Reviews

I watched this specifically to see a cyborg dude with a super-stretched mechanical arm hold a guy in a radiation suit aloft by his throat, while cowering underneath them a rather voluptuous woman in another rad suit lay prone in a spotlight.

Sadly, this scene never occurred.

The easiest way to describe "Thundercrack!" to another person is to say it is a work of art more than film. Naturally, art is all interpretation; about how well the artist(s) conveys his/her imaginings, and if their patrons understand them; but ultimately, art is about expanding boundaries, many of which not only cultural but mental, and creating controversy or any kind of emotional response. Great artists are able to manipulate their patrons' feelings, and direct them towards whatever points s/he is trying to make without seeming overbearing or insistent, allowing the patrons to internalize the experience and arrive at their own conclusions. Mediocre artists tend to go for shock or disgust or outrage to make their points, and the results are always mixed.

Which is how I perceive this movie: mediocre. It is interesting to note that this film was released the same year as another micro-budgeted horror send-up, the superior "Rocky Horror Picture Show," a campy, loopy, delirious romp of faux sexuality and outrageous characters. While "Thundercrack!" has the same ham and cheese as "Rocky Horror" does, the former adds plenty of mayonnaise too.

Bottom line: it is a really tawdry, weird, surreal exploitation movie, unforgettable in its uniqueness but ultimately more about being unorthodox than understood.

The first of two cinematic collaborations between Sam Raimi and the Coen brothers ("The Hudsucker Proxy," on which Raimi was Second Unit Director, is the other), this hilarious movie could have, SHOULD have, been a lot funnier. The story behind why it ISN'T is just as wacky as the flick itself:

After the unexpected success of "Evil Dead" in 1982-'83, Embassy Pictures, which had released "Escape From New York," among others, contacted the young Sam Raimi about possibly directing a comedy written by two up-and-comers named Joel and Ethan Coen. Raimi read the riotous script and was eager to put it on film, keeping in close contact with the Coens so he could capture the zany spirit of the script intact. Operating on an extremely tight budget, and with constant interference from the studio, "The XYZ Murders" (the film's original title) was finished sometime in 1984 -- and promptly shelved. Never liking or understanding the humor of the movie, the executives at Embassy (being pressured to find a hit because the studio was floundering) told Raimi, "No, this is another one of your CULT movies, we don't WANT that." (These are not, by the way, my words; this is all from an interview in "Fangoria" Sam Raimi did in 1985 or '86. **EDIT 2018: the interview is in issue #64, 1987, page 33**) So, the studio, trying to keep afloat, re-edited the final cut of the movie, releasing it as "Crimewave." It did not, of course, work, as Embassy Pictures went bankrupt that same year, but not because of this film -- Embassy was finished long before they released this, actually.

If there was some way Raimi and the Coens could, I wish they would go back to this movie and either remake it or re-release it in its intended form. "Crimewave" was good, but you could tell it had been butchered (which gave it its uneven tone). In the "Fangoria" interview, Raimi confessed he regretted the way "The XYZ Murders" turned out -- so why not re-do it now that he can probably do anything he wants (thanks to the "Spider-Man" series)?

What a shame that a struggling movie studio took a great, unique, funny movie and turned it into a curiosity. I'm sure, as we all know, THAT never happens anymore.

I made the mistake of devoting some minutes I'll never live again to this garbage of a movie. I can't say bad enough things about it. The people who funded (which means they evidently rented a video camera and then attached it to the back of a wild animal, based on the tracking and POV shots) this travesty should be banned from ever making another film. Like Tom Hanks and "Bachelor Party," this is one you'll never see on an actor/actress' resume'. I enjoy bad movies, but even I can't recommend this, on ANY level: It's not campy, it's not witty, it's not even remotely entertaining. Skip over it if you see it on Starz (as I did), and don't spend your hard-earned money/time on it, either. I'm just trying to save you the trouble and pain.