Reviews

6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Infidus (2015)
1/10
De Santi goes arty-farty
21 March 2018
I liked craziness of "Adam Chaplin" and since some internet people praise this as the directors ultimate masterpiece so I was mildly excited. All I expected this to be zero budget gore flick (what it is) but sadly they tried to do something more with this.

You did read the plot so no spoilers here: Angry ex convict decides to take revenge on snuff video ring he used to work to. You can pretty much guess the rest. All fine and good by me so far but then the "arty" thing kicks in. Guess the creators of this movie noticed there is barely any script or dialogue for that matter and they had to stretch this thing as long as possible. If you enjoy 5 minute long scenes of somebody making coffee, pouring water,rolling a joint etc. mundane things in slow motion, you are up for a treat.

Then they got all crazy with after effects/filters. Whole film is shuttered, "Current time" is black and white, violent flashbacks are some kind or black and red, some scenes are bit of mess of both and plenty of pointless shots of woman standing at the beach and footprints on the beach (ugh..) that looks like coloured 8mm film. (Those beach scenes got nothing to do with the "plot". Guess they are supposed to be someone's dream sequences of some character but you can't tell which ones.)

Acting is acceptable. They make big number how they casted actual ex criminals as actors on this. Guess to make this "grim" and "authentic" They could have casted random people from the street since most of got zero or minimal amount of dialogue. Therefore there is not much to act if you don't have to talk or zero character building. Just stand around besides gore scenes and quite badly made fights.

Now about the gore why we watch *beep* like this at first place: There is couple good scenes, some laugh out loud bad and plenty of boring, mediacore, uncreative ones. Thing that annoying that these guys can do decent effects for the money mixing practical and digital effects but the mess with after effects and colours ruins some of them and some are so badly done you can't help but think these after effects are there just to hide them.

I hate to crap over indie flick but this was just frustrating: There is clearly some creative people behind this and potential to be actual movie. If only there was a proper plot, some character development, suspense perhaps a surprise, proper pacing... You know. Script. I can't remember last time yawning so hard trying to watch this without fast forward around 60 minutes (out of 70 something). This movie sure feels least two times longer than it is.
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Get Out (I) (2017)
1/10
"The 90th Academy Awards Nominee"
25 January 2018
SERIOUSLY?

Well you seen the trailer (even that is boring) and read the plot so no spoilers here. Premise is like typical MadTV skit. White woman wants to ko visit her parents with her black boyfriend. Wohoo. How is this going to turn out because all the whiteys are racists? Epic twist they seem to be all cool. Then another twist with some cult action, brainwashing hypnosis stuff and shitty jump scares. I watched this movie a week ago and can't honesty remember anything worth remembering. I like Peele and guess he tried to do some sort of social commentary with this flick but falls way flat trying that. In all all the "twists" are 100% predictable and the storyline is as "brilliant" as "the Wicker man". Acting is all the way acceptably average. Nothing spectacular there either. This is not "wicker man" bad. Just mediocre horror/thriller/comedy(?) you forget the second you walk out of theatre. My harsh 1 out of 10 rating is bit harsh just to knock down ridiculous 7.7 imdb score. And most importantly this movie got nominated for "Best Motion Picture of the Year" and "Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role". effin REALLY?! Oscars have totally lost all my respect. I actually laughed out when I saw this on their nominee list. Had to check calendar it's not april fools day. Obviously this forgettable flick with it's mediocre acting is there just got nominated because other movies don't have enough black people in them to avoid SJWs outrage. I don't care what race/sex/whatever the cast or director is if the movie is good, its good. This certainly isn't.
9 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Body Melt (1993)
5/10
Enjoyable aussie horror comedy.
15 December 2017
First off this is a bit hard one to review. I stumbled across this aussie flick just recently and decided to give it a shot since it came out around same time as Jackson's wonderful Bad Taste and braindead, so we know those aussies can deliver the goods.

