Creature from the Haunted Sea (1961) review

(3/10)

     Creature from the Haunted Sea is one of the most infamously terrible horror movies with terrible performances, an indecisive plot and style, cheesy special effects and a lack of screentime for the so-called monster. The movie tries to parody so many different styles that it only ends up parodying itself in a mess that's so bad it's borderline hilarious.

PLOT: During a time where Cuba is in political turmoil, criminal Renzo Capetto (Anthony Carbone) makes a deal to transport a group of Cuban exiles out of the country while also taking some of the country's national treasure. Capetto plots while on the boat with American ex-agent Sparks Moran (Edward Wain) to kill the exiles and blame it on an apparent sea monster so he can keep all of the money for himself. However, things begin to go awry when a real sea monster shows up and starts terrorizing the crew. Capetto must escape the sea monster to get away with the riches and the girls he wants. The plot is a hot mess with abundant unnecessary twists and turns. It seems to focus too much on the comedy relief and attempts at satire and not enough on the horror aspect of the movie. So many characters, situations, and quirks were just random and un-called for making the plot of this movie an unbalanced and substantially dead mess.

ACTING: The performances in this movie were very amateur at best. None of the actors or actresses truly stood out or showed any real emotion. In fact, it becomes hilariously evident about halfway through the movie that even the actors have given up. It's like they knew the movie was terrible and just didn't want to even put effort into it anymore. These performances are the equivalent of grabbing some random people off the street and offering pay.

SCORE: The score in here was very quirky and unfitting for most of what this movie intended to be. The music in no way matches the mood of a super-spy flick or a horror movie.

EFFECTS/ANIMATION: The special effects for the creature were very cheesy at best, making the monster appear clearly fake and apparently thrown together. As terrifically cheesy as the monster's costume effects are, his appearance is somehow one of the most widely known of early black-and-white horror films. Maybe Creature from the Haunted Sea is just notorious for being cheesy and bad? In addition to the creature effects, there were some unnecessary animations at the beginning of the movie. They served no purpose, changed the whole tone of the movie, and mislead the viewer in many ways, from under-exaggerating the monster and over-exaggerating the action and comedy. One can start a pure comedy, family movie, or children's movie with light-hearted animations in the title credits, but a horror film? It just doesn't sound reasonable.

OTHER CONTENT: Creature from the Haunted Sea seemed to just not know what it wanted to be. As it begins, the audience is led to believe it's going to be a super-spy satire complete with laughs for all. As it progress, however, it seems to wander into the territory of goofy Gilligan's Island-style comedy and doesn't really touch upon the horror genre or the whole "creature" part until near the very end. Even if it did want to be a comedy or a satire, it should have focused only on that aspect and not try to take the movie in a dozen different directions. Cheesy horror genius Roger Corman has made some ridiculous cinema, but this one seems to be the most brainless and underdeveloped. The movie surely would have been much better had the makers scrapped most of the additional characters and plot twists and added more production value and maybe even more screentime for the monster which bears the movie's name.

     Roger Corman's Creature from the Haunted Sea is widely recognized among classic horror fans throughout the world, but in all reality one of the most terrible and cheesy ones the decade has to offer. The plot has too many unnecessary twists and can't choose which genre it really wants to follow, the special effects are cheesy to iconic excess, and the acting is hollow and ridiculously untalented. Save your time on something much funnier or much spookier, like an actual satire or an actual horror film.

Godzilla's Revenge (1971) review

(3/10)

   As with most older Godzilla movies, this addition to the franchise is not to be taken seriously. The plot twists, voice dubs, and overall motion of the movie is cheesy and laughably bad. However, with the older Godzilla movies, that is only to be expected. The traditional monster effects and monster fights were pretty entertaining to watch at the least.

PLOT: Young schoolboy Ichiro (Tomonori Yazaki) has been dealing with a couple pressing struggles in his school life, such as his parents always being busy and bullies teasing him on his way home from school. Ichiro also idolizes the monsters on Monster Island, including the great Godzilla. After a rough day at school, Ichiro takes a nap in his older friend's, toymaker Inami (Eisei Amamoto), office. While asleep, Ichiro fantasizes himself on Monster Island seeing the many monsters fight each other. He also meets in his dream Godzilla's son, Minilla, who is also dealing with bully troubles from the other monsters and he can't quite get brave enough to face them. Ichiro has these dreams constantly, encouraging him to be brave, and with the local bank robberies going on, that may be just what he needs to avoid danger. The plot is very juvenile, but if done right, might have been fun to work with. However, the execution of the plot was very poor, with awkward dialogue, the traditional, over-dramatized fight scenes, and unnecessary plot twists that make very little sense. Something could have been made out of this, but instead, it leaves its entertainment factor up to laughter.

ACTING: The performances in this movie, both physical performances and the voice dubs, were quite terrible. With unrealistic motions, unfitting voice dubs, and annoying performing vocals, the performances literally create the stereotype of the old Godzilla movies to be off-sync. There was no saving this section of the movie.

SCORE: The score, though unfitting, was actually quite nostalgic. It gave one the feeling of watching an old monster movie, which this was. I didn't have too much of a problem with the soundtrack/score.

EFFECTS: The special effects were cheesy, as usual, but not too awful. If you like Godzilla and its lore, then it would be satisfying to see all of the many monsters, no matter how unrealistic or cheesy the costumes may look. I thought the all of the monster effects were actually pretty good except for the costume for Minilla. Godzilla's son should have looked more threatening and a little less like a worn-out Barney costume. If Minilla wouldn't have been so lazily done, I would be completely satisfied with the visual effects category.

OTHER CONTENT: Everything about this movie proved that the generic Godzilla movie has bad voice-overs and cheap costumes. However, the one thing that inspired a bit of pure entertainment value from this movie was the many monster fights not including Minilla. It's always fun to watch Godzilla beating up another clueless monster, usually brutally to a pulp. This movie is laughably bad and fun to watch only as ridicule. If you're a die-hard Godzilla fan, maybe this movie would fit you. Otherwise, prepare for a terrible treat.

   Most Godzilla movies are cheesy and only entertaining for a laugh. This movie is no exception. Awkward, juvenile and cheesy are just a few words to describe the feel of this movie. Though pretty terrible, I would rewatch this movie just to laugh or to mindlessly drool over the Godzilla fight scenes. My only source of real hate in this movie: Minilla.

Boo (2005) review

(4/10)

   Looking back to when this first came out, I remember really enjoying this. However, age has proven me wrong again. There are still some instances of very creepy imagery and great jump scares, but bad acting, cheap effects, and a boring backstory put this movie into the bargain bin with the rest of the low-budget horror failures. This felt like a cheap haunted house at an obscure carnival.

PLOT: One Halloween night, a group of college students decide it'd be fun to set up a haunted house inside of an old mental hospital, which burned to the ground years ago. Everyone around the area knows, however, that the 3rd floor of the hospital is extremely haunted. Once the teens go in, they soon learn that there's no way out, for every the elevator only takes them to the 3rd floor and all of the doors are blocked. This isn't an ordinary ghost, however. The ghost of a former evil patient wants out, and he's willing to do whatever he can to get there. It's a decent plot but the execution is either hit-or-miss. Some scenes I enjoyed greatly as a horror fan. Other scenes, particularly during the backstory of the ghosts and the hospital, were greatly uneeded as well as cheesy and boring.



ACTING: The performances in this movie were quite terrible and inexperienced. Most, if not all, of the actors and actresses in this movie were either new or unheard of. No performances truly blew me away at all, but some were fairly decent, such as Arlo Ray Baines (formerly "Dynamite Jones") played by Dig Wayne and Jacob, the ghostly mental patient, played by M. Steven Felty. Honestly, Taylor Hurley played a better part as the ghost of the little girl than the majority of the people in this movie.

SCORE: The score in this movie is actually quite creepy. It's nothing too significant, but it definitely did what it was supposed to do. It set the mood for some of the creepy imagery the movie set up.

EFFECTS: The effects in this movie are just plain cheap. From the digital presence of the ghosts to the melting faces of the possessed, the effects just seem cheaply done. You feel like this is a low-budget movie. However, some of the effects were able to set a creepy mood. The deceased dog coming back to life and the editing effects of the ghosts moving actually helped set the mood, and I was fairly pleased.



MISC. THOUGHTS: The movie was more a fail than anything, but it succeeded in a couple things. A good bit of things in here helped set a truly creepy mood. The setting, a select few effects, and a couple mood-setting moments helped this come off as very creepy. Also, there were actually a few successful jump scares, if that's a thing someone could appreciate. Jump scares don't usually set a horror movie above the rest, but they actually worked in here a fraction of the time. Honestly, this had the potential to be a pretty good horror movie. However, bad acting, cheap effects, and a boring backstory that wasn't completely necessary made the movie just like every other generic, low-budget horror.

   This movie is filled with wasted potential. truly creepy imagery and working jump scares showed that this could have worked. However, actors pulled in from the street, unnecessary backstories, and effects from the dollar store muddled the good name this movie could have had. You don't have a ghost of a chance enjoying this movie to the full potential.

Hoboken Hollow (2006) review

(2/10)

   This low-budget, roadside horror had to be one of the worst I've seen. I didn't expect much from it to begin with, but when it promises to "scare the hell out of you", I expect it to at least give me a jump. Wooden performances, cheap effects, bad plot execution, and amateur editing show the true meaning of "low-budget" in a movie.

PLOT: In a small town area near the border of Texas, drifters tend to crowd to the highway, hitchhiking for a place to go. A small ranch nearby always seems to have their eyes on these drifters, however. We follow a small group of guys who get picked up by the owners of this ranch to work for a few days. However, they don't know that once they get "hired" to work on the ranch, they can never leave. The owners of this ranch, the Broderick family, shackle up the new "transients" and force them to work for food or succumb to drastic torture, such as abuse by cattle prod or hanging. However, the brains of the operation is kept hidden from the audience, with deals being made secretly within business and law to get land and make more cash. The plot itself wouldn't be so bad if it had more colorful and actually scary elements, but with the major execution, it just falls flat on its face.



ACTING: The performances in this movie are atrociously hollow and wooden. No actor or actress gives a performance memorable enough to be a realistic character. The writer/director of this film decides to use grotesque characters, including a half blind man, a disfigured woman, and a mentally ill main character, to give them some kind of significance. If it wasn't for the blatant physical traits on these characters, you wouldn't know exactly who was different from the other. I'm not even kidding when I say some performances are downright laughable. We do have some slightly notable minor performances, however, by Dennis Hopper and Robert Carradine. If we had more by them, it might have saved this movie by maybe one or a half rating. The only performance that I thought to have been fairly decent would be Rudolf Martin as Howie Beale. He played his part fairly well compared to the rest of the cast and the terrible script/screenwriting.

SCORE: The score wasn't anything too special. The score marked the changes in emotion and suspense, with some southern-sounding songs to set the mood. The score we hear in this movie is basically just the generic horror movie intense jump score.

EFFECTS: The effects in here were cheap and lame, to put it bluntly. The effects of the grotesque characters' appearances and the blood and gore were so cheaply done that the effects they meant to set off were only labeled as pathetic in my book. Literally speaking, there is a fake eyeball stuck on a stick, portrayed as the eye stalk. Along with that, the blood, severed limbs, and defects on the characters looked like something I could do for a Halloween party. Low budget is definitely squandered on this movie, because you can make low budget look good, as seen from Raimi's original Evil Dead films.

EDITING/CAMERA: The editing in this movie is cheap and well. It looked as if a teenager were put in charge of when to cut and how to transition. Often during the movie, we're faded out into a direct next scene, as if this were a television special on Sci-Fi or the like. Also, we're left with too many seconds of fade into black. The audience is left staring at nothing for a good portion of the time. If one is going to make a movie, one should at least make it look professional.



MISC. THOUGHTS: This movie actually would have had potential if the execution and screenwriting had been greatly revised and written with thought put into it. I could see this being a pretty decent horror movie if it had just been put into more professional hands or at least treated with greater professional manner. Not everybody can be a filmmaker, especially not a rich one. I will admit that the twist at the end did catch me off guard and satisfy me to an extent, but if the rest of the movie could just catch up to the one moment of clever plot it had, things might have worked out for Hoboken Hollow.

   This movie definitely was one of the worst in its genre I've seen, with the major plot execution failing, atrocious performances, generic horror movie score, lame, cheap special effects, amateur editing, and wasted potential. However, it got a few small things right and did actually have the potential to do something decent.

Wages of Sin (2006) review

(1/10)

Why I even bothered with this puzzles me. This is like one of the worst horror movies out there, but I just love to hate it.

PLOT:Sue Walker (Ashlie Clark) inherits a house deep in the country which her family used to own. She has no memory of the place after the time she spent in therapy. So, to check out the house, she takes her boyfriend, Ron (Brandon Michael), and a couple other friends of hers for the weekend. However, this house seems to have a bad reputation in the town she's in. When they arrive at the old house, memories start slowly coming back to Sue about what happened there: memories of a mentally-disturbed priest she used to be related to. Strange things happen to accompany that and disturb her and her friends. It's a decent plot executed horribly.



ACTING:The performances in this movie suck pretty horribly. No one really did a good job, but Ashlie Clark and Brandon Michael did a nearly-decent job of Sue and Ron. The other two sucked, especially Prentice Reedy. He was the worst actor in the whole movie. Billy St. John tried to play a reasonable part as the evil priest, but it ended up falling flat after a while.

SCORE:The score was interesting. It was repetative, but it wasn't horrible and fit the mood half of the time.

EFFECTS:The effects in here were terrible. They would have been better off with a tube of fake blood and Halloween decorations, which they may have used anyway.



OTHER CONTENT:This movie I only watched because it was given to me in a 4-pack as a gift. I didn't like it at all. The execution is lame along with everything else and the ending is terrible, too. However, I love to hate it. I can sit back and laugh at all of the flaws and treat it more as a comedy instead of a horror. It's like a Troll 2 or Plan 9 type of movie, where it's loved to be hated. I laugh at it rather than get scared.

OVERALL,a horrible horror movie with a horribly executed plot, sucky performances, interesting score, terrible effects, lame execution, and a terrible ending, but I love to hate it so much that I laugh at it.

Stephen King's It (1990) review

(6/10)

I previously read the novel before I watched this TV-movie adaptation of this intricate horror, and I have to admit that I am fairly disappointed at the resulats. It makes a fair attempt, but leaves out so much substance!

PLOT:In 1950s Derry, Maine, a group of seven friends bullied by the general crowd meet and join together for protection. However, there are strange things happening in this small town involving a lot of other children disappearing or getting killed. After a few scary incidents, the seven come to the conclusion that there IS a monster haunting Derry that sometimes takes the form of a clown named Pennywise (Tim Curry). However, the monster can really take any shape it wants to. They band together and "defeat" it in the sewers one day and swear to come back if it starts again. Now, in the 80s, Mike Hanlon (Tim Reid) calls up his friends to come back and face it, which include: Bill Denbrough, the novelist with a stutter (Richard Thomas), Ben Hanscom, the architect who lost some weight (John Ritter), Beverly Marsh, the woman with a good shot (Annette O'Toole), Richie Tozier, the smart-mouthed comedian (Harry Anderson), Eddie Kaspbrak, the asthmatic weakling (Dennis Christopher), and Stan Uris, the Jewish wonder (Richard Masur). They must now re-unite to kill the monster once and for all. It's an excellent plot executed poorly.



ACTING:The acting in here wasn't all that good, but it got the job done. It was alright. Tim Curry is the one who really stood at as Pennywise the Dancing Clown, a form of It. He played the monster well and showed the creature a good bit of honor. The lucky seven were played fairly good, in order from best-to-worst, by Richard Thomas as Bill Denbrough, Tim Reid as Mike Hanlon, Dennis Christopher as Eddie Kaspbrak, John Ritter as Ben Hanscom, Annette O'Toole as Beverly Marsh, Harry Anderson as Richie Tozier, and Richard Masur as Stan Uris. The child actors weren't so bad either, in particular Johnathan Brandis, Seth Green, and Emily Perkins as child Bill, Richie, and Beverly. The other shiner would be Olivia Hussey as Audra Denbrough.

SCORE:The score, being a TV-movie, was not very good overall. It was generic and tried too hard to fit the mood it was trying to convey.

EFFECTS:The effects are pretty good. The blood is bright, the claymation effects are interesting, and the creature effects are more than decent. The effects aren't the best, and a lot more could have been done if this were a theatrical film, but they were interesting.



OTHER CONTENT:This really disappointed me in terms of matching the novel. I knew that this, being a movie, wouldn't be exactly the same. You can tell this was made for TV because of the cheap quality of it. This cut out a whole lot of dialogue, important situations, and emotion that the novel had and switched several things around. If this had been released in a theatrical form, I believe this would have had more potential! Alas, it suffers from being a TV movie. However, there are still some good aspects about it. Aside from Tim Curry's acting and the good effects, this movie still had a good bit of scare and fright in it, along with the feeling of youth during the flashbacks. It used to keep me up at night when I was a kid, and now it still creeps me out. I never thought I could find a movie to make me scared of clowsn and spiders both at the same time! I appreciate what substance this did keep to the book and am proud of it for that. I also liked how the TV writers added some of their own flair to it that actually stuck and made it better, as did Kubrick to King's The Shining. Overall, it's a pretty okay horror movie.

OVERALL,an ok horror movie with an excellent plot, accomplishing acting, pretty good effects, a good bit of scare, a feeling of youth, some substance related to the novel, and some flair the writers added to the story that stuck, but the plot had execution problems, the score was generic, a whole chunk of the story was cut out, and it has an overall cheap feeling to it.

Prophecy (1979) review

(6/10)

This just screams B-movie and every essence of it, but the message, suspense, and effects just draw it to a near-win.

PLOT:Dr. Rob (Robert Foxworth) has never been remembered for anything he's done to help people, but his chance finally comes when a close friend asks him to go to a forest that's the subject matter of a war between the original Indians that have lived there for a long time and a leading paper mill that has been using the lake and other resources for about 20 years. He flies down there with his musician wife, Maggie (Talia Shire, who's character is also "secretly" pregnant), to bring some peace to the dispute, but things start to go weird when Rob catches rumors of unexplained deaths and sees bizarre sights (such as a fish the size of a boat). The Indian people also speak of an animal they've seen combined with all the others. Through a careful investigation, Rob discovers the paper mill is polluting the lake and the effects of the pollution are turning the local animals into monsters, including an angry, mutated bear. It's a good plot executed decently.



ACTING:The acting isn't great, but it does have some good performances. Robert Foxworth and Talia Shire play a respectable part as the two lead protagonists, Rob and Maggie. They were by far the stars of the show. The other shiners would be Victoria Racimo as Ramona and Richard Dysart as Isley. I don't believe Armand Assante played a very emotional part of the Indian lead protagonist, John Hawks. I believe he had about as much emotion as Kristen Stewart, and that's bad. His is the only real bad one, I'd say.

SCORE:The score wasn't really important. It was just some new, horror score that went with the mood. It didn't repeat itself as the likes of "Creature from the Black Lagoon" did, but it didn't play a major part.

EFFECTS:The effects are cheap, to say the least, but I also believe they are pretty well-made. The movements are easily labeled as cheaply done, but the design is still pretty freaky and unnerving as it is.

CAMERAWORK:I actually appreciated the camerawork in this movie, for it was closely-cut and very tongue-in-cheek with its style. I liked it.



OTHER CONTENT:This is basically just a shlock 70s B-movie, but it isn't the worst you'll ever see. Aside from the decent leads and freaky costume design, the movie also sent a sad message and packed a lot of suspense. The message this movie sent off was to save the environment and stop pollution, and I'd say it succeeded in delivering that message through scares and tears. It's actually kind of sad when you think about it. Also, the director (John Frankenheimer) is said to be a very good suspense creator, and this movie shows it. There are a couple parts in this movie where the suspense can almost be cut with a knife, and I appreciate that. However, this movie does have a lot of cons to its few pros. The movie itself is very cheesy and almost laughable. There were a few scenes I found myself chuckling at the shlockiness of it all, but it's not the worst B-movie you'll ever see. Yes, it's still pretty bad, but it does have some positive aspects to it, if you seek to find them. I got chills.

OVERALL,an ok B-movie with a decent plot, some good performances, unimportant score, cheaply unnerving effects, closely-cut camerawork, a good message, and plenty of suspense, but it was very cheesy and very laughable; if one were to fail to find the good aspects in it, this would just be a bad movie altogether.

Salvage (2005) review

(1/10)

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother with these independent, low-budget horrors. Almost none of them are good anymore.

