Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer (2007) User Reviews

Just Better than Average

[Scars_Remain · 6/10 · 13 October 2008]

This movie was fun and entertaining but I think people are getting a little ahead of themselves in some of these reviews. It's not the greatest modern horror film or even the greatest horror film of the year. It's just mindless fun. Try not to take it as anything more than that and you should like it.

The acting is pretty bad but we can't really expect much, I suppose. However, Robert Englund was pretty good. The story is an interesting idea but I think it takes too long to get going, about a full hour and then we're left with about 15 minutes of actual action. Normally I like slow moving films but not when I'm promised a "fun" movie.

Mad, Mad Monster Party!

[Coventry · 7/10 · 6 April 2008]

The ambitions of director Jon Knautz and his entire cast & crew were obviously limited, but nevertheless admirable. All they ever intended to do was bring homage to the glorious horror decade of the 80's and make a nonsensical movie with clichéd themes, stereotypical characters and over-the-top gooey make-up effects reminiscent to the movies the young filmmakers grew up with, like "The Evil Dead" and "Demons". I saw this film at the Belgian Fantasy Film Festival, were it fulfilled the role of ideal midnight movie crowd-pleaser. "Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer" offers plenty of splatter, absurdly crude humor, identifiable anti-hero characters, silly story lines and – last not least – Robert Englund himself in another terrific supportive B-role. Jack Brooks is an ordinary twenty-something man, working as a plumber during the day and attending chemistry classes in the evening in order to reach a more valuable certificate. He suffers from one major problem, though. Ever since he helplessly witnessed his family getting butchered by a forest monster as a child, Jack can't control his anger and regularly suffers from aggressive outbursts. When his teacher, Professor Crowley, gradually transforms into a monstrous entity after a plumbing job gone awry, Jack comes to realize the monster slaying business is exactly the type of anger management he needed. "Monster Slayer" is pretty weak in the plotting department, as you can see, but this widely gets compensated by the enthusiast spirit and determination of everybody involved in the production. The film starts off a little slow and hesitant, but once Prof Crowley starts undergoing his transformation, there's no more stopping the camp and cheese! You can clearly notice how genre veteran Robert Englund enjoyed helping out the young crew and the make-up department seemingly just received a carte-blanche. The monster designs and demonic grimaces are delightfully cheesy and gross, just like they were in the 1980's, and the film constantly remains comical and light-headed in spite of the gory bloodshed. Trevor Matthews is terrific as the reluctant Bruce "Ash" Campbell typed horror Savior and he receives good support from various other young and (still) unknown players. "Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer" is a totally unpretentious and entertaining throwback to B-cinema, and even though it'll never be regarded as a classic, it's warmly recommended viewing for all fans of the genre.

Jack Brooks: Call me Mel

[p-stepien · 7/10 · 21 October 2009]

Found out about this movie from a top 10 movies of 2008 list I found on the web. Having been sorely disappointed with other movies on the list (like the french torture porn Inside) this was a welcome choice to an otherwise weak list (maybe it just wasn't a good year for horror movies...).

With a title like that you don't expect to be really truly scared out of your shoes. Essentially what you expect is some comedy and entertainment packed with some decent gore. To boot this time around you actually get a decent story, if somewhat predictable, and some very decent acting from the cast.

As to the plot: Well the title essentially says it all. Jack Brooks is a monster slayer. And this is his Origins.

This flick pays homage to the best traditions of movies like Braindead and Evil Dead. There may not be a single real scare in this movie, as the whole premise ridicules any such possibility. But who really cares? Especially since Robert Englund plays a significant role in this no-fun barred movie.

Worthwhile watch for anyone looking for good clean entertainment with no intellectual strings attached (that said this movie is far from being dumb).

Jack Brooks: Insomnia Slayer

[dyl_gon · 3/10 · 4 August 2008]

After viewing "Still Life", a short film directed by Jon Knautz, I was genuinely excited for his feature film debut, "Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer". "Still Life" had perfectly captured the essence and feel of an episode of "The Twilight Zone" and I was eager to see what Knautz could do when taking on the horror-comedy genre. The campy nature of the name and promotional materials suggested something along the lines of "Evil Dead" or "Army of Darkness"; a fun, gory, 80's style horror flick with lots of monsters. While that was what Knautz was going for, he utterly fails at capturing any of the fun or entertainment value these movies had.

The problem with "Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer" is that it completely lacks an understanding of what made these horror-comedies, that it tries to evoke, so great in the first place. Two-thirds of the running time is primarily devoted to the film's hero, Jack Brooks, a plumber and college student, as he goes to class and attempts to deal with his uncontrollable bursts of anger. There's nary a monster in sight for the greater part of the film, barely even a drop of blood or the slightest attempt at anything horror-related. Even if "Evil Dead" or "Dead Alive" had subsequent amounts of the gore cut out, they'd still be entertaining. "Jack Brooks" isn't. It's plain boring, which is the worst thing a film of this nature can be. Jack Brooks himself is not all that interesting, at least not enough to warrant the amount of screen time he's given. All one needs to know about him is revealed in the films first ten minutes and from that point on, whenever he's not beating the pulp out of a monster (and he rarely does), he's not worth watching. The movie goes nowhere, following him around on psychiatric sessions and scuffles with classmates.

Eventually things do pick up. Jack Brooks battles a few monsters, some heads are crushed, a few humans are slaughtered, and then it's over. Just like that. All within the span of about fifteen minutes. It is a good fifteen minutes. The monsters are all fairly inventive (and done entirely in camera) and there's some great gore gags (the best being a zombies head crushed in), but after sitting through seventy-five minutes of pure tedium, fifteen minutes just isn't going to cut it.

That's really all there is to it. I could ramble on about the acting which is fairly well done (especially horror icon Robert Englund in a non-traditional role) and how the creature prosthetics are a nice throwback to the days when films didn't use CGI, but it really doesn't matter. "Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer" is utterly boring and while Jon Knautz obviously does have the talent to create a good film (once again, the last fifteen minutes are killer and "Still Life" was amazing – check it out), "Jack Brooks" completely misses the mark. It has its successes (acting, make-up), but those don't change the fact that it's not very entertaining at all. The screening I caught this at had the director and cast in attendance. One piece of information I picked up was that a sequel was in development and that this time, it would focus more on fighting monsters as opposed to "the creation of a hero". My advice: skip this one and wait for the sequel.

Worst movie in my 30 years whatcing

[johanssondaniel-58846 · 3/10 · 10 August 2022]

Garbage movie Wtf. Robert Englund i only watch it for that sake. Killer Clown's from outer space is Oscar material compare to this. Bad acting bad affectes nothing going for it at All.

Monstrously Good Adventure!

[tesswysko · 7/10 · 14 January 2019]

Lately I find myself bored with mainstream cookie cutter flicks, and that's why I love my free Tubi app, because it serves me up many interesting movies I've never heard of. Sometimes I get stinkers, and sometimes I am pleasantly surprised with a REALLY enjoyable movie, like this one! So as you see, I went in South no expectations, other than I picked it because it had Robert Englund in it, he's been in some stinkers though, but here we go! Jack was born into a beautiful, loving family, with a mom and dad who were very much in love, and a little sister he loved dearly... the kind of family EVERY child dreams of having, then one day on their yearly camping trip, tragedy struck, out of the bushes a monster came and wiped out his family. This changed him into a very angry young man, then a very angry man. This is the story of that man, and how he learned to harness that anger to do good and hunt monsters! This movie has some campiness yes, but there's so many lessons on life and love and its just so enjoyable that the campy edge is blurred. I guess I'd say its along the lines of Dale and Tucker VS Evil without the stupid, bumbling idiocy... just enjoy the movie like I did! HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!!!

The Black Heart Beats Again

[mart-45 · 8/10 · 29 March 2008]

What is the best anger management program for someone who has witnessed his family slain in one's childhood by a hideous monster and has blamed himself for not having been able to do something to save them? Meditation? Yoga? Pilates? Yolates? Gay exercise videos? Wrong: it's professional monster slaying. The bottled up emotions that might complicate everyday life can be used effectively to annihilate various monsters and thusly to achieve great therapeutic effect combined with social beneficence.

That's The Monster Slayer in a nutshell. It's a campy, smooth old-school gore-fest, but it's well executed and acted in spite of the fact that the cup of the budget runneth not over. Good old Robert Englund delivers a tour de force over the top charleslaughtonian performance which is a delight. Rachel Skarsten is a perfectly nasty Barbie bitch from hell. Her high-pitched whining scene in the car is a total blast. Now the hero, Trevor Matthews, is someone to watch with attention. Methinks stardom might come knocking on the door any day soon.

A very nice 1980s style (i.e. trendy) flick makes a great 1,5 hour entertainment if it's not Hamlet you're really craving for.

A let down actually

[smccar77 · 5/10 · 1 March 2011]

"Jack Brooks Monster Slayer," is not a good movie. In fact, it is a big letdown. While the production quality and tongue in cheek use of rubber costumes reflects the moderately large budget, the story itself is both flawed and boring. The culprit of the failings is found in the assumptions made by the film makers. By focusing on monster creation process, the film neglects important character development and playful action. Overall, this is a film to be missed. Admittedly, "JBMS," will strike a chord with some nostalgia buffs; yet, as a film, this is little more than a mediocre rehash of genre clichés.

The downfall of this film is two assumptions. First, the makers assume that showing the history and creation of the monster is both necessary and amusing. Second, supplying detail to the above mentioned monster ontology is assumed to also be necessary and interesting. Neither assumption is wrong, per se. The execution in this film, however, is outright boring. An extended example may help to clarify. Cooking shows run a tenuous line. Watching the act of creation is interesting and informative. Detailing every action that goes into dish preparation is dull. A cooking program needs to find a balance between informative exposition and potentially dull but important detail. The answer seems to be that every part of a cooking show is a mix of technique and technique explanation. As such, breaking down an onion is shown because it informs on knife technique in practice and also illustrates the benefits of uniform piece size in cooking. Peeling a potato or boiling water is not shown because they are important techniques that benefit little from being demonstrated. The point is that all elements of the process are evaluated on the levels of understanding that are conveyable. The same is true for the horror film. A background to the protagonist and antagonist is appreciated as long as it sets the current context as well as developing the actual characters. "JBMS," provides a great amount of detail concerning how the main monster is formed. The slow transition from human to demon is the body of the film. Choosing this transition as the focal point of the story leads to a ninety minute film; a ninety minute film that could very easily have been forty minutes. Furthermore, the added detail affords no real development. To the contrary, the monster development is the cinematic equivalent to watching a trained chef peel a potato. Essentially, this film would have benefited from a focus on devious monster action and not hum drum monster ontology.

The above stated, the film is not a total loss. The characters are likable enough, and Robert Englund clearly enjoyed this production. The use of rubber suits as opposed to CGI is a welcome throwback to the creature films of the eighties and before. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that these benefits do not come near enough to balancing out the dry, elongated, boring story telling. This film is worth a miss. I am loathe to recommend this movie even to the horror/comedy buff. There are a great many more interesting and better told stories that are actually worthy of one's time.

On a personal note, I will mention this film to friends as a real Turkey. Unfortunately, this will almost guarantee that it is seen by at least one more person. Should you feel the need to hunt this film down, the movie is best paired with low expectations and somewhat sloppy drunkenness.

Gets better as it progresses.

[Hey_Sweden · 6/10 · 16 March 2015]

Co-producer / co-story author Trevor Matthews is also our title character here. Jack Brooks is an aimless 20 something plumber with severe anger management issues. This stems from a traumatic childhood incident in which he had to watch his family get massacred by a forest monster. Years later, while attending a night school science class, he agrees to take on a job for his teacher, Gordon Crowley (genre icon Robert Englund). Naturally, Crowley lives in a house with a sordid & violent history and the evil forces still residing on this property are soon free to possess Crowley.

"Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer" does earn points for being in the spirit of insane, low budget 1980s horror. The main problem for this viewer is that, for too much of the running time, some of the humour just fell flat, and it was hard to really care about the main character. What *is* irresistible is the chance to see Englund be broadly funny; he doesn't get that many opportunities to do comedy. He's the main reason to watch. A large amount of the humour is of the lowbrow variety, with no shortage of gas and vomit jokes. But the ultimate monster design is endearingly silly, and the makeup effects and gore are fun.

