th century, or are a fan of amateur film-making. The film splices together public domain thrillers together along with newly shot scenes in which the "actors" (With the sole exception of Redfield doing a near dead on Lugosi rip, all of the "performers" are simply dreadful!) attempt to interact with the stock footage. The "New" footage is covered with digitally added film scratches, as is some of the already substandard old footage (??!!). As near as I can figure out the plot has something to do with a bunch of strangers being brought together on an island for a will reading(?) This film, while boasting a creative premise ala 'Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid', is a technical and creative wreck. In one dreadfully over long sequence and injured sailor on a ship describes an abortive trip to 'Fog Island', whatever that is! The "flashback" then incoherently weaves together old footage from totally different eras, and of totally disparate film quality. Unrelated scenes from 'The Lost World' (1925), The Most Dangerous Game (1932), White Zombie (1932), Bela Lugosi Meets A Brooklyn Gorilla (1952) and some other poverty row productions. This is done over an incredibly bad voice over which seems to have too much room echo as if the audio was recorded on a cheap home video camera.

The "filmmakers" seem to think that they are paying homage to the great actors of yesteryear by giving characters the surnames of famous actors (Carradine, Zucco, Ouspenskaya, etc..etc..). This tactic was done cleverly, as well as subtly in 'Final Destination' here it's just obnoxious! Bizarre, and painfully unfunny, jokes about Spiderman, Dracula, and Superman abound. Even the old as dirt 'Dewey, Cheetam and Howe' lawyer reference is used here-this was old and tired when The Three Stooges used it in the 1930s.

The film stock and audio, don't match scene to scene, and dozens of different sources are used for Lugosi. The finale effect is that he seems to be getting, older, younger, older, thinner, heavier, younger and older again minute by minute. Oddly the film didn't use this as a comedy subplot and squanders a good chance for comedy.

Truth be told though, It was great fun to watch this late at night in bed. Maybe thats what they wanted to happen!
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
All around funny parody on 1930's horror
Chadsymptom28 February 2006
I was in this movie and not only was it a blast to work on, but it was quite hilarious to watch. The more you know about vintage Universal and Hammer horror, the more you will laugh about this movie that points out the ridiculous clichés of the time. If you can get a copy, I recommend watching it. For a movie that was filmed in the house of the producer/director/editor Sue Svehla, the quality and sound are surprisingly accurate. The black and white along with the crackling screen effect add to the validity of a 30's horror flick. The acting is good for a bunch of amateurs that are the producer's friends with whom I regularly watch football. There are some professional actors in the mix like the ever-smooth Mark Redfield. He conjures the 1930's villain spirit with total expertise. On the other hand, I played the newsboy at the beginning of the film and needless to say it was not a good performance. Anyway, it's only 57 minutes and it will have you chuckling at the least.
0 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed