I went into expect details of the murders from the Grim Sleeper, but that's not what you get. It's more about the crack epidemic and poor police work in south LA. It's much more of a social commentary than it is a documentary about a prolific serial killer. So don't expect details of the murder, footage of the Grim Sleeper, or any of the standard serial killer documentary stuff. I was disappointed at first, but I learned a lot about how the police basically let the guy go rampant, because the victims were black crack addicted hookers. And they chose not to care.
Reviews
13 Reviews
Wow this is dumb
5 August 2020
I'm gonna pretend this is a real documentary and attack it's thesis; it revealed no connection between Bigfoot and aliens apart from eyewitnesses claims that people saw UFO's around the same time they saw Bigfoot. It's really a mix of a Bigfoot, alien, and ghost documentaries, just slapped together like some kind of Frankenstein's monster. The narrator implies that these are all possibly related, but provide no evidence. At one point, a bug flies in front of the camera, and they play it back in slow motion saying something along the lines of "it seems Bigfoot turned himself into a fairy to play a trick on us". So dumb. Kind of entertaining background noise, but this documentary is so devoid of any substance I can't condone its existence.
Really good for what it is
28 July 2020
I had absolutely no expectations for this movie. I found out there was a Ted the Caver movie, and saw it was on prime, and immediately watched it. When it first began, I thought it was going to suck. Every scene outside the cave looks extremely cheap and amateurish. Once they get into the cave, however, it starts to look more like a real movie.
The cave sets look really good. I'd believe that it was all shot in a real cave, but then some of the shots they got would be impossible. The acting from our leads is a little corny, but this is a very low budget horror, so it was really just as good as it needed to be.
There's some good suspense, but some annoying "it was just a loud noise" jump scares. The jump scares are the worst part of this movie. They're effective, I jumped, but they felt really cheap for the most part. And they were far too frequent. There's a few other problems, such as a character who only exists as a McGuffin to get our leads back into the cave.
If you're an expert on Ted the Caver, you probably won't like it because it does deviate from the original story. If you're like me, who read the story 10 years ago and forgot about it until I stumbled upon this movie, I think you'll enjoy it. Big recommendation, I think this is truly a hidden gem.
The cave sets look really good. I'd believe that it was all shot in a real cave, but then some of the shots they got would be impossible. The acting from our leads is a little corny, but this is a very low budget horror, so it was really just as good as it needed to be.
There's some good suspense, but some annoying "it was just a loud noise" jump scares. The jump scares are the worst part of this movie. They're effective, I jumped, but they felt really cheap for the most part. And they were far too frequent. There's a few other problems, such as a character who only exists as a McGuffin to get our leads back into the cave.
If you're an expert on Ted the Caver, you probably won't like it because it does deviate from the original story. If you're like me, who read the story 10 years ago and forgot about it until I stumbled upon this movie, I think you'll enjoy it. Big recommendation, I think this is truly a hidden gem.
Manos Returns
(2018)
Not a real movie
21 July 2020
This is a completely amateur production. Literally. Nobody involved in the process of making this movie has any idea how to act or direct. That's fair, in a sense, since nobody in the original did either, but that does not justify this movies existence
Yes, there are some references to the original that made me laugh, but every single aspect of this movie is bad. It's free on prime, but I feel horribly sorry for anybody who actually spent money on the Kickstarter.
It's awful, but what can you expect? I only watched it because I was astonished to see that it actually existed. And to the other reviewer who said this took the concept of the original and flushed it out: you're joking, right? This is the exact same concept as the original, but with worse acting (yes, I know), and a few extra plot points that also don't go anywhere.
The only reason to watch this movie is to say you did, but why would you want to? If you read this and are going to watch it anyway; respect. I made the same mistake.
Yes, there are some references to the original that made me laugh, but every single aspect of this movie is bad. It's free on prime, but I feel horribly sorry for anybody who actually spent money on the Kickstarter.
It's awful, but what can you expect? I only watched it because I was astonished to see that it actually existed. And to the other reviewer who said this took the concept of the original and flushed it out: you're joking, right? This is the exact same concept as the original, but with worse acting (yes, I know), and a few extra plot points that also don't go anywhere.
The only reason to watch this movie is to say you did, but why would you want to? If you read this and are going to watch it anyway; respect. I made the same mistake.
Fury of the Demon
(2016)
Pretty interesting
2 July 2020
Warning: Spoilers
While this "documentary" is very interesting, it's difficult to determine its legitimacy. Having come out in 2016, any search for "The Fury of the Demon" brings you back here. On top of that, the film frequently referenced renowned collector, Edgar Wallace, who the documentary claimed screened the original film in 2012. The only Edgar Wallace I could find evidence of is only known as a writer. A writer who died in 1932...
So this is most likely a mockumentary which is played completely straight. The connections to actual historical figures is impressive, and all of the testimonies are fairly convincing. I'm willing to accept that the missing information is just not readily available on the internet, despite my inclination to believe that the 2012 screening would have been international news.
It's worth checking out if you're into lost cinema. For the most part I was able to suspend disbelief. Plus it's only an hour long, so you won't be wasting much of your time.
So this is most likely a mockumentary which is played completely straight. The connections to actual historical figures is impressive, and all of the testimonies are fairly convincing. I'm willing to accept that the missing information is just not readily available on the internet, despite my inclination to believe that the 2012 screening would have been international news.
It's worth checking out if you're into lost cinema. For the most part I was able to suspend disbelief. Plus it's only an hour long, so you won't be wasting much of your time.
House of 1000 Corpses
(2003)
Obvious love letter to old school horror
14 June 2020
This movie is The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. If you've seen that, you've seen this. I don't need to explain the plot; that's all you need to know. It's TTCM with bizarre attempts at stylization. The victims are characterless twats, except for Rainn Wilson, who plays a lovable nerd. Other than him, the real stars are the family and Sid Haig as Captain Spaulding, but the two psycho women are both horribly annoying. It does break away from the basic formula for the third act of the movie, but I can't say it was for the movies benefit.
The stylization is the worst part of it; randomly cutting to 16mm film clips, random colored lighting that change in between shots, and a bunch of flashing quick cuts. If your over the age of 16, and/or are a seasoned horror fan, this movie is much more likely to give you a headache rather than scare you.
Pros- Sid Haig, nostalgic premise, and some decent gore
Cons- awful attempts at stylization, annoying characters, a twist that makes the movie worse.
If you're gonna watch it; you're gonna watch it. But don't expect anything too much.
The stylization is the worst part of it; randomly cutting to 16mm film clips, random colored lighting that change in between shots, and a bunch of flashing quick cuts. If your over the age of 16, and/or are a seasoned horror fan, this movie is much more likely to give you a headache rather than scare you.
Pros- Sid Haig, nostalgic premise, and some decent gore
Cons- awful attempts at stylization, annoying characters, a twist that makes the movie worse.
If you're gonna watch it; you're gonna watch it. But don't expect anything too much.
Stoic
(2009)
Shockingly good
20 May 2020
Tl;dr: Ignore the spammed rating, we all know Uwe Boll is a reliably terrible director, but he pulled off this one good film in his life. Good acting, good premise, believable characters who's motives are understandable given the context. It's pretty bleak, but if that's what you're into, it's a great way to spend an hour and half.
If I have any complaints about the movie, it's in the editing and (lack of) script. First of all, the movie is frequently intercut with interviews/interrogations of the surviving inmates. However, there is nobody in the movie actually questioning them. Often they'll answer a question and the audience doesn't have any context. It's my understanding that much of this film was improvised, which really helped the conversational madness of the scenes in the cell. But occasionally, you could tell an actor was stuck trying to think of something to say, which leaves a few awkward pauses and strange phrasing.
Other than that, for a movie that mostly takes place in a single room, it's quite entertaining. The pacing is great; you'll never be bored. There's some great acting, especially from Sam Levinson who you truly believe is traumatized. In his interview segments, he gives a very emotional performance. He acted with his hands a bit too much, but other than that, I'm shocked he hasn't done more serious mainstream dramatic roles.
The worst performance comes from John Connor from Terminator 2 (once I realized who he was, that's all I could think of him as). He's not terrible, but he plays the most remorseless character, so it seems like he's trying too hard to be a generic sociopath. The German dude was pretty good too.
Obviously the movie is dark and depressing, but if that's the kind of thing you're into, I highly recommend it.
If I have any complaints about the movie, it's in the editing and (lack of) script. First of all, the movie is frequently intercut with interviews/interrogations of the surviving inmates. However, there is nobody in the movie actually questioning them. Often they'll answer a question and the audience doesn't have any context. It's my understanding that much of this film was improvised, which really helped the conversational madness of the scenes in the cell. But occasionally, you could tell an actor was stuck trying to think of something to say, which leaves a few awkward pauses and strange phrasing.
Other than that, for a movie that mostly takes place in a single room, it's quite entertaining. The pacing is great; you'll never be bored. There's some great acting, especially from Sam Levinson who you truly believe is traumatized. In his interview segments, he gives a very emotional performance. He acted with his hands a bit too much, but other than that, I'm shocked he hasn't done more serious mainstream dramatic roles.
The worst performance comes from John Connor from Terminator 2 (once I realized who he was, that's all I could think of him as). He's not terrible, but he plays the most remorseless character, so it seems like he's trying too hard to be a generic sociopath. The German dude was pretty good too.
Obviously the movie is dark and depressing, but if that's the kind of thing you're into, I highly recommend it.
Luther the Geek
(1989)
Almost something special
19 May 2020
Warning: Spoilers
This movie could have been great. The character of Luther is pretty terrifying. Those metal teeth and wide eyes are scarier than any latex mask. There's also some genuinely frightening sequences; specifically when Luther first invades the house. But it has just enough problems to be reduced to forgettable schlock.
This movie cuts off ALL the fat. Luther gets paroled and commits his first on screen murder in the first 10 minutes of the movie. The beginning also contains one of the biggest plot holes I've ever witnessed; how on earth did he get paroled? According the the parole board, he was a model inmate and completely rehabilitated. Yet the man only speaks in chicken squawks...
There really should have used more time in the beginning to show Luther attempt to reintegrate into society. But that'd take more work so why bother? The movie comes off as really lazy.
The third act drags in for ages, and my guess as to why is that the shot the first 50 minutes of the film, and realized they didn't have nearly enough footage to qualify as a feature. So we spend the last half hour watching characters who've had absolutely no development wander around in the dark.
So honestly, this movie was too short. They needed to spend time with Luther attempting to cope with his release, and we they needed to take some time to characterize the victims. The only thing we know about any of them is that the Dad of the family is dead, and it was only mentioned in a single line. I get it, writing characters takes work, and who would want to put work into their film?
If they just put the tiniest bit of characterization in, and took 5 minutes to rethink the logic behind a few scenes, this would be a major cult classic. Luther could have been up there with Leatherface. I still recommend it; the first 50 minutes are incredibly entertaining, but I can't help but mourn the wasted opportunities.
This movie cuts off ALL the fat. Luther gets paroled and commits his first on screen murder in the first 10 minutes of the movie. The beginning also contains one of the biggest plot holes I've ever witnessed; how on earth did he get paroled? According the the parole board, he was a model inmate and completely rehabilitated. Yet the man only speaks in chicken squawks...
There really should have used more time in the beginning to show Luther attempt to reintegrate into society. But that'd take more work so why bother? The movie comes off as really lazy.
The third act drags in for ages, and my guess as to why is that the shot the first 50 minutes of the film, and realized they didn't have nearly enough footage to qualify as a feature. So we spend the last half hour watching characters who've had absolutely no development wander around in the dark.
So honestly, this movie was too short. They needed to spend time with Luther attempting to cope with his release, and we they needed to take some time to characterize the victims. The only thing we know about any of them is that the Dad of the family is dead, and it was only mentioned in a single line. I get it, writing characters takes work, and who would want to put work into their film?
If they just put the tiniest bit of characterization in, and took 5 minutes to rethink the logic behind a few scenes, this would be a major cult classic. Luther could have been up there with Leatherface. I still recommend it; the first 50 minutes are incredibly entertaining, but I can't help but mourn the wasted opportunities.
Wrinkles the Clown
(2019)
No narrative nor structure
18 May 2020
This is one of the extremely rare cases where I turned a movie off. It was such an interesting idea, and they completely squandered it. There's no sense of order, you could recut the majority of this movie and it would not make a difference, if it weren't for a twist that rendered the first half of the doc a waste of time.
This is the cinematic equivalent to reading the comments on YouTube video called "scary 3:00 AM challenge". It is largely just kids yapping into cellphone cameras about spooky clowns. They even often fail to give an opinion. It fails at exploring its topic with any kind of depth and comes across as extremely lazy.
Let me save you 78 minutes. See that guy on the poster? Parents can hire him to scare misbehaving children. You learn nothing more by watching this film.
This is the cinematic equivalent to reading the comments on YouTube video called "scary 3:00 AM challenge". It is largely just kids yapping into cellphone cameras about spooky clowns. They even often fail to give an opinion. It fails at exploring its topic with any kind of depth and comes across as extremely lazy.
Let me save you 78 minutes. See that guy on the poster? Parents can hire him to scare misbehaving children. You learn nothing more by watching this film.
Wrong Turn
(I) (2003)
Utter trash
16 May 2020
This is one of the least worthwhile horror movies I've seen in a long time. I didn't expect much, all you really want from these kinds of movies are some good kills and some good jump scares. We get neither. The opening scene tells you right away that this is a low effort rip off.
Our lead is the standard stone-faced tough guy with absolutely no depth to his character. We have 2 stoners who aren't in the film long enough to learn their names. The 2 girls who remain are basically just hot, and one happens to be engaged to our only likable character, played by Jeremy Sisto. He's not incredible, but he's somewhat charming and he was the only character I cared for even a little. He's the only person in the movie who has a little something called a "personality". So basically, in our cast of 6 characters, we only get one actual character.
The rest of the movie is just predictable schlock. Maybe enjoyable with drunk friends but nothing more. There's one somewhat cool kill, but for the most part their either off screen or incredibly bland. Admittedly I'm somewhat impervious to jump scares, but I would say they would be ineffective to most.
So basically if you've been considering giving this a watch but haven't gotten around to it yet, just save yourself the time.
Our lead is the standard stone-faced tough guy with absolutely no depth to his character. We have 2 stoners who aren't in the film long enough to learn their names. The 2 girls who remain are basically just hot, and one happens to be engaged to our only likable character, played by Jeremy Sisto. He's not incredible, but he's somewhat charming and he was the only character I cared for even a little. He's the only person in the movie who has a little something called a "personality". So basically, in our cast of 6 characters, we only get one actual character.
The rest of the movie is just predictable schlock. Maybe enjoyable with drunk friends but nothing more. There's one somewhat cool kill, but for the most part their either off screen or incredibly bland. Admittedly I'm somewhat impervious to jump scares, but I would say they would be ineffective to most.
So basically if you've been considering giving this a watch but haven't gotten around to it yet, just save yourself the time.
Tumbling Doll of Flesh
(1998)
I could barely sit through it... because it was so BORING
28 May 2019
I've always seen this movie on lists of the "most disturbing films of all time" and I recently got the chance to watch it, so I went ahead and did so. Yes, this movie is disturbing I suppose, but not in a good way. I've seen most of the big players in the disturbing movie seen (Salo, Martyrs, A Serbian Film, ect.). Those movies managed to be disturbing while also having at least a little bit of artist merit to them, while this movie had NONE. It was boring as hell too. I really wanted to turn it off, but not because I couldn't handle the content of it.
Here's the plot: people shoot porno, porno gets to intense for girl so she quits, on her way out they hit her in the head with a bat, then they torture her to death. Now I'm fine with the idea of this plot, but the main issue here was that there were no CHARACTERS. In the other films I mentioned (except Salo) we get to know the characters before the awful things happen to them, so I actual CARE when this character I've gotten to know has horrible things happen to them. In this movie I didn't even know the girls name. I tried to analyze it for a deeper meaning... maybe a commentary on how the porn industry uses women as objects? Maybe, but I really doubt that is what the director was going for.
I'm giving this movie 3 stars of 10. One star for the minimum I can give, another for the special effects, and one more because it was technically disturbing. It did make me uncomfortable, but it won't weigh on me for days like Salo or Martyrs did.
Even if you like super extreme disturbing movies, I still wouldn't recommend it. Unless you have some kind of sick fetish and get off to this kind of stuff (honestly half way through I started to wonder if this was made just to arouse people with a snuff fetish, so I'll credit it for doing psuedo-snuff decently. It really felt like it was made for psycho's to beat off to), or just need to cross it off your list.
Here's the plot: people shoot porno, porno gets to intense for girl so she quits, on her way out they hit her in the head with a bat, then they torture her to death. Now I'm fine with the idea of this plot, but the main issue here was that there were no CHARACTERS. In the other films I mentioned (except Salo) we get to know the characters before the awful things happen to them, so I actual CARE when this character I've gotten to know has horrible things happen to them. In this movie I didn't even know the girls name. I tried to analyze it for a deeper meaning... maybe a commentary on how the porn industry uses women as objects? Maybe, but I really doubt that is what the director was going for.
I'm giving this movie 3 stars of 10. One star for the minimum I can give, another for the special effects, and one more because it was technically disturbing. It did make me uncomfortable, but it won't weigh on me for days like Salo or Martyrs did.
Even if you like super extreme disturbing movies, I still wouldn't recommend it. Unless you have some kind of sick fetish and get off to this kind of stuff (honestly half way through I started to wonder if this was made just to arouse people with a snuff fetish, so I'll credit it for doing psuedo-snuff decently. It really felt like it was made for psycho's to beat off to), or just need to cross it off your list.
Tell Your Friends