The Silence of the Lambs - Will's review

Another bone-fide modern classic this week. 

I first saw Silence of the Lambs soon after it's release, which would have put me at 12 or 13 years old; I guess back then expected a bit more killing from my serial killer movies, and a bit less talking, because I never watched the whole thing. 

The Silence of the Lambs - Lisa's Review

This week I had the pleasure of re-watching one of my all time favourite movies.  I first saw this movie in my late teens and I absolutely adored it from the start.  I fell in love with Jodie Foster and she has remained a girl crush to this very day.  It's just a pity she doesn't do as much in movies these days.  A real shame.  Antony Hopkins is still in my top 3 favourite actors all these years later.  It's a movie that has stayed with me and has never wavered from being right at the top.  I would be completely aghast if anyone reading this (again hello?) hadn't seen the movie, but for young'uns who perhaps haven't, I suppose I should talk about storyline for a bit.

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer - Will's Review

I am fascinated by serial killers. 

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be one, or meet one, and in an ideal world they wouldn't exist; but as they do exist, I may as well admit that I find them fascinating, and read about them... So I do.

Henry Lee Lucas isn't as well represented in serial killer literature and documentaries as most of his contemporaries, mostly because little about his crimes is actually known; most of his confessions were debunked, and his death sentence was commuted to a life sentence when it turned out he was probably in the wrong state to have committed the murder he was sentenced for (scumbag or not, a life sentence for a crime you were hundreds of miles away from seems a bit much to me).

What we do know about Lucas, is that he had a male lover, Ottis, whom he met at a soup kitchen, and that he had an affair with Ottis' 12 year old daughter, Becky.

It tells us all we need to know about the accuracy of this movie that Ottis is present as a flatmate that he knew from prison, and Becky is here as Ottis' adult sister. This movie isn't so much 'based on a true story' as 'based on a trio of actual first names'. But that's fine; what we are left with is a gritty, almost exploitative, piece about a realistic, though fictional, serial killer.

Or, more accurately, pair of serial killers; as is believed to be the case in real life, Ottis joins Henry on part of his rampage.

Whereas the real Ottis was probably a serial killer in his own right, here it is Henry who desensitises him to murder, and teaches him the 'art' of serial killing; specifically, Henry is a fan of the 'no MO' MO - shoot one victim, strangle the next, dismember one, dump one in an alley whole - no pattern makes you harder to catch!

One of the movies most effective scenes is also the one that gave me greatest pause from a story point of view; having established that Henry is all about not being caught and leaving a trail (he dissuades Ottis from killing a college kid he sells drugs to, on the grounds that killing so robe you have a connection to is a big no-no) the pair use a camcorder to film a home-invasion they stage. While the invasion is disturbing and effective, I don't buy that someone so familiar with the serial killer no-noes would create such a piece of evidence.

Ottis at one point tries to forcibly kiss his sister (squick!) for "a joke"; Henry does not take kindly to this, forcing Ottis to apologise, it's one of two time that Henry shows any kind of morals as you and I might understand them (the other relates to a postmortem sexual assault). Theses moments work to set up a line that even he will not cross, but do nothing to redeem him as a human being, as such I found them interesting; usually these things are set up as some kind of redemption of a killer turned hero-killer.... This is SO not that kind of movie. 

From the technical side, this movie was made for around $100,000 in 10 days, leaving neither the time nor budget for effects and reshoots; The director has used this entirely to his advantage, bringing us a low-key movie which adds to the realism. Performances are solid, but a special mention must go to  Michael Rooker (The Walking Dead's Merl) who is almost too believable in the title role.

With enough differences between the this movie and the truth of the case, it would be wrong to claim this movie is, in any meaningful sense, a true story; but it is at least realistic. As such, it's probably one of the best realistic serial killer movies I've seen ('true' or otherwise), but it's not for everyone; it's gritty, nasty, and uncomfortable, there are no punch-the-air moments, or 'creative' kills, no twisted justice, or victims that 'had it coming' (well, one, but even that isn't framed as a cathartic moment for the viewer), it truly is a great movie... Not that's not to say it's an enjoyable one.

Recommended, but proceed with caution if you're not hardened to this kind of thing.

Murder Set Pieces - Lisa's Review

* SPOILERS*

This is a movie I hadn't heard anything about before today, so I pressed play with absolutely no knowledge of what awaited me whatsoever.

What can I say?  I was all ready to slate this movie due to its appalling lack of plot, flimsy character building and seemingly spliced together scenes, but on thinking about it outside of the box and outside of my own personal viewing preference, I can't be as critical as I would perhaps like to be.

To give some idea of what we're talking about here, Murder Set Pieces is a story of a german photographer living in Las Vegas who has a penchant for raping, torturing and murdering beautiful young women.  The movie mainly documents him picking up the women and their eventual demise.

The photographer is portrayed as an incredibly sadistic, immoral individual who it seems is driven to do what he does.  It doesn't even seem that he gets much enjoyment from his actions, but rather it's just normality for him.  We are given a tiny piece of background information on him in that his grandfather was an associate of Hitler and fought in WW2.  He has various Nazi paraphernalia around his appartment and seems to believe the germans were the good guys in the war.  This is as much information as we are given about why he is how he is or what drives him.  The movie just seems to be one long blood bath with occasional naked women thrown in.

A store robbery is played out in the movie which seems to have absolutely no relevance whatsoever.  1 woman is left alive, which I thought may tie in later, but it is never visited again, making me wonder what the point was... It is slightly humorous which is saying something in the midst of this movie, a little light relief is sorely needed.  This scene shows us that he is willing to kill anyone for pretty much no reason, again adding to my notion that he doesn't do what he does for kicks or fun, but simply because he wants to.

There is also the murder of a child in the movie, which is definately a taboo, but thankfully this isn't strung out and no torture or abuse scene is included here.  I think I'd have been reaching for the remote if much dwelling was done.  Again, I wasn't sure of the relevance of this scene, apart from to make him even more repugnant.....

Now that the negatives are over, I will say the effects in this movie are excellent.  The blood is one of the most realistic I've seen and the murder scenes look exactly like you would imagine them to be in reality.   There is no theatrics, no case of overkill (no pun intended).  This does honestly feel like you're watching these horrible scenes for real.  Specifically one scene in a bath with a young woman who is almost drowned and then has her throat cut comes to mind.  I would imagine the violent dunking she undergoes left quite a mark with her.  I know I cringed watching it, not because I was enthralled with the story (because there isn't one!), but because I felt for the poor actress playing the role.

I will say all the deaths, rapes and tortures in this movie are horrible.  They are remarkably well put together and believable, I will give the movie makers that much.  However the one scene which disturbed me the most about this movie was a scene including a young toddler.  The Photographer lifts him from his cot with his hands covered in blood and holds him up to examine him.  Inwardly my heart was thumping... as a mother of a 2 year old, I can't bear to see anything happen to a child in a movie, but with the way this movie was going, I didn't even want to think where we could be going with this one.  Thankfully he doesn't harm the baby and we see him toddle down a corrider crying, covered in blood to his dead mother, where he puts his head on her chest.  The scene is heartbreaking.  I found it very difficult to deal with, both from an emotional viewpoint of being a mother, but mainly as this child was clearly very upset and distraught and was of much too young an age to be 'acting'.  He was flailing around and pulling away from the actor, clearly wanting to get away from him, clearly frightened and crying hysterically for real.  I didn't find it appropriate that they put such a young child through this experience for entertainment purposes.  Ok, so it's a movie, it isn't real, but the fear coming from that poor child was definately real!

After watching several deaths and rapes, I just felt like this was a movie for gorehounds who don't care for a story at all.  It did however occur to me, that this lack of plot, storyline or explanation is quite possibly due to wanting to place us inside the head of the killer.  This guy didn't give anything much thought and killed for killings sake.  The movie definately succeeded in giving us an insight into the mind of such a person and it most definately isn't somewhere I liked visiting.

So in retrospect, can I slate the movie because it doesn't fit a certain stereotype and it wasn't necessarilly my type of thing?  Most probably not.

Oh I neglected to say, the soundtrack is excellent.  Its very industrial/rocky and I found myself wondering what the tracks were all the way through as I loved them.

I will end by saying, I didn't enjoy this movie.  I wouldn't recommend it to anyone I know to watch for enjoyment purposes, but I will say, I think it achieves what it sets out to and it does contain some of the most realistic murders I have personally ever seen.   Most people would do well to avoid this one, but I can't give it an 'Avoid' tag, as certain aspects of the movie were very well done and it will surely appeal to some people.

The Last Horror Movie - Will's Review

The strangest thing about this weeks movie is that it was released in an age of DVDs... The entire premise of the movie is that you, the viewer, have rented a VHS tape of a movie called 'The Last Horror Movie' only to find that (apart from the first scene) someone has recorded over it.

It really is important to the movie (especially the ending) that you buy into the 'recorded over' premise, but as far as I can tell, this movie has never been released on VHS, so a larger-than-average suspension of disbelief is required.



So, after the opening scene of what appears to be a pretty lousy DTV teen-slasher, the screen goes fuzzy, an we are presented with a 'mocumentery' in which wedding Videographer / Serial Killer, Max, attempts to explain / justify his position, while challenging the viewer to question his desire to continue to watch such a movie.

While I wouldn't want to watch a real serial killer in action, the very fact that this is only a movie kind of renders most of the points it tried to make moot. Again, willing suspension if disbelief on the part of the audience is essential here.

Some of the attempts at depth sound a bit too much like the kind of 'depth' that you often overhear in Starbucks in university cities. That said, some of Max's philosophical brain teasers are interesting; What is a random human life worth to you? If you sold your TV, you could donate the money to charity and an African child could live a bit longer... But you don't. Does that mean that human life is worth less to you than your TV?

The acting has been much praised and won awards at a whole bunch on film festivals, but personally I didn't find Max all that convincing. Clearly this is just me.

Between the acting, faux depth, and suspension of disbelief issues, I appreciate that I've given this movie a bit if a hard time, so you may be surprised to learn that I did, in fact, enjoy it.

Somehow it manages to be more than the sum of its parts, and at only 73 minutes it doesn't outstay its welcome.

Probably only one for horror fans, not because of any gore content (there is surprisingly little), but because it is squarely aimed at, and questioning of, the horror fan's mentality. That said; we're all horror fans here! Recommended.

The Toolbox Murders - Will's Review

Maybe I was just in the right frame of mind, maybe I'd hate it on a re-watch, but I'm going to come right out and say it; I loved the hell out of this movie.

For that reason, I'm going to tell you why you should see it, then hang around after the jump, wielding spoilers and waiting for you to join me and shoot shit about a fun little movie.

Terror Eyes - Will's Review

You know how the saying goes; Another week, another forgettable (though not entirely terrible) slasher!

This time, a killer in biker leathers and helmet is decapitating women, and throwing their heads in water.

It quickly becomes apparent that the victims all have one thing in common - the apparent, or alleged, affection of a college Anthropology professor, who collects skulls gathered from tribal head hunters from around the world; Mmmmmmm...

The Cannibal Man - Will's Review

Well, that was an incredibly gay movie; not 'Gay' in a derogatory 'South Park' way, but in a 'That movie was blatantly about homosexuality' way.

What it wasn't about though, was cannibalism; more specifically, it wasnt about a (much less the) Cannibal Man - while the killers victims are turned into meat (or, more specifically, soup), we never see anyone eat it, and our main character actively avoids eating it...
The film opens, very abruptly, with a slaughterhouse scene, in which some cows (already dead, or at least stunned) are hung and bled - the red stuff flows in rivers here, but its obviously footage of a genuine slaughter house so, although you may find this offensive, if you eat meat (I do) I suggest you STFU - this is not the 'animal snuff' of the last few weeks - this is life! I am an animal lover, but I'm also a carnivore, I would consider myself a hypocrite if I turned away.

Anyway the point of this scene (apart from some cheap shock value) is to introduce us to our main character, Marcos, who works at the slaughter house (which we find out later is actually a soup factory) and, it seams, is the kind of guy who will casually munch on his sandwich while watching cows be drained... lovely!

His causality around cow blood aside, Marcos seems like an okay guy; he has a girlfriend (although her parents don't know it), is well liked in the local cafe (especially by Rosa, who makes it quite clear that she fancies the pants off him) and lives with his brother, who is currently out of town on business (He's a lorry driver)

His home is a vertual slum shack on a patch of sand inhabeted mostly by football playing children and stray dogs - dispite it's ramshackle appearance, it's quite nice on the inside, although obviously the home of bachelors; the wall behind the sofa is decorated by with pin-ups!

So far, so "What is he on about 'that was a gay movie'" ah, but you haven't met Nester yet! - Nester is a rather wealthy, tight trousered gentleman, who lives in the posh apartment block overlooking Marcos' shack - more specifically, overlooking the roof-light of Marcos' shack. The first time we meet him he is watching Marcos with binoculars,while it is implied (but only implied mind) that Marcos is reclining on the sofa, knocking one out over the aforementioned pin-ups!

After Marcos gets into a row with a Taxi driver (the driver doesn't approve of Marcos and his lady getting amorous in the back of his cab) he ends up accidentally killing the driver while the driver is hitting Marcos' girlfriend.  The sensible thing to do at this point would be to go to the police, but Marcos is afraid that his financial position will work against him (no good lawyer = no justice) and so he decides not to.

His life then spirals out of control as more and more people find out about the murders, and he in turn dispatches each one.

In the middle of all of this Nester is incessantly flirting with him at every available opportunity - although he genuinely doesn't seem to notice, thinking that Nester just wants to be his buddy - even when he gets invited to a late night pool at a private club, where Nester pushes him in playfully, then plays splashy-splashy games, buys him a drink, and showers with him!

The gayness is never explicitly stated aloud though, and I can't help but wonder if (despite the swimming scene) it was intended to slip under the radar in a less aware time (in much the same way that Victorian England, seemingly with one mind, managed not to notice the rampant homoeroticism in Oscar Wild's "The Picture of Dorian Grey").

The "cannibalism" (Such as it is) comes in when Marco's finally finds a way to get rid of the bodies (cheap ass perfume and room deodoriser can only cover so much) - he takes them (one carrier bag full at a time) to work, and drops them into the grinder - plastic bag and all (and presumably, teeth, bones hair and all). Luckily for him, the bits of plastic don't even seem to be noticed (much less affect sales) so, by simply avoiding soup from his company, he remains The Not-Cannibal Man!

It's a quirky, slow-paced, character piece as much as anything, and the blossoming "friendship" between Marcos and Nester as as influential to the movie's off-kilter (but not odd) ending as any of the murders - it's a crying shame that the voice performers involved in the English dub (epecially the lead) were such terrible actors, as it was an interesting, and otherwise good, little movie. I would reccomend this one, but not to gore hounds - slaughterhouse footage aside, the image on the DVD cover is the goriest shot in the film.

Body Count: 6
Boob Count: 1 pair
Animal Body Count: 5*
Most Memorable Death: The one on the DVD box (fuck you, art department)

*real cows, drained when stunned or possibly already dead, but if the native-on-a-stick from Cannibal Holocaust counted as a human death, despite the actual killing not being seen, then these count too...

---

Please use the comments bellow only to comment on this post - to write your own review, please comment on the main post for this movie.

Anthropophagous - Will's Reviews

***Spoilers throughout***

When I first wrote up the viewing reschedule for this project; I decided that alphabetical order was the best way to avoid missing any of the films, but that left "Absurd" (AKA  "Anthropophagous 2") before this film, however a quick background check told me that the two movies are entirly unrelated - and they are; which is wierd when you consider that both are from the same director, the same writer, and star the same guy, playing a(n entirly different) madman from Greece.

In this movie he plays an insane cannibal with a bad complexion, but no special powers, where as in the 'Sequel' he plays a killer (but not cannibal) with remarkable healing abilities.



Also bear in mind that one title for "Absurd / Anthropophagous 2" was "Zombie 6" ("Zombie" was the italian title for "Day of the Dead") so it's worth bearing in mind that 'MOVIE YOU KNOW PART X' means very little in the world of low budget Italian horror.

If you went into this movie completely blind, you could be forgiven for assuming at first that it was a Jaws rippoff; The film opens with a couple (with an adorable old dog!) on an abandoned beach, She makes for the water, while he settles down with headphones, not watching her, while she swims out to a small moored boat, it isn't long before we get shots like this:

See what I mean?

When she gets dragged under, the unknowing viewer (an by "Unknowing" I mean "Hasn't seen the video box, much less found out that 'Anthropophagous' is Greek for 'Cannibal') could still carry on in their sharky assumptions.

When the guy gets an axe to the head however, It becomes apparent that the killer in this movie is a bit less water-bound than everyone's favourite killer shark.

The fate of this chap is left unknown

Then, things slow down for a bit as we meet our fodder main characters (6 friends, and a new girl) and actually spend a good half hour getting to know the group, so that we stand a chance of caring about them (Nothing ruins a large group of victims faster than a lack of introduction - leaving us confused as to how the group slot together when they start getting bumped off).

The group meet the new girl, by the way, in the most absurdly polite sequence ever caught on film:

Mental! -So, they agree to give her a lift in their boat, and even this sleezebag isn't enough to make her rethink it and just take the new camera:

shudder

Anyway, the new girl needs a lift to a particular island, where she is to keep a 15 year old girl company in exchange for a free holiday (!), and since our gang don't have a particular itinerary, they decide to visit said island themselves.

When they arrive, the island turns out to be practically deserted, save for a few bodies dotted around (The bodies look mummified to me, but our heroes claim they appear 'devoured'), and a nice little mystery unfolds about where everyone is, who has done this, and why?

One thing that isn't explained (or rather is, but not very well) is how our killer came to be a porridge-faced monster who seemingly can't look at a human being without having to eat it. an explanation is given (in flashback) but...

If you want to see what single event can turn a relatively normal 

man into a flesh-crazed demon-lookin' dude, play this clip:

The gore was much better (although still limited) in this than in it's sequel (which makes no sense - I can only assume the second film had a smaller budget), but that said, it's still hard, though jaded post-Saw/Hostel eyes, to see why this movie was on the DPP list, much less what a jury found so offensive that the movie was prosecuted.

Well, actually I think I know exactly why it was on the list (though still not why it was prosecuted) - The video box-art for one (Which, by the way, is a massive spoiler) and the scene where the killer reaches up a pregnant woman's skirt, bulls out the feotus and starts to eat it! This scene looks, to me at least, laughably fake; while the 'feotus' is clearly a whole, dead something it is equal clear that it has never been human (Wikipedia says it's a skinned rabbit). This was not enough to prevent a panic; It was reported in the news (even by the BBC) that this was a genuine "snuff" moment.

Unlike "Absurd", George Eastman (Who, incidentally, also wrote and produced both movies) isn't the only one bothering to act this time out - The whole cast give solid enough performances, and the voice actors have made the wise choice of going for a decent delivery, at the expense of perfect lip-sync (In Absurd the lip-sync was so good that it was hard to believe at times that the cast weren't genuinely speaking English, but in fitting the words to the actors mouths, all cadence was lost.)

So, despite the ribbing I've given the film, I actually quite enjoyed it - it's a reasonable 70's horror movie, that these days you would expect to pass uncut with no problems, the story is a little thin, but to be fair it has more of a plot than, say, Halloween (which I love), so story is demonstrably not the biggest concern in a decent slasher movie. Over all I'd say it was a little better than Absurd, and once again, not a bed way to kill 90 or so minutes 

Human Body Count: 10.5

Animal Body Count: 1 (probably)

Boobs: 1 (single)

Most memorable death: Foetus Eating(!)

---

Please use the comments bellow only to comment on this post - to write your own review, please comment on the "Reader Reviews" post for this movie.

Absurd - Lisa's Review

So this kicks off the 'Video Nasty a week' challenge as undertaken by myself, Will and Darren. I'm relatively new to these kind of movies, so how well I do with regards to watching them all remains to be seen, but as an avid movie fan and someone who likes a challenge, I thought I'd give it a go.

My main thought after watching this movie is why on earth is it considered a 'nasty'? Why was it successfully prosecuted? I have read the background and was quite surprised that it seems a popular choice, it inspired a rock band so much they used the title as their name and it has even been compared to an Italian 'Halloween'. I did watch a lot of horrors in the 80's having a father who is a big horror fan and honestly found those much more horrific than this movie.

I don't expect much in the way of a storyline while watching these movies, but the entire cast here need enrolling for some kind of acting lessons. The adults overact or in the case of the first murder victim don't react facially at all, the actors paid to loan their voices to the movie (as its an Italian movie) sound like they are just reading badly from a page, but the most irritating thing of all is the little boy in the movie... Will. I would gladly take and shake him! That would probably make for some more horrific footage than anything shown here.

The music, rather than set the scene and add to the story, just bloody irritates you. I found myself sat turning the sound up and down the whole way through to block it out when it started. They really pushed the boat out with Bontempi for this one.

I also found this movie was cut together really badly. Rather than pass seamlessly from one scene to another, it sharply cuts from a scene of normality and dialogue to a murder scene.

Another irritation is one of those things a lot of movies feel the need to do which is explain every little thing, either with badly written dialogue or a jerky zoom in to whatever item they want you to realise tells the next part of the story..... I'm not thick.. let me work it out for myself!

With regards to the 'gore', Ok so I realise this is early 80's but having seen a lot of supposedly less gorey 80's horrors, this was nowhere near them in effects and realism. The blood was too red... regardless of where the victim was bleeding from. Surely the movie makers realise not all blood looks like poster paint. The consistency however is not bad. The fake skin is horrendous.. thats probably the worst bit. Rather than leave you feeling squeamish and horrified, it makes you laugh at how ridiculous it looks.

I will give the writer his dues, that the ideas behind the murders were generally good and had promise, had they been executed (no pun intended) properly.

In complete contrast however, the latter half of the film has a 'head in oven' scene which is very well done. Not very gorey but the make-up is great, its very realistic and avoids the temptation to overdo it, the effect works well, the acting is actually good in this part and you do feel the horror of the situation. It really made me wonder why they got the rest of the movie so wrong, when this part was so right?

I won't give the supposed 'twist' of the movie away but you'll probably (like me) see it coming a mile off. I wish they'd put more thought into how they were going to play out this scene as its a bit of an anti-climax to be honest and there is just too much wrong with it (by way of inconsistencies and 'its-a-miracle' like recoveries) to take any of it seriously. The closing scene has probably the best gore of the entire movie, but I don't think its worth wading through the rest of the dirge to get to this bit. On the other hand, its not bad enough to watch for laughs like some of these movies.

In conclusion, I'd say if you want to watch something for the gore, don't bother, theres bugger all in the way of proper gore here. If you want to feel tension and peril, again don't bother, there is more of all of these changing my sons nappy. Sadly if you want to view it for laughs with friends, again, its not quite bad enough to do that with either.

I would only recommend this to someone who, like us, wants to watch our way through this list just so they can see them all, say they have and hopefully find some gems in the process. I know there will be much worse than this movie (I've seen them) but I'm genuinely hoping on day 1 of this challenge, there is much better.

Oven Scene = 9/10

Gore = 2/10

Makeup = 5/10 (mostly for the oven scene)

Disgust Rating = 0/10

Story = 2/10

Acting = 3/10

Overall movie rating = 2/10

---

Please use the comments below only to comment on this post - to write your own review, please comment on the "Reader Reviews" post for this movie.

Absurd - Will's Review

I cannot for the life of me see how this movie found itself on the DPP list; much less how it was Successfully Prosecuted; It boggles the mind a a jury could watch this and find it sufficiently offensive to jail people over!

With the Tile "Absurd", and the US title "Horrible" I was so hoping to hate this film - the review would have written itself!



Okay, opens with the most casual "Chase" sequence I've ever seen (it looks like 2 guys just out for a jog) the "Acting" (both from the origional Italian actors, and the US voice actors hired to do the dubbing) is mostly terrible, and some of the effects are less than special, but it has a certain charm to it, and with another pass of the script and a better cast, I think it could actually have been quite good!.

When 2 men arrive form Greece to a small town (I believe, despite its Italian roots, the film is set in the USA), things take a turn for the strange - One of the men has seriously accelerated regeneration / healing powers (he needs to be operated on after impaling himself on a fence during the aforementioned jog, and almost heals while still in theatre) the other is a mysterious priest, reluctant to divulge any information about himself, or healing-man.

We're also introduced to a family who's members include a girl on traction for a deviated spine, and the most irritating boy in the world, who's reaction to not enjoying a TV show seems to be to pull "I'm pooing myself" faces and then have the fakeist tantrum in the history of film:

see?

The priest also gets what is now officially my 2nd favourite priest-line (after the 'Braindead' / 'Dead Alive' classic "I kick arse for The Lord"); The line "I serve god with Biochemistry" is delivered without a trace of irony or humour.

By about the 20 minute mark, the movie has all the trappings of a decent mystery, and the last half hour of the film is very reminiscent of a low-rent "Halloween", right down to the films moody electronic score, which  recalls Carpenters classic theme. And some genuine tension is somehow squeezed out of "Indestructible killer v's Near-crippled Girl" which is impressive.

The movie also has a great (but Cheesy) final shot, that may have been meant as a sequel setup, but was more likely just intended to be a 'sting' (although it does feature the most awkward lingering close up of ever survivor in turn).

There are better ways to kill a couple of hours, and it's not a "get the beers in" movie, but if you can borrow a copy for free, it's worth a look when you're board one Sunday afternoon.



Human Body Count: 6
Animal Body Count: 1 (implied)
Boobs: 0
Most memorable death: Worlds fastest pre-heating oven.

---

Please use the comments bellow only to comment on this post - to write your own review, please comment on the "Reader Reviews" post for this movie.