Science Crazed (Video 1991) Poster

(1991 Video)

User Reviews

Review this title
8 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
2/10
Science Crazed
BandSAboutMovies25 January 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Doctor Wilbur Frank is so passionate about his job that he keeps on doing it even when he gets fired for performing experiments against nature. You have to respect that drive, I mean, other than the fact that he's started kidnapping women to be the experimental subjects for a human growth serum that as far as I can tell only makes human beings pop out fully grown Xtro style. Well, again, human beings is kind of questionable, as whatever crawls out isn't human and soon flips out and kills the unkind doctor before heading off into the institute where a cop and two of Wilbur's assistants have to track it down and destroy it. Or, you know, they could just let it go but then we wouldn't have a movie.

Director and writer Ron Switzer was a one and done contributor to the world of shot on video - well, 16mm in parts and as you know, if it came out on video and looked cheap, often people just lump it all in - and what an entry he gave us.

Between the droning bleats of the synth soundtrack that are punctuated by breathing, endless breathing there is also editing that at best can be described as inadequate; an eight-minute plus aerobics sequence; a setting that can include not just a mad scientist lab but also a parking garage, a gym, a theater and a chemical weapons company; the creature being named The Fiend; endless repetition of said Fiend wandering down the same hallway again and again; more of that deep breathing (the most Canadian deep breathing since Black Christmas); incredible lighting and shot composition that is soon followed by amateur errors like The Fiend literally walking into the camera and nobody cutting that from the film; The Fiend slow-motion drowning a woman and nobody stopping it because, well, who knows; and again, more wandering down that same hallway.

Either you're going to love this as it gives you the same feeling of taking narcotics and not having to work for several days and just staring at the same scenes so much that you don't know where the movie begins or ends or you're going to hate it and feel like it's not even a movie.

Isn't that how it should be?
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
You think you've seen bad movies? You have no idea.
baskil15 January 2001
This is by far the worst movie ever made. I have no doubt. I have seen such crap as Manos, Space Mutiny, and whatnot, and I can honestly tell you that they do not hold a candle to Science Crazed.

Science Crazed has no discirnable plot. Something about a guy making a woman pregnant via turkey baster, and the child born *hours* later is fully grown, and ready to kill. Of course, being a newborn, it takes him about an hour to kill people. The director loops footage constantly, and takes about fifteen minutes to set up an awkward death. There is about a page of dialogue for the whole movie, however the dialogue arrives about a minute after it is spoken.

Sample Scene: The monster is walking down a hall. We know this because there is about ten minutes of looped footage of his feet. In between loops, we are treated to two women working out. Repeat ad nauseum for about 20 minutes. When the monster does show up, no one moves, and everyone looks like deer in headlights as the monster takes another 10 minutes to get to them to kill them. By the level of the acting, you would guess that the people are already dead.

I know my description doesn't seem too bad, but trust me, I can not fully describe the pain that is Science Crazed.

Stay away, and boycott all video stores that carry it. :)
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
90 minutes of movie, 40 minutes of (bad) film.
crwilley3 November 2003
And I may be being generous. The overwhelming majority of the movie consists of looped footage...the shambling monster, two women exercising, the shambling monster again, a bunch of people in the pool, the shambling monster again, none the worse for wear despite having been injured...you get the picture. I restrained myself from yelling "GET ON WITH IT ALREADY" on several occasions.

And it doesn't help that the footage they used was poorly produced. The sound is disconcertingly out of sync with the image. And in the one scene where they tried to get "artistic" with the lighting and camera techniques, the lighting guy, holding the flashlight that provides the scene's only illumination, is clearly visible in the shot.