Plot *NO SPOILERS* is bit of a mashup of Brian Yuzna's "society" and "texas chainsaw massacre". Technically very professionally made (cinematography, editing, gore and makeup effects etc.) And whole cast did decent job. Loved the musical score as well even it felt bit out of place at places.

The only things I disliked about this movie is that there is bit too many characters and subplots they could have gone without so this thing is bit all over the place at the times.

Like mentioned, creative gore effects are top notch but there is quite few (5-8 or something) of them and they feel like they could have gone way further with them and many of them feel they were cut short (yes I got the uncensored version). So people quoting this is "totally sick crazy gorefest" are making bit of a overstatement.

After all the build up I expected the last chapter to be just nuts because all the potential was there but it falls quite flat that was quite disappointing.

So this is not some forgotten splatter/horror/comedy gem it could have been. Not a classic you remember forever but not bad either you regret watching it so it's solid 3 out of 5 for me. (who needs 0 to 10 stars to rate a friggin movie).

Besides it's flaws it's still got bunch of laughs out of it so give it a shot if you find this somewhere. Or just for adorable early 90's nostalgia.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Absurd (1981)
1/10
How this could have been "video nasty"?
18 November 2017
Yet another Joe D'Amato stinker. As a huge fan of 70-80's horror/gore/sleaze flicks this was yet a another let down. Someone told me this is way better than over rated "Antropophagus" (just terrible), but I was fooled. There is no problem for me that script anyone could crank up in 30 minutes, mediocre acting, lack of cinematography or direction etc.

There are pointless scenes in this movie that drag forever or at least feel like that to drag this garbage around feature film length (you can watch poorly made surgery scene for 10 minutes and 15 minutes of some broad trying to figure out how to open a belt atc. filler that challenge you not to fast forward)

Like mentioned that is fine by me if there is proper gore for pay off. Nope. Unfortunately there is like 5-6 deaths on this "slasher" movie.Half off screen or aftermath. Couple death scenes try to be graphic butfx is truly terrible. (yes I watched the "superuncutcollectorseditionwhatever") Like topic says: how this couldbeen "video nasty". You see more red stuff in bottle of ketchup than onthis flick.

The biggest mystery for me is how Joe D'Amato managed to get some funding to crank out 10-20 movies per year. And oh boy does it show. Don't waste your time on this one. Some kids here praising this as an"brutal" or "disturbing" haven't seen nothing.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Legend and 3 hacks.
11 November 2017
First of all: This is not Stanhope special. He is mc, host whatever and still steals the show. First two "comedians" were something you could find on some open mic event at any town or just listening stories at your local pub. Cringe worthy at best. Just give up. Last one, Brendon Walsh, tried to salvage this mess being somewhat mediocre. SeeSo got tons of good stuff but this unfortunately is not and I'm huge stanhope fan but this is not worth to get the channel/service.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Void (I) (2016)
10/10
IMDb rating is just insulting.
21 July 2017
This is way better than I expected. Just watched this out randomly because it was mentioned on some list expecting some b (or lower) level trash. I was wrong.

NO SPOILERS: Storyline goes pretty much like John Carpenter's and Clive Barker's best work mashed together (and perhaps Fulci style surrealism blended in imo) Like assault to precinct 13+The Thing+Hellraiser with some Cthulhu references.

The Void does not quite get to the level of those masterpieces mentioned but effort is there. Just learned this was crowd funded project so whatever money they got, they used it well. Acting was acceptable, all the technical stuff professionally made and oh boy the effects: All the practical fx and monsters were truly disturbing and cgi was only used when needed.

Even though apparently small budget slightly shines through all the effort, it kinds of adds to it. Like some random flick that you picked up from video rental place randomly that appeared to be good instead of random b shlock.

Anyhow, every film student should watch this that it is possible to make decent movie without billion dollar budget.

Guess low rating is from people who don't know how proper horror movie should end.

Solid 3 out of 5 (plus 1 for effort) and 10 out of 10 for IMDb to make things right. Check it out.
22 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed