Blood Shack (1971) User Reviews

A Horror Flick AND Rodeo Documentary!!!

[T.J.H. · 4/10 · 13 February 1999]

Blood Shack is actually two films put together:

1. One story centers around a woman trying not to get killed by a madman hanging out at a shack in the desert. 2. The other film shows the sheer joy that can be had spending time at the rodeo on a hot summer's day.

Sadly all the action in the film takes place at the rodeo.

The filmaker(s) evidently ran out of story (or plot, or ideas etc...) about halfway through the film. So what we get is the protagonist will occasionally leave the crime scene and go to the rodeo where the viewer is treated (heh heh...) to scenes of bullriders frolicking about. These are the most frightening scenes in the film.

The horror action is cheeeesssyyyy and not imaginative. Everyone sleepwalks through this flick. No surprises, NO budget, no action, no acting, whew... just cheese.

Blood Shack is truly one of the worst films ever filmed. I still gave it a 4 though. I like the rodeo...

Blood Shack, Baby, Blood Shack

[hendrixy6 · 3/10 · 27 December 2008]

Because of intense passion for self loathing, I continue to watch these sort of films. Blood Shack is yet another link in the chain of bad b movies that are out there. This movie is b-movie purgatory. I will say that the lighting was done well. You could see the characters face to foot even in night shots. Also, the killer looks hilarious when he attacks. His monosyllabic grunt is worth a laugh or two. The acting was acceptable for a b-horror film. It's only 55 minutes. It's not even a feature length movie. But, the writer was clever and made the script so bad that it seemed like a 90 minute feature when it was over. They just teased. This whole movie was a mental cock tease. There was blood, but it wasn't gory. There was women but no nudity. There were children, and they lived. I tell you, some film makers take their titles too literally. There was blood, and there was a shack. That's about all you can say.

Grade Z slasher film, with one good bimbo, in the desert

[Maldarrin · 3/10 · 12 July 2006]

This movie by Ray Dennis Steckler, who is a sort of an Ed Wood on the road type, added about < 19 minutes of Rodeo footage to this flick in order to get a theatrical release . So runtime, including the credits is ~ 74 minutes .

Beyond that, this is your typical stalk 'n' slasher film . Psycho in a black hood runs around stabbing people . First victim: the snotty teenage blond girl(how typical), and that is the only good scene in the entire movie . More killings entail: the boyfriend/hubby who comes looking, the dumb-ass sheriff - get whacked fairly quickly . Laurel Spring, who plays Connie, is a cute 70's girl !

The rest of this movie is blah blah blah, irrelevant .

This film came out in 71, which means it came out before 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' and a full seven years before 'Halloween' .

Shouldn't that give this horror flick some points for being first ?

Re-released on video tape in the early 1980's to cash in on the slasher film craze . .

"Texas-sized biscuits" and other goodies

[cabinboy-3 · 2 August 1999]

Pity those who have never seen "Blood Shack," depriving themselves of one of the true guilty pleasures in life. Whether you're watching for the bad acting ("That's right, baby!"--the first scene is a scream), the implausible scenes inside the shack (it grows from one or two rooms to a mansion when the Chooper starts his chase), or even, yes, the rodeo footage (note: many people point out the over-abundance of stock rodeo footage, but many do not realize Wolfgang Schmidt [as Steckler is credited in the film] was forced to add the scenes because the film's distributor felt the movie was too short), you can not go wrong with this rental. The story centers (as if it matters) upon an abandoned old shack (that's actually being kind to the edifice) with a past (cue scary music). It is cared for by Daniel, a man whose fear knows no bounds, and whose torso knows no shirt (he does wear a midriff-exposing jacket, however). Well, yadda, yadda, yadda, a lot of hoopla is made about The Chooper (the spirit who supposedly haunts the place), a girl takes off her clothes (to the most laughable sound track I've ever heard), Daniel throws some wood in a bucket, Daniel hits a tree with a shovel, a lady takes a shower, and yes, we all go to the rodeo. In all, a classic. Oh yeah, the mystery is solved. Most people feel "bad movies" are simply a waste of time; I, on the other--well, actually most of the time they are, but as I preach the gospel of "Blood Shack," many converts have been made. I hope that others, too, will soon see this film for what it is: the "Citizen Kane" of people-throwing-wood-in-buckets-movies.

Disasterpiece: The History of The Chooper

[Tromafreak · 4/10 · 24 July 2008]

Years ago, I bought this at a Flea Market, in Florida, on good old VHS, under the title The Chooper, having rented its evil twin, Blood Shack just recently. I wasn't quite sure what to make of that, although, I did assume it was the only thing the director ever did, I was wrong. I also assumed that it was meant for the entertainment of some guy, and his friends and loved ones, not to make money in the Drive-in circuit, wrong again. All I know is, Chooper is the superior of the two, so that's the one I'm going to review. In the end it doesn't matter which version is better, because, absolutely nothing in the history of horror, cult horror, exploitation, B-grade, Z-grade, experimental, nothing is more low-budget than Ray Dennis Steckler's greatest achievement. This is The Chooper.

The Chooper was created by Ray Steckler, a guy who has a thing for silent film, so there are a lot of voice overs, and naturally, things are pretty dry in the gore department. There is also an artsy, silent feel to the whole thing, and being in the middle of Death Valley makes this movie come off as if it hasn't even got a pulse, and it probably doesn't, but it does have heart (unlike Blood Shack). Chooper begins with a sunrise, followed by an incoherent rundown of the storyline by Carolyn Brandt. 150 years ago an Indian boy was killed near this old shack, a curse was then placed on the shack, whoever enters it will be killed very unrealistically by the Chooper, some kind of Indian demon, dressed in black. Of course none of this well-thought-out back story is ever mentioned in the movie again after Carolyn's explanation, instead we get Daniel, probably the only "actor" in this that took his role seriously, he works on the ranch right next to the Blood Shack, so, at some point he had anointed himself protector of the Chooper's domain, and scares off anyone who even thinks of entering, if he's not doing that he's usually picking up rocks, making some of those Texas-sized biscuits you like so much, or disposing of the bodies of the ones that are stupid enough to wander into the shack even after he clearly tells them "You will die if you go in there." Of course, wallets are usually included with the bodies, so it makes it all worth it.

Now Carol, sort of playing herself, arrives at the ranch, she recently inherited, I don't believe I've ever seen someone that wasn't in Troll 2, care so little about their performance, it's like she's in another movie. Near-by neighbor, Tim Foster drops by, demanding she sell him the ranch, Carol declines, Daniel is also against the idea simply because he assumes the Chooper man wouldn't approve, or maybe they had discussed it earlier, I'm not sure. Apparently, Carol just prefers walking around the windy desert all day with Daniel, while he struggles like hell to hold on to his hat. The movie now goes back and forth from Carol being harassed by Tim about selling, to Chooper killings, to the endless, totally uncalled for rodeo footage. There's really no way of spoiling The Chooper, it doesn't exactly have a real ending, it just kind of ends. Only hammered off grain alcohol could one truly comprehend The Chooper, trust me, you don't want to go in to this completely sober, at least not the first viewing It really does take an obsessive bad movie lover to see something worthwhile in something so pathetic, But underneath the imperfections, The Chooper has heart.

Heart or not, this is still, by far, the most unpolished, inept, obscure, grainy-looking, low-budget, pile of perfection in existence. The Chooper, on the surface, appears to be a whole lot of nothing, but it has a one of a kind essence about it, probably never captured on film before or since. Everything about this film (except the score) is desolate, dismal and hopeless, hence the location. For a more entertaining version of The Chooper, get it on the Media Blasters Shreik Show DVD and listen to Joe Bob Brigg's audio commentary to be enlightened on exactly everything that is wrong with this movie, and much more. And for a different type of comedy, watch Blood Shack on the Same DVD with audio commentary by Steckler himself. Steckler plays it off like this is some sort of horror spoof, I know a spoof when I see one, Steckler, your'e not fooling anyone. You took your best shot at suspenseful horror, hoping it would blend in with the rest of the no-budgets. The result is technically, a massive failure, a failure for generations of bad movie lovers to laugh at or stare at in awe, and also, for the occasional obsessive bad movie lover to truly appreciate. This film has earned itself a place next to greatness such as Blood Feast and Pink Flamingos. From the bottom of the barrel, and the ends of the earth. Filmed in three days, with a $500 budget. This is The Chooper, the worst movie ever made. 9/10

Updated 1/16/09: R.I.P. R.D.S.

One of the worst horror films I've ever seen

[Tikkin · 1/10 · 27 June 2006]

Blood Shack is in my list of top three worst horror films ever, alongside A Night To Dismember and S.I.C.K. I've seen tons of low budget horror films in my time, and most give you some form of minimal entertainment. Blood Shack gives you none. One of the most pointless and boring scenes is the rodeo footage. It seems to go on forever and is obviously only there to pad the film out. The plot is virtually non existent and the acting is limp. No tension, no suspense, and no gore.

My advice: if you want a "so bad it's good" film, watch The Suckling, They Don't Cut The Grass Anymore or Don't Go In The Woods Alone instead! Those films are low budget trash that at least deliver some fun.

Good rodeo film

[Bezenby · 4/10 · 28 August 2016]

Pad, pad, pad. Children eating hamburgers. Rodeo footage. Kids playing musical chair. Rodeo Footage. Adults eating hamburgers. Pad pad pad. This film is great for fans of rodeo footage but it is marred by a tacked on slasher type story at the start and end.

Some chick inherits this awful looking house that comes with the curse of the Chooper, which is an Indian spirit who turns up whenever someone shows face in the house and kills them. Then a local guy buries the body, but is he also the Chooper?

Although this is a low budget seventies film that in theory should have been good, this film will wear you down with the multiple rodeo sequences (I couldn't believe when she took the kids to see the rodeo a second time). There's a few killings, but the blood is minimal.

Check out how many times folks lose hats in this film!

not that bad at all for a low budget.

[trashgang · 4/10 · 15 April 2010]

Let me tell you that I have seen flicks in the schlock zone were you are holding the fast forward button in your hand. But this one I watched without touching the fast forward. I heard a lot of this flick but still it works. If you are going to watch it you must be a geek into grindhouse. This even doesn't come near into the field of exploitation. It was made with an ultra low budget and was the last movie from Ray Dennis Steckler to appear in a drive in. Before the seventies short movies were shown at grindhouses and drive ins. But this one clocked in at 50 minutes. The distributor told Ray that it never would be seen if he doesn't make it longer than 60 minutes to make it a full feature. So he did, he made it a 70 minutes feature filled with shots from a rodeo...So this must be one of the few movies were the director's cut was shorter than the theatrical version. So you can watch the 50 minute flick without missing something. There is blood but on a low base and some death scene's are really unbelievable bad acted. But again due the short time it takes to watch it I was never bored, the quality of this 40 year old flick is excellent, a few drops, that's all. Sometimes it's a bit too dark in the night scene's but the sound is good, and the editing also. But still you can see it's low budget, for example, the chooper appears in daylight without anybody seeing him coming. It's in the dessert, at an abandoned house. The acting isn't that bad, sometimes a bit theatrical. No shadows appear from camera's or sound equipment on the set, that's a positive point too. The DVD is easy to find, and is cheap these days, but lucky as I was, I've got mine signed from the director Ray himself just before he passed away in 2009 thanks to some geeks I know in the states. Be advised that this is one of his better flicks, the younger his movies were made the worser they got, Steckler pads out the running time with shots of parades, rodeos, etc. Also he makes use of footage more than once, like no one would notice, like bar scenes, women dancing scenes, etc. You really must love this schlockfest to watch it.

The Chooper'll Getya!

[BA_Harrison · 1/10 · 9 November 2018]

A classic of that little-known sub-genre 'rodeo horror', Blood Shack (AKA The Chooper) is just as inept as the hideously amateurish paintings under the opening titles suggest. Originally running at just under an hour, the film was padded out to seventy minutes to satisfy the distributor, director Ray Dennis Steckler adding filler footage shot at a local rodeo. The result is a ham-fisted mess of the lowest order - a boring, poorly acted, clumsily directed, shoddily edited and badly written turd of a movie. It even has a theme song that stinks.

Steckler's wife Carolyn Brandt stars as Carol, who inherits a ranch, including an old abandoned house that is supposedly cursed: whoever goes into the building runs the risk of being attacked by a sword-wielding killer called The Chooper (unless you're a cute kid, in which case you can go in and jump on a dirty old mattress without danger). Several people ignore the local legend, enter the old house and die, their bodies discovered and buried by ranch foreman Daniel (Jason Wayne), who likes to wander around topless (or wear a cropped shirt that reveals his midriff).

Meanwhile, neighbouring rancher Tim (Ron Haydock) keeps pestering Carol to sell her property (Sell me the ranch. Sell me the ranch. You will Sell!), and anyone who has ever seen an episode of Scooby Doo will immediately identify him as The Chooper, the man obviously trying to scare people away so that he can get the ranch at a snip (and he woulda gotten away with it too if it hadn't been for that pesky Daniel).

The film features two shower scenes with Brandt, but no nudity, has two of the worst child performances I can remember (by Steckler's children Linda and Laura), sees Brandt sporting garish stars and stripes flares, has some truly diabolical lines of outdated dialogue ("The kids were really grooving", He told me his daughters dug me, and I dug them", "The whole scene was too heavy"), and is free of gore. Not to put too fine a point upon it, it's crap!

A film by Ray Dennis Steckler--'nuff said!

[planktonrules · 1/10 · 21 March 2009]

This film looks almost like a home movie. The camera work looks almost like it was done with a Super 8mm camera, the narration sounded like it was done in a tunnel and some of the director's family were in it because real actors cost money. In addition, the film only runs at 55 minutes in its current form. According to IMDb, the theaters wouldn't show such a short film, so Steckler added some completely irrelevant scenes from a rodeo to pad it. I saw the shorter version and it still had many irrelevant rodeo scenes! Now such a cheaply made film CAN work (after all, the original NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD made a ton of money and was well made--and looked like it was filmed by high school students), but in 99% of the cases, it doesn't work at all--like with this film.