My hope is that the production was the victim of some horrible disaster in which the original audio track and most of the footage was destroyed, but they decided to release it anyways, cobbled together from the editing room floor, in memory of the heroic crew members who gave their lives trying to save the *real* film - the one with the plot and the interesting dialog. Sadly, there's no evidence of this, and I'm forced to conclude that, in the immortal words of Joel and the Bots, they just didn't care.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Listless sci-fi flik in the frankenstein genre. Man impregnates a woman in his 'secret lab' (read 'garage'), who then dies spewing forth a full grown 'monster'. Murder ensues.
lovecraft-111 February 2002
This is horrific. No really, this is ,bar none, the absolute worst...worst...I hesitate to even call it a @&$%in' _movie_. It is a ninety minute visual root canal. The plot is practically non-existent: a mad scientist who looks like the frontman from 'The Cars' impregnates a woman in his secret lab, a lawn chair in what I think may be a garage, via an injection of Palmolive. Within hours she births a full grown monster who then goes on a rampage. Thats the whole movie. The death scenes: these are poorly set up, take _forever_, and the acting...how can you mess up _screaming_?? The victims stand there while the growling, wheezing, congested freak advances on them and proceeds to limply strangle them for about three days. The sets are cheesy, the lighting for most of the movie consists of a single maglite (yes, a big honkin' flashlight), the sound quality is poor, theres only about 40 words of dialogue for the entire movie and the acting is generously described as wooden. Footage is shamelessly recycled to pad out the movie. And the special effects would make any BBC sci-fi production shake their head and proclaim "They didn't even try". The 'monster' is some nameless in a $3 halloween rubber mask with a few bandages slapped on. In its encounter with the lone cop of the movie the cop fires flashless, smokeless, invisible bullets that apparently travel so slow the monster can dodge them at five paces. Don't see this movie. No really, thats not a dare. Don't see this movie. The director should be shot. The writer should be chained to a giant rock where his liver will be devoured every morning by Ed Wood. Enough rentals and there could be a sequel, don't let it happen!
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
an experiment in audience torture
jonathan-57711 October 2009
Warning: Spoilers
A montage prologue, quite obviously manufactured by the blessed maniacs who actually chose to distribute this thing, tries to convince us that the comic impact of this staggeringly incompetent bit of nothing is entirely deliberate. Don't you believe it: this is to Lloyd Kaufman as Andy Warhol is to Herschel Gordon Lewis. It is so thoroughgoing in its project of torturing its hypothetical audience that it seems like some kind of misanthropic negationist art installation, only it can't be because it is so completely bereft of self-consciousness. As obnoxious and ugly as "Things" or "Frozen Scream", this manages to up the ante by recycling itself with a maddeningly bald insistence that has to be seen to be believed. A Hitchcock-style shot-by-shot analysis of, say, the attack on the cardio girls might yield twenty edits and perhaps three minutes of footage - only the sequence is ten minutes long! You WANT to believe that this started life as a slightly more bearable short subject, except if you took away the repetition what's left would be far less fascinating: eg. when the 'fiend' does enter the room, he only inspires extended, highly apathetic, utterly blank stares from his imminent (offscreen) victims. Repeat this scenario about four times, in marginally varied settings; bridge these with perhaps thirty lines of dialogue total; offer up actors even more hateful and lethargic than those in the above mentioned classics; and grace us with a monster comprising gauze, ketchup and one yellow Spock ear, and you've got a movie too mind-boggling to refuse, a working definition of bad. I'm proud to own it!
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bottom of the barrel horror
lor_12 June 2023
My review was written in January 1991 after watching the movie on IAE video cassette.

This bottom of the barrel video represents amateurism at its worst. Purported horror "comedy" is interminable and incompetent, as repped by several of the hero's lines at the end of the film missing because someone forgot to dub them.

Apparently Canadian made circa 1987 as "The Fiend" as probable working title, Ron Switzer's film concerns a monster (Tony Dellaventura) prowling the corridors of Shelley Institute, occasionally attacking not-so-pretty women. Switzer repeats the same shots with all the aplomb of a porno video director.

The sound is haphazard, editing pitiful and sets virtually nonexistent. Many scenes are shot abstractly with characters surrounded by darkness. Makeup effects for the bandaged fiend are poor, and lack of any imaginative gore is something of an insult for the completist fans who try to sit through this one.

About the only items to keep one awake are cryptic scenes such as a blonde reciting and writing down the names of countries at random until the monster kills her. As an amateur audition film it fails on all counts.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Truly one of the worst movies ever made
AlsExGal5 May 2023
Canada comes through again with this zero-budget horror/comedy (???).

A mad scientist impregnates a woman using an experimental procedure, resulting in her giving birth a day later, and the fetus becoming a fully grown person a day after that. This "newborn" (a guy wearing jeans, a bloody t-shirt, and bandages on his head) goes on a killing spree. The majority of the film's runtime is taken up by shots of the monster's feet as he shambles down hallways and corridors. A good solid 15 minutes of the movie's 82 minutes is comprised of footage of two women working out, first through aerobic dance, then at a gym.

Large portions of the rest of the film are also padded in this manner, with people lounging around an in-door swimming pool, or walking in parking garages. There's about 30 lines of dialogue total, and several close-ups of people that look more like lighting tests than actual film footage. Truly one of the worst movies ever made. Enter at your own risk!
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The Ultimate Horror Film!
BrianSingleton4 October 2003
Canadian film-maker Ron Switzer delivers a solid, non-stop thrill ride of relentless horror with the superb 1991 sci-fi film "Science Crazed". A hideous monster takes revenge on his mother, a police officer and tenants of an apartment building. Brilliant practical make-up and special effects designs create a truly terrifying monster, especially when lurking through the atmospheric shadows and smoke of the gloomy apartment settings. The characters are developed beautifully with outstanding and surprisingly touching performances from an ensemble cast. Produced by Donna Switzer, newcomer Ron Switzer also penned the film's face-paced script, weaving together an engaging roller-coaster ride of twists, turns, and terror that keeps you guessing until the last frame. Science Crazed will no doubt leave you haunted long after the shocking conclusion. Highly recommended!
3 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed