Change Your Image
sandy-31776
Reviews
The Mad Monster (1942)
Getting the right cast clearly makes a difference.
So this is an old super-cheap movie made explicitly to show alongside some other, more desirable title. In other words, a B movie. They were filmed in about 6 days or so, and on the cheap. And this show oozes poverty. The forest set looks like it's about 12 feet across, and when the actors have to do an outdoor scene, they are clearly cramped for space. Though I assume it's in the deep south (why else have Spanish moss hanging from the trees), everyone has California accents. Also they can only afford one scene using dissolves to show their monster changing from human to beast. Every other time it's off screen. My favorite is when the guy slumps over with a big floppy hat on, and then the camera cuts away, and then when it returns, he looks up and *surprise!" it's the monster. Wow.
It's quite weak-sauce for a monster too. If not for his two rather small protruding fangs, he could be easily mistaken for the homeless dude who sleeps under that bridge you commute past. Yeah he has hair on his face, but it is literally a beard and sideburns. I guarantee you had a shaggier roommate in college. Ah well. He does snarl and act kind of mean. He's advertised as a creature that "doesn't fear death" so would make the perfect soldier, but he is cowed by an old man (Zucco) with a rather small whip so I was underwhelmed. I did like that Zucco plugged the patriotic angle saying that he could use an army of these fearless beast-men to defeat the Axis. After all it's filmed during WW2, and during a period in which the Allies were absolutely NOT winning.
The Mad Monster features George Zucco as the mad scientist, and he's not bad, if rather over the top. Doesn't hold a candle to Bela Lugosi, Boris Karloff, or Colin Clive of course, but at least he is able to laugh evilly. Even though he has a LOT more screen time than the supposed hero Johnny Downs, he gets second billing.
The "monster" is Glenn Strange, a cowboy actor who is today most famous for playing the Frankenstein monster in three movies. And to be fair, he does have the physique and facial structure to be a good monster, at least in looks. Unfortunately, he plays his supposed "wolf-man" in this film just like the Frankenstein monster. He lumbers through the woods like some kind of golem. Makes me long for the skills of Lon Chaney Jr. Who is also a big, fleshy guy, but when he is the Wolfman, Chaney is hunched over, snarly, fast-moving, and bops around the screen like he's agile. Quite a contrast to Strange's ungainly and slow-moving beast-man.
The supposed hero contributes almost nothing to the plot line, and only shows up halfway through. Ah well, I guess the mad doctor's daughter needed someone to take her away at the end.
Is it worth watching? Sure. It has some virtues. There is a scene near the beginning that has to be seen to be believed - in which the mad doctor engages in an arguments with figments of his imagination, and LOSES! His imaginary foes make cogent points. I really liked this part. What a maroon.
There is also the obliging nature of the doctor's victims - they're willing to inject Glenn Strange by themselves in a closed room to prove the doctor's theories wrong.
Also Glenn Strange clearly wants to be Lon Chaney Jr. In this, going so far as to try to act just like Lenny, Chaney's famous role in Of Mice and Men. But without quite as much pathos.
"Yes" I hear you say. "But all of those are reasons the movie is bad though possibly fun. Isn't there any aspect of it that is legitimately good?" Yes indeed the greatest of all reasons for any bad movie. It's only 77 minutes long, so does not outstay its welcome. Man alive I wish modern garbage (such as The Lone Ranger) only lasted 77 minutes. I can but dream.
Monster a Go-Go (1965)
So bad it made an enemy when I showed it to a friend
Monster a go-go is a frankenstein monster of a movie. But this alone doesn't make it horrible. No, indeed, the acting, editing, cinematography, direction, and script all work together in the worst possible way.
The "monster" is visible for maybe 30 seconds of cinema, so choppily shot that only a narrator can kinda sorta half-assed explain what was going on. The plot makes no sense, and the special effects are risible. To name one example, the crashed space capsule is about 5 feet high and made of paper mache. The "monster" who emerged from it is supposedly 8 feet tall. How did he fit into it? In pieces?
But the real anti-genius of this movie is that it is the absolute worst ending of all time for ANY movie. The WORST. And I've seen Robot Monster, The Wizard of Gore, Jaws IV, and the finale of Dexter. Monster a Go-Go beats 'em all.
It's the ending so terrible it took not one but TWO of the worst directors of all time to construct. By all evidence, H. G. Lewis was proud of his ending, which says a lot about his chops as a film maker.
I showed it to my son-in-law and while he was restive during most of the film, at the ending, he got angry and shouted imprecations at me. Later on he e-mailed me saying that he didn't want to do a discussed business deal with me after all. Because of Monster a Go-Go. I did manage to get back into his good graces by showing him Sisu, though.
And this son-in-law even survived Clownado. But Monster a Go-Go was too much. Please take this as a warning, not a challenge.
Quatermass and the Pit (1967)
Best Science Fiction movie of the 60s.
I'm not saying it wasn't surpassed later on but in my opinion this is actually the most thoughtful, most interesting science fiction movie of the decade. Said decade being the 1960s. Amazingly it was filmed in Britain instead of the USA or Japan. (No offense, if you're British.)
It covers such incredible concepts as where does humanity come from? How could aliens invade earth - wouldn't our atmosphere, pressure, etc. Be so different as to make this impossible? Why are we here? What is our purpose? And can we evade that purpose?
The actors are all quite good. I know some folks complain because Professor Quatermass isn't played by the same actor as in the first two movies, but really who cares as long as he walks the walk? And James Donald is terrific. He reminds me of Michael Gough quite a bit in terms of appearance and talent.
The special effects are poverty-row, but sufficient for what is needed - the director intelligently doesn't reach further than he can grasp. And Nigel Kneale, who is hands-down the best science fiction screenwriter of all time. (For those who are curious, I'd rank Curt Siodmak as the second-best so if you know Siodmak's work you can tell how highly I rate Kneale.)
The Green Slime (1968)
Everything about this is great
This was kinda sorta the last movie in the Italian Gamma One series. It is also one of the most entertaining science fiction movies ever made, and I recommend it without reservation.
Goofy monsters? Check.
Amazing theme song earworm? Check (listen to it on Youtube if you have doubts).
Fun actors? Check (Richard Jaeckel who is ALWAYS a treat).
Plenty of deaths and gore? Check.
Hilarious miniatures for the space stuff? Check.
It's got it all. If you haven't seen this masterpiece I envy you, because you are about to enter upon an incredible voyage.
"Something screaming 'cross your mind ...THE GREEN SLIME!"
Blood Feast (1963)
It's as bad as you've heard.
Okay first off, I really really like this movie. But I am not blind to its flaws.
Let me lay them out. The cinematography is terrible. It's badly lit. The actors are laughably bad - worse than a community theater. The sets are obviously fake and pitiful. The "gore" effects are clearly purchased from a local slaughterhouse. The goddess Ishtar is literally a plastic mannequin in a robe.
Let me sum up how awful this film is in one scene. The evil killer has a bad limp (it's his "signature"). He is running across a field, away from two young, fit, police officers. The officers are, unsurprisingly faster, and soon catch up to him. But Director H. G. Lewis didn't want them to catch the villain. So he told the actors playing the police in no uncertain terms. "Don't catch up with him. He needs to get away." However, these actors were so stupid and/or incompetent, they kept catching up to the villain despite their instructions.
So in the film you see the police almost reaching the bad guy. Then there's a cut, and then you see them far away, running towards him again, and almost catching up. Then there's another cut ... etc. Lewis couldn't get the actors to do as they were told, so he just kept cutting and refilming till he had enough of the chase scene.
Now THAT'S entertainment. Also that's not even the most egregious case of bad film-making in this treat. Watch it and see for yourself.
Nosferatu - Phantom der Nacht (1979)
A treat and a pleasure to watch
I got to see this in the theater when it was released. It's really just a remake of the greatest vampire movie of all time, the original F. W. Murnau Nosferatu. This remake is pretty close to the original in quality. After all, Werner Herzog and Klaus Kinski are a dream team.
When I went to see it I was concerned that changing it to color would ruin the chiarascuro or ominous mood, but Herzog is SO GOOD in his cinematography that he managed to keep the feel and look. Really this is a magnificent vampire movie and at least a candidate for the second-best ever filmed. After the original. For some people it might even be better. Check it out.
The Tomb (2007)
Yes it's bad
Look. I am (1) a huge Lovecraft fan, and (2) a huge fan of entertaining bad movies. I loved Blood Feast, Curse of Bigfoot, and The Room.
You'd think that The Tomb, combining Lovecraft and bad movies would be perfect for me. The problem is twofold. First, it's not a Lovecraft movie in any way. It is no more Lovecraft than any randomly-chosen Steven Seagal epic. Second, while it is indeed bad, it is not "entertainingly" bad. I sought diligently for the first 20-30 minutes hoping to find something at least mildly interesting, but was completely foiled. Nothing was able to hold my interest, unless you count my sticking with the film till the end in the vain hope that SOMETHING interesting would happen.
I wish future me could go back in time and tell former me not to buy this movie. Or even go back further in time and somehow keep Uli Lommel from making this movie in the first place.
Curse of Bigfoot (1975)
How to Watch Curse of Bigfoot
Okay I know I rated it "1", but that's only for quality. For entertainment, it's easily 8+.
Here is what to do with this hidden gem of a movie. First, watch it yourself, with someone else. WARNING: DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE ALONE. Once you realize just how terrible awful no-good very bad this thing is, you are now prepared to do it justice.
Find a group of friends. Don't tell them much about the movie. Sit back with popcorn, soda, and a free evening ahead of you. Begin watching. Now, since YOU have already seen Curse of Bigfoot you don't need to watch it closely again. Instead, watch your friends, who are fresh Curse of Bigfoot "virgins". This is the show that you will be entertained by.
Watch your friends go through the stages of grief.
First, of course Shock as they are amazed by the endless inept prologues.
Second, Denial that any movie could be so terrible. Surely they won't show the dog drink the ENTIRE bowl of milk? Why would they? Why ARE they?! Argh.
Third: Anger - with luck they'll direct the anger at the film-makers, not you. What a sham they'll think.
Fourth: Bargaining - Hey, your friends ask, "Can we see Big Trouble in Little China instead? Or Troll 2? Or ANYTHING else? I'll pay for the pizza? I'll buy you a six-pack?" Don't give in. Force them to suffer through Curse of Bigfoot, all the way.
Fifth: Depression - this won't last too long. They'll sit there glumly staring at the film's idiocy, but then the film will do something REALLY idiotic and spur them back into action.,
Six: Acceptance: This is it. It's not getting better. Point out it ends in an awesome fizzle of a bang. Remind them that we were promised at the movie's start that several of the college kids were permanently institutionalized. Ask your friends which of the kids they think were institutionalized.
To rub it in, you can point out that there is neither a Curse nor a Bigfoot in the movie. If anyone is still grouchy, make a brief trip to the backyard, then return and give Mr. Grumpy some "genuine native American prayer sticks" (if you've seen the movie, you'll know).
But by now, your friends are part of the cult. When they look at you with reproach, tell them that now they can show Curse of Bigfoot to some new unsuspecting victims, and they should perk up a lot.
This is a movie that everyone should see, because it sets the bar. The lower bar, that is. Literally everything you see after Curse of Bigfoot will be better-written, better-filmed, and better-acted. But not more entertaining.
Better than Twilight.
AM1200 (2008)
Lovecraft done right
Terrific actors, an ominous start, an interesting antihero, and a story that keeps getting darker and more threatening.
First rate dialogue as well, though it is not a dialogue-heavy film.
I loved everything about this ,and recommend it to any Lovecraft or just horror writer.
Bad Black (2016)
genuinely good
Yes I know half the fun is the terrible special effects, the amateurish acting, and the fake guns. But damn it this movie and the actors have HEART! And it exudes all over the screen. The joy they took in making this film is palpable and infectious and the ubiquitous VJ Emmie is as always a treat. It's like watching a fun movie with your best friend.
Hong hai xing dong (2018)
Lots of action, at least
If you are interested in a fair war movie with tons of action, lots of interesting military equipment, and some gore, this is for you.
There is a pretty huge cast of characters, and since most wear drab clothing or military uniforms it is not always easy to keep them separate, but on the other hand you can just remember Chinese = Good and keep it straight.
The Chinese military is portrayed as high tech which I guess is fair, because this isn't their military as a whole but a small elite group. Special effects are quite good and some aspects of warfare are gotten right, which are often bungled by western war movies. For instance, a mortar attack is portrayed as the consuming terror that it is rather than a bunch of bloodless explosions.
The gore is pretty shocking when it occurs (limbs blown off, etc.) but it is also not focused on. I quite enjoyed it.
28 panfilovtsev (2016)
Not my favorite Russian war movie, but eminently watchable
So first mentioning the elephant in the room - it's now generally believed that the tale of Panfilov's 28 was invented by Stalin's propaganda system. But obviously there were plenty of actual heroic stands like this by Red Army troops. So I watched it as a semi-fictionalized account of such a fight, using a real event as background - much like Saving Private Ryan or Stalingrad (1993). Really Stalin's propagandists should have been able to find dozens of real stories, and the fact that they cared so little about the truth they preferred to invent rather than research says plenty about the regime.
That said, how is this movie? It's not bad. The equipment is all authentic, even down to the rather rag-tag Russian uniforms of the time. I was pretty excited to see a Soviet anti-tank rifle in action but then I'm a military buff.
Characterization did exist, and the various Russian soldiers had at least token personalities, so that was nice. When they were killed, you felt like you'd lost a friend not just totting up a body count. As is typical in this kind of war movie, almost every Russian bullet hits home but hey it's supposed to be the account of a strikingly-successful defense so that makes sense.
It does show how terrifying an artillery bombardment is (my father-in-law, a veteran of WW2, harrowed us with tales of these). And I rather liked that once the fighting started, the men on the front line had really no way of knowing what was going on elsewhere. They made suppositions. "The Germans must have knocked our cannon batteries." when they didn't get support but they didn't know for sure. The confusion and terror of war was evident.
While I've seen better war movies, I sure as hell have seen a LOT worse, and this was a perfectly decent one. If you really like war movies, watch this one. If you only sorta kinda like war movies, you're probably better served watching T-34 or Come & See.
Dr. Giggles (1992)
a first-rate slasher parody
Well maybe not a parody, but it feels like one. The late great Larry Drake plays the killer - you may not recognize his name but you have definitely seen him in a billion TV shows and films as a supporting character. Well, in Dr. Giggles he gets to shine.
The two aspects of this film which make it really stand out were:
First Dr. Giggles as played by Larry Drake is a funny guy. Like a lot of movie killers, he has his one-liners, but he is just a comic actor. When he's scared, it's funny. When he sets up his office, it's funny, and so forth. Just his body language is perfect.
Second, anyone who's watched slashers know that they bend reality all the time. People get killed from wounds that shouldn't be that bad. The killer seems to have supernatural knowledge of people's actions. Doors are too impossible to open. And so forth. I mean, nitpicking slasher movie mistakes is like a whole industry. Well, Dr. Giggles completely subverts this, which is why I call it a "parody".
I watched it with a bunch of my friends, and EVERY SINGLE TIME that they tried to spot and call out some "mistake" on the part of the film, within a few minutes it turns out they were right. You thought that guy wouldn't die from that injury? Lo and behold he's NOT. You thought the Doctor could probably break through that door? Lo and behold he DID. Every Single Time. It got to be funnier and funnier as my friends kept searching ever more carefully for an error, and in the end they too were won over by the film.
Well done Mr. Drake. Your film deserves to be better-known.
Luther the Geek (1989)
A first-rate second-rate film
I loved Luther the Geek. The main character is pretty hilarious and the portrayal of the hospital system that releases him is a hoot.
Made a bunch of my friends watch this with me and they were complaining at first, because it was a slasher (they don't love slashers), but within 10 minutes they were fully on board with this whacked-out film.
One feature that makes it stand head and shoulders above many slashers for realism is that Luther, after having been locked up for 30 years, has no idea how to drive a car or ride a bike, or cook, or do ANYTHING. Which makes sense. But he's still pretty amazing. Also the body count is realistically small, since Luther doesn't have supernatural teleportation abilities, and can be fooled. He's only human.
In the end, Luther's mannerisms and vocals are so funny that I was completely enamored of him and the whole film. My friends liked it too, but as non-slasher fans, I'll admit they liked it less. I rated it an 8, they said it was a 6, so I split the difference and made it 7.
The Driller Killer (1979)
I like bad horror, but this was too bad even for me
I mean, I love horror, even bad horror, but this went beyond bad. It's not exploitation - the murders aren't well-filmed, and not particularly numerous. It's not artsy - or at least if it is, it failed to convey that fact to me in any rational way. Actually it's really really dull.
I'd say the protagonist was unsympathetic, but I found zero people in the entire movie to sympathize with or fear for. In fact the film goes out of its way to present us with pretentious asses, poseurs, half-drugged zombies, slatterns, and worse. It's like it was trying to put me off. There was also a lot of bottom-feeding garage rock music which I guess I wasn't the target audience for. But wow that band was bad.
The protagonist is supposedly an artist hoping for his big break when he finally sells his giant buffalo picture which I was uninspired by. To my amusement, at least one other character in the movie agrees with me at length.
A dull movie about dull-but-irritating characters getting killed in fairly dull ways. I expected more from a film named Driller Killer. No idea why this made it to the video nasty list - now at least I can blame the British censors for making this terrible flick famous.
If you want to see a bad horror movie that's FUN to watch, see Mother's Day (1980) or Luther the Geek (1989) or Dr. Giggles (1992). Those are rollicking barrels of laughs. Avoid Driller Killer at all costs.