The film begins with a stupid lady insisting her friends spend the night in a supposedly haunted house. They refuse and later, naturally, 'the Chooper' kills the lady that night. It seems this small house in the desert is cursed and evil befalls anyone who tries to live there. The caretaker of this ranch keeps telling everyone this, but time and again, people don't listen. Despite this and the fact that the house ain't worth more than $45, a relative of the past owner insists she wants to move in to the place.

Of course, there are more murders and when you finally see what you think is the Chooper, he's just a guy dressed up kind of like a ninja who stabs people with a sword. It all ends very anticlimactically and frankly it was very boring but not stupid enough to be an unintentionally funny film. The lead actress' pants, by the way, were actually scarier to see than the bad guy at the end! It's just bad.

Shack-Attack

[CHUDtheBUD · 1/10 · 14 October 2006]

This film is indeed awful and the cheese kind of stinks. Still, I find myself watching BLOOD SHACK/THE CHOOPER at least once a year. I'm no masochist who likes to punish himself with bad movies but yet I still find this lousy Ray Dennis Steckler wreck hard to resist. Must be Carolyn Brandt's kooky inner monologues or the ridiculous rodeo stock footage they added to stretch the movie. Whatever it is, it's worth making fun of because this movie offers plenty ... but bad cinema lovers beware - BLOOD SHACK/THE CHOOPER is not your typical so-bad-so-good movie. This one requires time and attention (check out the Joe Bob Briggs commentary on the Media Blasters DVD). Once it has grown on you it will be a lot easier to 'enjoy' the badness.

True terror lurks in rodeo stock footage

[Voorhies · 10/10 · 12 February 1999]

This film is 20 minutes lousy horror flick, 50 minutes rodeo stock footage with bad voice overs. I like it. My grade: B+

Certainly a better choice for Best Picture than "Crash"...

[Jonny_Numb · 6/10 · 2 August 2006]

God bless Ray Dennis Steckler, that's all I have to say. Among the countless directors who have come and gone inside and outside the Hollywood system, Steckler has always been a guerrilla maverick of accidental genius; in interviews, you see him unpretentiously share a wealth of cinematic knowledge, and even cite instances in his own work where he is directly quoting from some of the greats (he has name-dropped John Huston and Michelangelo Antonioni). Watching Steckler's films, you can see that borrowed inspiration turned into a mutation of B-movie brilliance. Granted, I wasn't always appreciative of the man's work (my first look: MST3K's lampooning of "The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies"), but have since really warmed up to his obscure filmography.

"Blood Shack" is a masterpiece of shlock. Out in the desert someplace, washed-up starlet Carol Brandt (played by none other than Carolyn Brandt!) has just inherited a significant amount of land, on which rests a dilapidated house ("A historical monument that's been there 150 years!") where bad things always seem to be happening. You see, the place is haunted by 'The Chooper' ("Blood Shack"'s alternate title), a purportedly supernatural being culled from Native American folklore. Also on the premises are two little girls (Steckler's daughters, Laura and Linda) who, in one adorably hilarious scene, give their own interpretation of the Chooper legend; Daniel (Jason Wayne), the amusing, low-intellect hick groundskeeper; and Tim Foster (Ron Haydock, of "Rat Pfink a Boo Boo"), a rival rancher who is hell-bent on buying Carol's property. Also on hand are some less-than-wise youngsters and bit players who run afoul of the Chooper, an assassin in black Ninja pajamas and Chuck Taylors.

At a scant 55 minutes, the plot has no room to be convoluted, but somehow is anyway (what are we to make of the scene where Daniel is "talking" to the Chooper in relation to the denouement?), though most viewers won't care. "Blood Shack" shows off the usual Steckler conventions: gritty location shooting that inspires a real sense of desolation and isolation (not unlike how he made Skid Row a real den of squalor in "Hollywood Strangler"); Zapruder-like cinematography (most regularly exhibited in scenes at a rodeo); and an unshakable sense of silliness that lightens a potentially sinister tone (even when blood is spilled, the film retains an innocent feel). As a bonus, Brandt's voice-over narration (intended to convey all the details the budget couldn't convey visually, methinks) is humorously air-headed, as most of her sentiments are less-than-profound filler. Ditto the repetitive dialog of Haydock ("You're gonna sell! You're gonna sell!") and Wayne ("I told ya to get away from that house! The Chooper'll get ya!"); the lack of an actual script is just another one of "Blood Shack"'s endearing charms.

I don't know that there's a way to summarize my overall feelings on "Blood Shack" that would do the film proper justice--I always find myself in awe of this $500 wonder. Perhaps I'll let Carol Brandt sum things up: "I think I'll worry about it tomorrow...if tomorrow ever comes."

Amen, sister.

The chooper will git ya!

[lastliberal · 3/10 · 5 June 2011]

If you like watching home movies, you will love this film. It is a real family affair.

Directed by Ray Dennis Steckler, a schlock filmmaker who did horror in the 60s and 70s, and then went on to porn as Cindy Lou Sutters, it stars Carolyn Brandt, who was married to him at the time, and their two daughters, Linda and Laura. Like I said, a family affair.

I had to laugh every time Daniel (Jason Wayne) talked about the "chooper" instead of "chopper." Needless to say, many of the actors in this film did nothing else. Probably just locals picked up for a cheap film.

If you are looking for blood, gore, and nudity, look elsewhere, as this film lacks everything.

I have dreams like this after too much Taco Bell

[Gafke · 1 February 2004]

Okay, so this isn't one of Steckler's best films, but it's a lot better than "Sinthia: The Devils Doll."

Pretty Carolyn Brandt inherits a little house out in the middle of nowhere. Also on the property is an old shack...an old shack that is supposedly haunted by The Chooper, a vengeful Native American spirit. Anyone who unwisely ventures within the shack are never seen again...with the exception of two little girls who jump up and down on a stained mattress until they're chased off. (BTW - the little girls look exactly like their daddy, and I'll give you 3 guesses who daddy is!)

The killer isn't hard to spot, and after an hour or so of rodeo footage, Brandt's dreamy voice-overs and shots of her wandering around in the height of godawful 70s fashions, The Chooper reveals himself to her in a brief and un-shocking climax.

No, it's not a great film, but hardcore Steckler fans will not want to say they haven't seen it. If you saw "Incredibly Strange Creatures" and were disappointed by this one, don't give up, just go find a copy of "Rat Pfink a Boo Boo" and all will be well again, I promise.

The worst movie I have ever seen

[JasonZ · 1/10 · 30 October 2013]

This movie has the distinction of the worst movie I have ever seen. There might be worse ones out there, but I haven't seen them. The casting and acting are bad; the cinematography is bad; the audio is bad; and the writing and editing are epically bad. After seeing some of the trivia on this site, some -- but not all -- of the woeful quality of this film is explained. Namely, the movie was shot on leftover, partially exposed film stock and the production crew didn't have many resources available to them. This does not explain the nonsensical behavior of the characters or the ability of the villain to remain undetected in broad daylight.

The "director's cut" length of about 70 minutes really should be renamed the "distributor's cut" since unrelated footage of a rodeo was inserted into the movie to make it long enough to be eligible for theatrical release. If you don't know this when you watch that version, you will be mystified by what you're watching when you get to that point.

Not exciting. Not interesting. Doesn't even make sense.

This movie gets one star because I can't give it zero stars. In fact, this movie owes me some stars!

USE THE FAST FORWARD BUTTON

[nogodnomasters · 2/10 · 4 May 2018]

There are 2 versions of this film, the original or director's cut which is about 50 minutes or so, and the original film which includes an extra 20 minutes of rodeo scenes that was added. I would opt to watch the shorter version.

The original title was "The Chooper" the name of the supposed ninja Indian spirit who haunts the house and kills anyone who sleeps in it. Oh and the neighbor wants to buy the land real bad too, so go figure this one out Scooby-doo.

Carolyn Brandt, the ex-wife of director/writer Ray Dennis Steckler stars in this film as she inherits the house and wants to live there. Most of the scenes are filler, such as two kids (director's larve) playing musical chairs with one chair and no music. Carolyn does a non-nude shower scene. Laurel Springs, the token eye candy in the film, strips down to her bra and panties. The killing shows some blood and no sword penetration. It is weak as a slasher film too. The only reason to watch the movie is perhaps the "Ed Wood" quality. If Ed Wood made a slasher film, it would be similar to this one. It is not a "shocker" nor is it "thrill-paced" as the DVD box claims.

No f-bombs, no sex, no nudity.

So you've purposefully made total goofy schlock. But why, though?

[I_Ailurophile · 1/10 · 9 October 2023]

I'm sorry, but it's just so hard to take this seriously from the outset when the whole concept revolves around something called "The Chooper." Remember the 'Invader Zim' episode where The Tallest are confronted with a resistance group whose awe-inspiring name to strike fear into the hearts of their enemies instead inspires pure mockery?

In fairness, there's no mistaking that filmmaker Ray Dennis Steckler knew he was making low-grade schlock, and this never pretends to be anything it's not. Yet sometimes it's hard to fathom the reasoning for making such title; everything about this immediately comes off as both garishly over the top and direly weak, and wholly unbelievable. The best of the music is swell and dramatic in and of itself but overcooked in how it's used; the worst of the music is limpid or just plain sardonic. The dialogue and scene writing are wildly inauthentic and raise a deeply skeptical eyebrow - and let's be honest, are often just plain bad - and so much of the material that pads out the length is altogether bewildering. (Here's another point of reference: remember the teens making out in 'Manos: The hands of fate?') There is a story here, but it's thin; Steckler's direction comes across as soft and unpracticed. There's only so much the cast can do under all these circumstances, but bless them for trying.

Voiceover narration; curious, superfluous, and not insignificant inclusion of children; lengthy, tiresome, and flimsily tethered rodeo sequences; recycled footage and astoundingly repetitive dialogue; abrupt and unconvincing appearances by "The Chooper" - so many odd, peculiar choices were made here. The very notion of "protagonist" Carol inheriting the "ranch" is perplexing in light of the vast nothingness of it, and in light of how she apparently does nothing at all. 'Blood shack' is really just rather flummoxing. The root ideas are workable, perhaps, but it's almost as if Steckler was actively endeavoring to veer away from the earnest horror flick this might have been to twist it into pure, confounding goofiness. If anything at all in these sixty minutes comes off well I suppose one might point to the stunts and practical effects, but it's safe to say that these alone can't carry even a movie as small as this. What was anyone thinking? In what manner could this possibly be said to be fun?

Nevermind horror - cinema at large scarcely gets more insubstantial and feeble than this. It does, yes, but the distinction is meaningless. Whatever it is one might hope to get out of this 1971 flick, by Jove, you won't find it here. One's time is better spent doing just about anything else at all, and my firm recommendation is to stay well away from 'Blood shack.'

Is this someone's high school film project?

[tocado5585 · 1/10 · 14 January 2008]

Before I rip this waste of celluloid to shreds, let me say that Steckler's movies usually have an element of charm to them, but this p.o.s. is about an hour of my life that I will never get back. All I could think is Steckler went out and found some people at the unemployment line or homeless shelter and offered them a warm meal to perform in his movie. The acting is horrible and the setting looks like some makeshift buildings were put up in the middle of nowhere just for the sake of filming this. The murder scenes in this were like watching a Saturday Night Live skit. The same chain of events over and over again and grows tiresome really fast...and this damn movie is only 55 minutes long?! As for The Chooper; give me a break. The guy is running around undetected dressed in a shiny black suit. Complete waste of time and a complete waste of film.

Manos 2

[saint_brett · 5/10 · 9 November 2023]

ZZ Top arrives out in a desert wasteland where some roadies for the band dump a groupie behind. She's determined to encounter the mythical creature El Chupacabra to prove a point. Stripping down to her khaki undergarments proves that her skin tone and material color are poor contrasts. No sooner does she encounter a dark shadow warrior intent on slicing her up with a samurai sword. I only say shadow warrior because it's so damn dark. I can't even make out what the raving lunatic looks like. Can we get some lighting on set, please?

Randy Jones from the Village People discovers the exiled groupie member, and as it's his Christian duty to do the right thing, he buries her on the outskirts of Salt Lake in an unmarked, shallow grave and steals her pocket money.

Two five-year-olds arrive on set while Randy Jones observes them from afar with a keen eye. Little are they aware that he's registered on file as some sort of fiend with a checkered past that requires round-the-clock surveillance.

Filming amateur kids in a movie reminds me of 'Manos: Hands of Fate,' where the director filmed that kid and her dog contributing jack squat to the storyline.

A little house on the prairie continues to attract complete strangers to it like a magnet. Not many are aware that it has a murderous past and is heritage-listed as being a house of death.

Some chick from the 60s warps her way into the movie sporting FMB galoshes and encounters the two amateur wasteland rug rats who are suddenly intimidated by Randy Jones, who's part of that whole 'Point Break' rubber people clique.

Anyone knows that the only thing out here capable of killing twits would be wild coyotes or rattlers, not some dirtbag dressed up year-round as a Halloween ninja.

At every turn, Randy Jones from the Village People suffocates the movie. He's like a caveman who never leaves base.

Not heeding Randy Jones' advice, an Asian tourist is drawn to the magnetic blood shack and becomes another statistic of the ninja and its sword.

Between this dreary Clark Gable music and the Looney Tunes, I have no idea how it builds any suspense for horror, and I expect Wild E. Coyote to step out any minute now.

Once again, the director chooses to go with 'Manos: Hands of Fate" filler by using this girly/dog business.

This movie's a time warp from a forgotten era. It's the movie that time forgot.

The ninja strikes again with a rooftop assault and takes on the law. He fought the law, but the law didn't win this time. He didn't shoot the sheriff either, but slashed and stabbed him with the samurai sword.

Hold it. Some flesh is being pressed in an after-shower scene. Do we get to see it? Do we get to see it? Sadly no.

But we get to see Randy Jones rocking Bon Jovi hot jeans and a swanky midriff blouse, which exposes his rubber people abs minus his cowboy hat.

A dustup livens up what is a rather mundane affair and pits the Village People cowboy with the washboard abs against who is that? Crazy Ralph? It's pretty even so far as they trade blows tit-for-tat.

It's times like this that you need Little Joe on set to show them how it's done with his mean left hook to set things straight. Many a dude lost their marbles to Willy Nelson's blade, but thousands more did against Little Joe's left hook. Going to the score cards, I'm going to give Crazy Ralph a slender one-point victory.

Not only are the girly/dog 'Manos: Hands of Fate' scenes filler, so too is this rodeo bull torment. This crap belongs in Luke Perry's '8 Seconds.' Is that wrangler trying to break the poor cow's neck? This is bordering on personal home and family footage that the director has filmed.

Without explanation, the ninja turns on Randy Jones even after he pledged loyalty and a lifetime's subscription to his teachings.

What was that other movie filmed up in Wisconsin about a samurai warrior who glowed in the countryside? I can't remember what it was called. That was equally as bad, but the dressed deer scene at the start was boss.

The ninja goes after sexy boots at the end, but Randy Jones raises from the dead for round two with the ninja and strikes back, fatally stabbing him with his own weapon. He fell on his own sword. The Halloween ninja unmasks himself as some sort of consolation reveal, and it's just Crazy Ralph.

I thought it was Ritchie from 'IT.'

How many awards was this masterpiece nominated for?

Blood... Rodeo?!

[juggernaut-78759 · 1/10 · 25 June 2016]

I know, my English is horrible (I am a foreigner), but this movie... This goddamn movie… «Blood shack», everyone. Which also "known" as... "The Chooper"?

This movie presents Chooper as some kind of a spirit, that looks like a ninja with ridiculously elongated hands, when he chasing victims. He is hanging around with some shabby shack on the territory of the former ranch, and that cabin somehow attracts ALL around. Children, adults, some girl, who was left by her friends — all of them so badly want to get to this hut, despite the warnings of the local worker, which – of course – nobody's listening.

This epic Saga was filmed by Ray Dennis Steckler, filmed for $ 500, which is 76 times less than the budget of his most famous film — zombie, hmm-mm, musical "The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies!!?". Why the "Blood Shack" was filmed — I genuine don't know. Apparently, Steckler and crew got bored under the scorching sun of the Texas desert, so they decided to create this abomination, which 1/3 consists of the Rodeo, and the remaining 2/3 of uninteresting, bland-enveloping like molten syrup history about anything. There are no noticeable special effects, of course — the visual side is obviously lame. The script is also poor — semantic aspect is also down the drain.

And the only music here is not bad. No, it's not very diverse and memorable — but it really is, and someone tried to come up with and write, and thus that someone (the composer Frank A. Coe) was the only person on the site, which somehow bothered by what he does. No one else was worried. For example, how Chooper can to appear quietly from the sun-drenched open desert? Who knows! It doesn't matter!. And why worker, who tried to stop everyone from going to the cabin, doesn't took this girl, left by her friends, into HIS shack? Yes, who cares...

Films such as this one, "A night to dismember", "Executioner: Part 2", though filmed by different directors, but remarkably similar to one another: in all three cases (well, why three — there are ton of examples, but specifically those are most awful, in my humble opinion) initially club-hand people took on projects with no financial support, and sculpted their cinematic piles of… confusion without a bit of fantasy and imagination — those things, possibly, could save their sad movies. Such films are relatively easy to obtain (on YouTube, everything on YouTube), it is extremely easy to blame and it's just impossible not to forget.

A young woman inherits a rundown shack with a deadly legend attached to it.

[krsph · 2/10 · 6 February 2005]

What starts off with a great idea is killed quick with bad acting and no budget. The entire cast is guilty of this sin. Rodeo footage in the movie is a big negative as it isn't necessary and has no point. Getting rid of the rodeo footage, better actors and adding some money to the budget could have helped this film. Too bad the movie makers didn't think the movie through properly before filming it. The characters have no depth at all. "Daniel" for example, seems to have a one track mind concerning the shack. It seems his entire life revolves around it. If your in the mood to waste time give this movie a viewing otherwise do yourself a favor and skip it.

For People Who Thought Manos Hands of Fate was Bad

[Trebaby · 8/10 · 28 November 2007]

Ray Dennis Steckler is a filmmaker who actually got worse with each successive movie. The fairly mainstream worlds glimpsed in "Wild Guitar" and "The Incredibly Strange...blah blah blah", eventually gave way to movies such as this one or "The Las Vegas Serial Killer" which are little more than extended, poorly photographed, silent home movies. "The Chooper/Blood Shack" is bad but there's a lot to like about it. It's like a bizarre tone poem or fever dream. You won't believe that you're actually watching a movie or just having a strange nightmare. A unique experience. Recommended to bad movie buffs who like to be weirded out. Loads of laffs as well.

Not bad for the money spent

[Johnboy1221 · 6/10 · 3 December 2008]

OK, this is a real cheap film. It's after all a Ray Dennis Steckler movie and as such wasn't destined to win any awards for excellence.

However, I tended to like it, just the same. It did hold my attention, mostly because I watched Joe Bob Briggs give his review of it before I started.

It could have been so much worse than it turned out to be.

For instance, the fist fight scene was well staged and believable, unlike countless such scenes I've viewed in other movies.

Let's start with Daniel. I would have preferred that he been more sinister, but then I wasn't there to direct the film. His role is pretty much the central character, as he directs everyone around him.....don't sell the property....don't go into the house or the Chooper will get you....you keep killin' 'em and I'll keep buryin' 'em, etc. He's not the good guy he pretends to be, and I got the impression that he wants the killings to continue....for the money he collects from the victims. Jason Wayne certainly acts like a typical redneck cowboy. I love his jacket! Not everyone can wear one of those and look good in it, but Wayne has the kind of body to make it a fashion statement. His stabbing should (and could) have been shown, but it's not a major problem.

Carolyn Brandt was very good in her role. I do wish Steckler had had her develop a stronger attraction towards Daniel, so we could have had a nude (or semi-nude) sex scene or two, but I realize that it would have been nearly impossible since they were including their children in the film. Her outfits were nicely done, though, and certainly a reflection of the times.

Ron Haydock was a more seasoned actor than Jason Wayne, but he had little to do except whine, beg, and threaten Carol, which he did well enough. Incidentally, my impression was that he was the one who killed the officer, not The Chooper, especially since he drove the body off in broad daylight, something The Chooper wouldn't have been able to do (he was an ancient Indian spirit).

The other actors did well and I didn't mind the rodeo scenes, as I like rodeos.

The blood effects were well done, especially considering the times.

So, if you like 'em cheap, you'll like this one. You have to see it one time just so you can say you sat through it. I've honestly seen worse...much worse. One can't grade a film like this one against Halloween, Friday The 13th or Saw.

The tedious history of a damned ranch-shack

[Coffee_in_the_Clink · 1/10 · 29 April 2020]

This film ran in at under an hour when the entire script was shot, so the director went and shot a whole load of rodeo footage and stuck it in to the final cut, and made the story connect to it. So I think that about sums up "Blood Shack", or "The Chooper" as it's also known as. It begins with a yokel named Daniel standing out in the middle of a ranch in the wilderness throwing wood into a bucket and cursing at two little girls who are playing too close to an old shack at the back of the place. "Don't go in there or the Chooper will git ye!" he snarls, or words to that effect. Then a car load of hippies shows up declaring they are going to stay the night to see if the place really is haunted. So Daniel dutifully warns them - "The Chooper will git ye!" Most of the party chickens out, but one stubborn young woman defies Daniel and stays the night.. A 'ghost' in a black spandex suit and long sword chases her around the shack (It looks like it's only a two-room bungalow from the outside, but in this scene you'd swear it was a two story house) and kills her. "I told ye the Chooper would git ye, I warned ye!" An excited Daniel proclaims the next morning when he finds her. But he has to go and get rid of the body, because the new owner who has inherited the ranch is arriving this morning. Her boring narration has been informing us of the shack's dark history. It's haunted blah, blah and people have been getting butchered in it for the past 150 years. Then we go to the rodeo...

I've one good thing to say about "Blood Shack" and that is the lighting is very good, considering that only two lights were used on the set. The scene at the beginning where the Chooper chases the young woman around the shack is very clear and well lit, all things considered. I've seen a lot of badly lit sets in cheap horror films like these, but this is definitely not one of them. But it's a disasterpiece when it comes to everything else; the acting is wooden, the script is horrendous, the directing is non-existent and the editing was probably just done in one afternoon. It's dull and very boring, and the rodeo scenes have turned me off every going to one. 'The Chooper' looks absolutely ridiculous and the scenes it's in are dreadful. It's clearly a man from the onset and he makes laughable barking noises and the butchering he does with that stupid sword are poorly done. The music is overwhelming and cheap, and the ending is very poor. But just in case you somehow couldn't figure it all out for yourself, good old Daniel with his dying words tell us what has happened and why. Good man, Daniel. It's a such a cruel irony that in the end the Chooper got you!