Matthews is good as Jack, especially late in the game when the big shift occurs in his character and he decides to become the ass kicking hero. Rachel Skarsten delivers an effectively bitchy performance as Jacks' fed-up girlfriend. Daniel Kash (Spunkmeyer in "Aliens") is fine as the weary psychiatrist. And David Fox does a reasonably amusing job as our elderly tale spinner / exposition provider.

Enjoyable enough combo of laughs and shocks does work towards a decent finale.

Six out of 10.

JACK BROOKS - isn't scary or funny = WEAK!!!!

[horrorcritic72 · 1/10 · 25 July 2008]

I don't know why this has gotten any decent reviews as it could be the weakest horror comedy I've ever seen. Englund is just in it for a cameo and his performance is as unnecessary as most of the lame attempts at jokes (and scares). The direction is terrible and the acting is worse. It seems like every year producers are trying to make another Evil Dead but these weak unoriginal attempts are just stepping on the memory of a true horror classic.

Whether its filmmakers saying,"this isn't a remake but its an 80s throwback (which is just as unoriginal in my opinion - Hatchet) or people trying to plug this with other horror classics, Its still misleading and wont make up for the lack of scares, horror, comedy, or even a decent movie for that matter.

AVOID AT ALL COSTS!!!

Not as funny as they think it is

[anthony-727 · 4/10 · 25 November 2009]

From the point of budget 2.5m CAD isn't very much when you look at the animatronics, puppetry in this film, that alone being the reason for the 9 week shoot. I was really keen to see this film and had hoped to catch it when it came out, instead got it on DVD recently. My main problem is it's just not funny at all, it's better than Tenacious D which hasn't got a funny bone in it's body. But this was a truly disappointing film.

Trevor Matthews is a very strong physically performer, but his acting sucks! Rachel Skarsten gives what is possibly one of the most irritating and none funny performances I have ever seen. The only really BIG star in this is David Scott who's artwork for the monsters is fab! His special effects work is the main reason this film is worth watching, loved the Cyclops and Troll and and the Prof Monster was straight out of the Henson library.

If you watch this it won't be the biggest waste of time, but if you are looking to see this for a great Horror Comedy Romp... Don't bother.

Think Evil Dead

[bowmanblue · 6/10 · 6 November 2014]

Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer. Need I say more? Oh, okay then.

Really, if the title doesn't give you a clue to what sort of movie you're about to watch then I really can't add that much.

It's a cheesy, low budget B-movie (or maybe even C-movie) about a loser who had his family killed by a monster. Now, he's a plumber by day and a student at night. Plus he has anger issues. Guess what - he's destined to fight monsters. And that's about it.

But is it any good? Well, Robert 'original Freddy Kruger' Englund is in it, so that does mean it's not going to be completely awful and the former spiky-fingered one does overact nicely.

As for the rest of it, well, it's okay.

The first three quarters of the film don't contain many monsters. Which is a shame, based on its title.

However, if you enjoy where it's going, you'll be rewarded with a suitably decent pay-off. This comes in the form a nice slice 'n dice battle in the college with monsters splattering all over the place.

Overall, it's fun - especially for the ending. I just wish they could have put the ending in the middle and then added more of the same.

A fantastic throwback to 50's horror and Army of Darkness.

[dudeamis · 8/10 · 24 September 2008]

Sometimes you see a movie at the video store and you decided to take a chance on it, usually you're stuck with a bad movie and out a couple bucks, not the case with Monster Slayer.

Jack seems to be a fairly regular guy, working a thankless job and dating a whiny college girl. But Jack is not a regular guy, when he was a kid he witnessed a terrible tragedy, a tragedy he blames himself for and that fuels his episodes of rage. While doing a job for his science teacher, Professor Crowley (Robert Englund), Jack unintentionally awakens an ancient evil. Soon his entire science class is in mortal danger.

Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer is a slow building monster movie, that really allows the character of Jack to be explored before the crap hits the fan. After the opening scene we don't see a monster for about 2/3 of the movie. But that's fine because the last third makes up for it.

Jack Brooks also does something rarely seen today, effective use of prosthetics. Instead of relying on cheesy cgi like this weeks Sci-Fi original, this movie uses well made monster make up to create realistic hell spawn.

The acting is fantastic for a movie of this level, Trevor Matthews does a fantastic job as the hero. Rachel Skarsten is terrifically annoying and James A. Woods plays the stereotypical wanna be philosopher college kid who smokes too much weed, perfectly.

While this movie is made in the spirit of Army of Darkness, you will not confuse the two movies. Jack Brooks is much more serious, but not too serious. Jack Brooks doesn't throw out classic one liners, or is too cocky for his own good. Jack is just a guy with a lot of anger issues who steps up when he's needed the most.

Crazy Fun From Start To Finish...

[azathothpwiggins · 1 September 2020]

In JACK BROOKS: MONSTER SLAYER, the titular plumber (Trevor Matthews) is fueled by the death of his parents to do his second, more important job. Namely, his understandable anger problem is pitted against creatures from the abyss. When Professor Gordon Crowley (Robert Englund) inadvertently releases forces from beyond the grave, it's up to Brooks to put the kibosh to it all.

This is a movie for the connoisseur of such films as EVIL DEAD 1 and 2, DEMONS, etc. The practical effects are well done, bringing a welcome, nostalgic feel to it. Matthews makes a great Ash-type hero, and Englund is perfectly suited for his role as the unassuming teacher turned eeevil entity. With ample humor and bathtubs full of gushy nastiness, this is a gorehound's sweet dream!...

You Can't Please Everyone...

[soulcrisis28 · 7/10 · 7 September 2021]

Wow, ok so the reviews are all over the place for this one. As we all know, art is subjective and watching and either liking or not liking this movie is going to depend on if you enjoy these types of movies or not. That being said, I do need to touch on a few things.

First, some of these reviews are written by complete idiots. This movie is not like 50s or even 60s horror and it definitely IS NOTHING LIKE EVIL DEAD! Are you serious? "Oh Evil Dead had demons in it, so does this movie, they are so alike" NO! This movie and Evil Dead are NOTHING alike and Evil Dead or even Army of Darkness should not come to mind watching this. The movie stands on its own merit for being original and not a cheap copy or rip off of something else as others have said.

Next, it is way too much of a slow burn for what it's supposed to be, a comedy-horror. In fact, this actually makes you begin to dislike the lead as opposed to liking and supporting him like in most comedy-horrors. The lead is not a very good actor either. He puts off this wannabe reject Mark Wahlberg vibe and even the real Mark Wahlberg is barely tolerable. The other characters don't help or impress much either. Except Robert Englund, you can't go wrong with the great horror master himself. However, even his shining performance wasn't enough to put a gleam on the rest of the actors acting.

Last, I HATE CGI. What was supposed to be added and used sparingly to enhance movies and allow movie makers to do things and create scenes that would otherwise be impossible has been completely abused and over used and ruined many movies. I will take REAL SFX, even "rubber" as some reviewers liked to mention, BTW, it's not "rubber" it's latex and foam and liquid silicone. While yes, these are "like" rubber, it's not just plain old rubber.

All in all, it's not a bad movie, it's not a superb movie either. It's watchable and enjoyable and that's a lot these days in the B movie/stream world we live in today.

ridiculous rubber monsters

[Bone3011 · 3/10 · 20 February 2021]

Maybe I did not understand the film, maybe I was expecting something different because of the high scores. Maybe it's me and not you, but it was a waste of time. How can you even enjoy these ridiculous rubber monsters? The only good thing about the movie is its Ryan Shore's original score

Never, Ever Collect Stuff!

[TheJonesBones · 7/10 · 4 October 2021]

See, this is what happens when some old codger goes about the world collecting stuff from various disreputable persons until - inevitably - he collects an evil artifact from hell! Never, ever collect stuff!

This is a story about a well-meaning plumber with serious rage issues, a cranky girlfriend and a continuing education professor with an unhealthy penchant for digging stuff out of the ground and becoming infected with tentacle-wielding demons. Oh, man, Robert Englund is today's Boris Karloff!

You'll enjoy the story, the effects (especially the Robert Englund monster!) and the dialogue and, well, just about the whole movie! It'll make you toss your baseball cards, commemorative plates and that scab collection you've been saving since second-grade - since any one of those collectible items could come directly from HELL, people!

Can't scare me with dialog

[McQualude · 3/10 · 29 May 2015]

How difficult can it really be to make a horror movie? "Ah, but that is why so many bad horror movies are made", you say, "because everyone thinks it will be easy." Well plot-wise, it has to be easy. Where most horror fails is not in the plot, the make-up, or even the casting because you can get away with inexperienced actors if you give them something to do. You cannot scare or horrify people with mountains of dialog. Don't tell me the history of the evil, show me. Don't explain the nature of the evil in tedious detail, show me. Or better yet, don't explain anything and just keep horrible things happening. Don't give inexperienced actors pages and pages of dialog, just keep them moving, running, screaming, chopping, crying, dying; anything except talking. JBMS spends far too much of the movie developing a complicated back story about rage and shame that has squat to do with the ending. Oh but the ending was good, if only it had started earlier in the movie.

Like the good old days of popcorn and horror!!!

[orochiklan · 8/10 · 28 September 2008]

Forget the past review, this is one hell of a movie!!! I'm so happy to see stuff like this or Hatchet, cause they have the feeling of the golden age of gore horror funny films... remember brain damage or house and stuff like that? just friends popcorn and a bad ass funny over the top film! ...its so nice to see some good old style horror films, now that horror is so conservative, full of ghost dramatic stories or remakes. And above all that we have one of the modern classic actors of the genre, Mr Englund. I think there will be a lot of people who will find this film bad or something, but to that people, please rent or buy another Asian Hollywood remake, drama/ghosts from spain or a new Texas chainsaw clone. For all of you who enjoy : basket case, braindead, brain damage, house and evil dead, this will be a pleasure to watch.Thanks to the people behind this film, this was one hell of a ride!!! truly thanks!! and I'm looking forward for a part II

Way too much plumbing; not nearly enough monster slaying.

[BA_Harrison · 4/10 · 2 January 2009]

If there's one thing I've learnt from watching George Romero's Creepshow, it's that if you stumble upon a mysterious old crate that someone has obviously gone to a lot of effort to hide, just leave well alone: there's probably something nasty inside.

Obviously, Professor Gordon Crowley, Robert Englund's character in 'Jack Brooks, Monster Slayer' isn't a Romero fan, 'cos he busts open the old wooden box he finds buried in his yard, only to discover—surprise, surprise—an ancient demon that possesses his body (initially causing him to eat and vomit rather a lot).

When the demon eventually erupts from Crowley's body during chemistry class and begins to transform the students into hellish, flesh-tearing beasts, it's up to plumber Jack Brooks (Trevor Matthews) to try and stop the foul creatures, armed only with a length of pipe and fuelled by a lifelong hatred of all things monstrous!.

The DVD packaging for Jon Knautz's low-budget monster flick promises one hell of a fun ride, offering cheesy thrills and spills of the kind one might expect from your average 80s creature feature (toothy critters, rubber monster suits, gruesome gore, and absolutely no CGI!)—and for the last 15 minutes, that's exactly what viewers get: non-stop splattery effects; a silly, tentacled Jabba-style demon thingy; and mucho macho monster mashing!

It's a shame, then, that the rest of the film's running time—a massive 70 minutes or so—is mostly spent following Jack as he goes about his boring, everyday business: plumbing, visiting his shrink, going to chemistry class, and upsetting his girlfriend. If you think you might enjoy a film that focuses primarily on coping with childhood trauma and anger management, buying spare boiler valves from a hardware shop, and the chemical properties of Sodium, then this is the film for you; but if it's a massive dose of monster mayhem you're after, then I'd advise looking elsewhere!

Lost Girl Alumni

[getapeace · 5/10 · 10 October 2017]

Eve- Rachel Scarsten, is Tamzin in Lost Girl. For this, I watched it. Girl crush. It did have less mature moments this movie- but it is a movie, not a Film. Cool monsters from before CGI. gotta like that. And Englund always adds a creepy element; I am going as Freddy Kruger this Halloween and ya gotta love Englund for that. But anyway- Rachel is HOT

Great Fun.

[x_thebrokenvow_x · 9/10 · 17 October 2008]

i've heard lots of people go back and forth about this flick, so I decided to pick it up. I must say, I was EXTREMELY impressed. Newcomer Trevor Matthews (Jack Brooks) has the potential to be the next Bruce Campbell. I think the plot and action sequences, while they've been done before (for the most part), were still done in an original way. The best part of this film would be the brilliant performance of horror vet Robert Englund.

This film is honestly a refreshing step back in to the glory of days of mid-80's gore. It is definitely in the same vein of modern gems such as Feast, and is even comparable to solidified classics such as Evil Dead, and Dead Alive.

All-in-all, I highly recommend this flick to anyone who wants to have some fun, and ACTUALLY be entertained while watching a movie.

I hope the sequel gets made soon.

remotely funny...

[ahirvi · 3/10 · 5 October 2008]

I fail to understand why you would give this film anything over 4... Fair enough it does take me back to the 80s and to the 'good old days of horror comedy' but that genre has not got any better since then - it is still so 'LAME Low budget - low tech - bad acting - bad story line - not at all scary and not funny enough... in fact there is not much good I could say about it. The so called monsters are just hideously bad! I mean we have gone back in time to when they used to make the monsters out of plasticine and shoot the scenes fame by frame... I really fail to understand why someone would invest any money in order to make this script to a film - but I guess it might have been almost OK if it had been a bigger budget film.

Recommendation would be - please do not make the mistake of wasting your time on this unless if you wish to get tips for a bad Halloween make up! Personally I enjoy independent films and anything outside the box but this just did not do it for me in the least.

A great beginning for the filmmakers

[GoreWhoreAust · 5/10 · 30 May 2010]

Its taken awhile to get around to this one, led by positive reaction on pretty much every horror site during Jack Brooks' festival circuit run. For the most part the positive reactions were valid. The film has a lot that many zero budget horror offerings don't. Most impressive, and most important of all in my opinion, is that the film looks good. It's well shot, not too much hand-held, dynamic framing and good light/dark contrast in the many night time scenes. The acting, dodgy at best even in studio horror fare, is pretty good here, the stand out being of course Trevor Matthews as the titular Jack Brooks. That's saying a lot considering Matthews in a stuntman by trade and though he is put through his paces on the physical front, there are a number of scenes where Matthews elicits genuine empathy for Jack. While its always nice to see horror veterans like Robert Englund working, he hams it up alittle too much, and its especially noticeable in scenes with the 'playing-it-straight' Matthews. Actually, there's a very curious scene that involves the two actors that is played so dead pan, I'm still not sure If I was reading it right. It involves a lot of talk of Jack coming around to 'unblock' the professor's (Englund) pipes. I read homoerotic, but you be the judge. The all important FX in Jack Brooks is also handled very well, when not in tight close-up. It is here the film's inspirations are laid bare, Evil Dead II and Peter Jackson's Brain Dead, to an almost blinding degree, but director Knautz can be forgiven for this indulgence as he has his fun with such glowing reverence. However, all the above doesn't not a cult classic make. Jack Brooks is a one note, one idea story stretched out to nearly 90 minutes. It should be half that. We really only get to the good stuff in the last half an hour. It really feels like many scenes are just padding, especially those with Jack's anger management councilor and all the classroom scenes with Englund. This excess of scenes over states minor story and character developments making everything more predictable and in turn the viewer more impatient to get to there foregone conclusion. While it really should have been a short film (though I know they would have never got the funding for it) the filmmakers behind Jack Brooks should still be proud, as the elements that do work, work well.

He never slayed any monsters before I stopped watching

[yeodawg · 11 October 2011]

Zack is prone to VIOLENT tendencies because he witnessed his entire family slain by a "STAKE LAND" type monster as a use and was helpless to do anything about it. Now struggling to maintain a job and stay in college he does an odd job for his professor (ROBERT ENGLUND of Freddie Krueger fame). This job unleashes a DEMON from the bowels of hell that infects and possesses the professor. He turns his eyes turn black and he goes back t the college snatching up lil co-eds and IDUNNO because I turned it off. I was tired of no monsters being slain. The professor would go to school act normal and then go home to his haunted house get re-infected in another strange way and go back to the school and be normal. There were great production values with this movie a good cast and supporting. But it didn't do anything or go anywhere. I would've loved to find out the MONSTER SLAYER was the monster and the infected were the slayer or something. I turned the damn thing off and watched the brewers lose.