PLOT:Claire Parker (Lauren Currie Lewis) is a normal, 19-year-old girl. She works as a night clerk at a convenience store, goes to school in religious study, can't drive, lives with her mother, and has a jerky boyfriend (Cody Darbe) who works down at the salvage yard. One day, when Claire's waiting for her boyfriend to come and get her from the store, a strange man named Duke (Chris Ferry) pulls up in her boyfriend's truck. She reluctantly accepts the ride, but this guy starts to give her the creeps. When she gets home, she locks herself in her house, but Duke tries to get in to return an earring she "left" in the truck. After a brief argument, he sets it down and goes away. Everything's back to normal until Claire notices that she forgot to lock the back door. In a scramble, Duke sneaks up behind her, knocks her down, and drags her into the basement. We then cut to the next morning at the store; Claire believes it all to be a dream. However, each day starts to go the same and she keeps having visions of this Duke guy killing her and her boyfriend. Little does she know, she's reliving a memory. It's a decent idea for a plot executed horribly.



ACTING:The acting in here was purely terrible. Every performance was overracted as it seemed. Lauren C. Lewis' acting sucked, but she looked great. I think she would have worked better as a model than an actress. As for the other two leads, they sucked as well. However, a few of the minor characters did a decent job, such as the male convience store clerk.

SCORE:The score was just generic. It sounded like it tried to copy and mesh that of other horror films altogether. For example (I know it's not a horror), I could sense a mockery being made of the theme from "Eyes Wide Shut" in one scene. The score? Truly generic.

EFFECTS:The effects were pretty bad as well. It looked just like strawberry jello spread all over the place. It aggrivates me when even a low-budget movie can't even get the effects right.



OTHER CONTENT:This movie's formula is that of a psychological horror. The twist in it not only doesn't make sense, but is muddled and confused within the whole generic-horror formula. There's almost nothing good about this movie except for the couple minor characters and the humor. This supposed horror movie actually had a few clever jokes intertwined with in the failed terror. The right word to describe this movie is either terrible or horrible.

OVERALL,a horrible psychological horror with a horribly executed plot, terrible acting, generic horror score, pretty bad effects, an illogical and confused twist, and failed scares, but there were a few decent minor roles and a few clever jokes snuck in.

Mortuary (2005) review

(3/10)

Tobe Hooper gave us two really great horror films, but in his more modern attempt, he gave us something really bad.

PLOT:A small family that has just experienced a loss moves to a new town and into what used to be the Fowler Funeral Home as a job opportunity. As the family is looking around, they notice the house is disgusting with an overflowing septic tank and mold growing on the walls. Things go normal for a while until the son, Jonathan (Dan Byrd) finds out about the legend of the inhabitants that used to live there, and how they tortured their son, poor Bobby Fowler. They say he's still alive today and roaming through the grave yard, not to mention there are weird things starting to happen already. Also, the fungus that has been growing on the walls has been becoming more lively and widespread these days. Are these two connected? What will happen? I'll leave you there. It's an interesting plot executed horribly.



ACTING:The acting for the main characters was actually pretty good, but all minor characters sucked big time. The shiners were Dan Byrd as Jonathan Doyle, Denise Crosby as Leslie Doyle, Stephanie Patton as Jamie Doyle, and Lee Garlington as Rita with an honorable mention to Courtney Peldon as Tina. Byrd might actually have a future in acting, for he was pretty good. Though Patton was just a little girl, she acted pretty well. Everyone else sucked horribly.

SCORE:The score was nothing special. It was just generic horror-score.

EFFECTS:The effects were ok. I've seen tons better, but they weren't the worst I've ever seen. Half is done with computer and half with make-up and props. Most of the props looked like Halloween decorations out of a bargain bin, but the make-up and computer effects actually looked pretty cool at times. At others, they looked cheap, but it wasn't the worst I've honestly seen.



OTHER CONTENT:If you don't know the great horror director Tobe Hooper, he's the one who gave us "The Texas Chainsaw Masssacre (1975)" and "Poltergeist". With these two fine films under his belt, you'd expect this to be great. Alas, this movie is real bad. Besides the acting and plot execution, all the twists are cheesy, the storyline is often rushed and jumbled up, and the ending is illogical and a true downer. Hooper must have somewhere in between lost his mind. This isn't all bad, however. Besides the worthy performances and the effects that weren't totally squandered, this might have worked as one of two things: a book or an attraction. The story would probably sound better on pages than it would look on-screen. I even had a few ideas. It also could have worked as a haunted attraction with all the Halloween decorations, hidden passages, and chasing zombies. Yet, this movie could not be passed off as a zombie film by far.

OVERALL,a bad horror movie with a horribly executed plot, sucjy acting for the minor characters, generic horror score, ok effects, cheesy twists, a jumbled storyline, and an illogical downer ending, but the main characters were acted rather well, and this might have worked as a book or attraction.

Live Animals (2008) review

(2/10)

Just another, twisted, low-budget, Saw-wannabe that isn't even good.

PLOT:A group of teens go out partying at the lake and are suddenly ambushed and tranquelized in the night. When they wake up, they find themselves in a stable chained to the wall. As it turns out, an evil livestock baron (John Still) has captured them and is planning on selling them in the human-trafficing business to the white trade, like cattle on a farm. It's an interesting horror plot executed horribly.

ACTING:The acting in here was purely mediocre. I could hardly believe anyone's screams or terror. The only actors that I believe did a pretty good job are John Still as the livestock baron and Christian Walker as the main guy character. No, names do not seem to matter that much in here.

SCORE:The score was mainly to set the mood, but it was more dramatic, so it wasn't terrible. I liked it a little bit.

EFFECTS:They could have paid ME to use better effects than they did in here. Each bit of blood and gore was cheap and over-the-top and NOT in a good way. They made a simple cut look like a rotten burn. The low-budget feel in here is VERY easy to see..

CAMERAWORK:I have two things to say about the camerawork, and they're a bit more constructive. They got some good shots and angles in here, but the camera's own quality was so low everything looked digital and lagged. If you're going to be artistic and attempt to capture some good angles, at least use a camera fit for the job.

OTHER CONTENT:This low-budget, indie horror is just another "Saw" mock-up with a different plot to make it seem new. There's hardly anything good about this movie except a couple performances and the plot idea. Besides all I've named, it's also pointless, has no character development whatsoever, steps over the line of horror by killing off a young child, and has just stupidly cheesy twists. This is definitely just a regular, wannabe indie movie.

OVERALL,a sucky indie horror with a interesting but horribly-executed plot, mainly mediocre acting, dramatic score, cheaply overdone effects, good shots yet bad camera quality, pointless violence, no character development, a step too far over the line of horror, and stupid twists.

Day of the Dead (2007) review

(1/10)

If it had not been a gift from a secret santa, I wouldn't have watched it.

PLOT:In a Leadville, Colorado, a virues has broken out where a parasite infects the brain and turns the infected into flesh-eating zombies. Now it's up to a socially-awkward teenager (Michael Welch), his jittery girlfriend (AnnaLynne McCord), a tough-as-nails military officer (Mena Suvari), and a comically-influenced soldier (Nick Cannon) to warn others, put an end to it all, and get out alive. It's a very interesting zombie set-up, but it's executed very crudely.

ACTING:This had to be the worst part of the movie. Suvari couldn't get any emotion expressed, McCord was a bland character, and Welch played a typical character. Cannon I cannot even go into how bad he was. He mainly was the comic relief, but the whole movie stole his job.



SCORE:Typical horror jump-score. Nothing impressive.

EFFECTS:This is the second worst part of the film. The effects are either digital effects that appear out-of-place or make-up effects that look like strawberry jello and pizza. This failed pathetically at the realistic factor and horribly at the entertainment factor.



OTHER CONTENT:Where do I begin? This movie is supposed to be a remake based off of Romero's "Day of the Dead", which it is, but it can't even capture a bit of the terror and cult following the original received in here. It tries to recreate some of the iconic scenes from the movie, but it puts it to shame and only angers me by how they actually tried to copy them scene-by-scene. Secondly, the zombies in the original are typical yet ferocious, wherever these are ferocious and overdone to the point of trying to hard. This movie's so suckily done that even the combat scenes fail. They switch the camera angles so much during combat that you can barely tell what's happening and all the "cool stuff" is lost in translation. I don't even think I should mention the plot twists. The plot twists are so ridiculously written that it couldn't even entertain a simpleton. The only thing that made this movie worthwile was that everything was fun to laugh at. The movie itself, as I said before, turns into a huge comedy relief.

OVERALL,a horrible movie with a crudely executed plot, emotionless and typical acting, jump score, failing effects, failure at trying to re-vamp Romero, overdone zombies, failing combat scenes, and ridiculous plot twists, but it's fun to laugh at.