Night of the Creeps is a mixed bag. For the most part, it's a very funny horror-comedy, but occasionally the film's true colors show through. Deep down, Night of the Creeps is a very pompous film; it's very self-referential, poking fun at different aspects of B-Movies and constantly gives a knowing wink to the audience, only to unintentionally suffer from the very aspects it was poking fun at. Despite these flaws, this is still a very fun and campy horror/comedy romp.
The script's plot is intentionally ludicrous; slug-like creatures from outer space attack a couple in the late 1950's, and the boyfriend is kept cryogenically frozen in a lab, only to be revived in a college prank nearly 30 years later. The slug-creatures apparently possess their victims, bringing them back to life as zombies. One character even remarks the situation as being like "a bad B-Movie", after finding the remains of one of the cryogenically frozen zombie's victims. Surprisingly most of the characters are flat archetypes, but there's one exception. One of the main characters is a grizzled cop who spouts nonsensical one-liners ("Miller time!") and has his own catchphrase, which he uses constantly. His character goes against the grain of the rest of the film. His character seems more fitting for a "Police Squad!"-type movie, not in a horror comedy about killer alien slugs. There's not much to be said about the other characters; the main character is the usual "I'm the relatable guy" type, and his sidekick is the annoying comic relief character. The sidekick's dialog is so over-the-top at times, it seems to be a parody of annoying sidekicks, though.
The humor here is very referential, and relies heavily on the viewer's knowledge of B-Movies. This isn't a parody or a send-up of horror movies however, even though it tries to act like one. This is just a very tongue-in-cheek horror-comedy, much like a precursor to the Scream movies, but with less direction in its humor. For example, there's recurring joke that different characters have the same surname as different horror movie directors (The main character's name Chris Romero, the love interest's name is Cynthia Cronenberg, there's a police officer named Sgt. Raimi, and so on). The dialog is also intentionally ridiculous, mostly coming from the annoying comic relief and the detective. But then at the same time the film has a straight-up parody opening, with a very ridiculous satire of 1950's science-fiction films. There's even a brief cameo by Dick Miller, a staple actor for any horror-comedy. The humor feels like it's all over the board, and that's because it is. Albeit the humor is usually funny, but some consistency would have been nice.
The main problem I had with this film, and really the only problem I have with it is the special effects aspect. For a film that makes fun of B-Movies constantly, and gives off a very smug "we're better than other horror movies because we're self-referential", it's really lacking in its special effects budget. The slug-aliens themselves look intentionally terrible, but everything else looks like they put effort into it. The zombie makeup and effects are ridiculously fake at times, and it doesn't seem to be on purpose, or else the film would have directed your attention towards that fact. For example, the end fight scene should have been really climactic and full of great special effects, because we spent the previous 70 minutes of the movie with a lot of buildup and almost no zombie or alien action up to that point. Instead we get shoddy-looking dummies in masks used for the impact shots, and really cheap looking makeup for the reaction shots any time a zombie is attacked. This culminates in a scene where the detective has to fight off several zombies, but we never get to see the fight. We hear the gunshots and cut to a brief bit with the main character. We cut back and the detective is standing over the twice-dead zombies. This could have been an interesting little gunfight scene, but instead we are left with an unsatisfactory reaction shot.
Despite all the flak I've given the film, it's still a fun watch. The opening sequence that parodies 1950's science-fiction films is absolutely hilarious. It's spot-on farce of the "meteorite lands near some teens in a car" plot device, and elements of the age-old "teens in the wood being stalked by a crazy guy" campfire story. The first two special effects in the film are pretty decent as well, which why I was so disappointed with the special effects at the end. Right before the sequence in the 1950's, we see some aliens aboard a space ship, trying to prevent one of their crew members from launching the space-slugs into Earth's orbit. The design for the aliens is really nifty looking (vaguely reminiscent of the cantina band aliens from Star Wars),and it's a shame we only get to see them during that one scene. We're introduced to the grizzled cop character in a dream sequence that contains the only other cool effect in the movie. The cop has a nightmare about the couple from the opening sequence, and upon finding their remains is confronted by the killer who for some reason looks like the Crypt Keeper from "Tales from the Crypt". We only see the killer briefly, but his design was really interesting. Strangely enough, when the killer is brought back to life via the space-slugs, the design for the killer/zombie is different than the one in the dream sequence.
Overall, this is a pretty entertaining movie. The jokes are funny for the most part, even if the characters spewing them are relatively flat. The special effects mostly lacking, but the two scenes that I previously mentioned are still really cool to look at. It's not a particularly suspenseful or creepy film, but it doesn't try to be. Night of the Creeps is more centered on the laughs. If you can tolerate some extremely tongue-in-cheek humor, than this is a film worth looking in to. If that's not really your thing, there are much better horror-comedies out there.
Enjoyment- 3.5/5
Quality- 3/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091630/
July 21, 2012
July 10, 2012
Movie Review- Stephen King's Sleepwalkers
Stephen King's Sleepwalkers is a horror of a horror movie. It's nonsensical and silly, and ridiculously campy at times. This normally would be the formula for a great B-Movie, but it doesn't work this time. As the name would suggest, this film is written by Stephen King. Coming from the guy who has written some of the most iconic horror novels of the 20th century, this mess of a screenplay leaves a lot to be desired.
The main problem with this film is the plot itself. The sleepwalkers are the main characters and villains of the film, but their presence and backstory is never explained, sans a few throwaway lines towards the middle, leaving us with some very confusing moments throughout the film. Apparently a mother-son sleepwalker duo has to consume the soul of a female virgin, and stupidly decide on an able-bodied 17-year-old, who ultimately ends up killing the both of them. Their plan to get the girl's soul is incredibly flawed complicated as well. For some reason they felt the need to move into a new home and register the son in school with false identifications, all to get to this one girl. Logically one would think the sleepwalkers would just go around the country feeding on little girls, sort of like vampires. This not only would be a safer bet for their set of rules, but save them a lot of trouble and help them avoid getting caught.
The characters are equally flawed and stupid. Not only are the sleepwalkers incompetent, but they have a creepy Oedipus complex thing going on, which is probably the only creepy part of this supposed horror movie. These scenes are completely unwarranted and add nothing to the plot, and seem to only be there to make the audience uncomfortable. The human characters are just as brainless. All of the protagonists fall prey to horror movie cliches, like poking the killer's body to make sure he's really dead. All of the characters are extremely flat as well. Our lead heroine gets the most screen time of the protagonists, but she still seems as thin as the paper her dialog was written on. A lot of the characters talk without ever saying anything important. There's a several points throughout the movie that could have had character development in them, but are instead pumped with filler dialog.
The special effects and death scenes in this film are both ridiculously stupid and ridiculously fake. The son sleepwalker spends the latter half of the film half-transformed into a sleepwalker, and looks like a reject from Cats: The Musical. When the duo finally reveals their true form, they look like the dog creatures from Ghostbusters, and the costumes look absolutely stupid. With the exception of a horribly fake hand-severing scene towards the middle of the film, all of the character deaths are crammed into the last 20 minutes. It's as if Stephen King forgot that his books usually have some violence in them, and decided to make up for lost time by making it stupidly over-the-top. There's bitten off fingers, broken limbs, gouged eyes, explosions, slashings, and a death by corncob. And in one of the strangest aspects of the film, the sleepwalkers' only weakness is cats. Yes, the sleepwalkers constantly remain in fear of cats, until they both get attacked by hordes of feral cats. But they don't get clawed to death as one my think; they burst into flame after being attacked, like a vampire exposed to sunlight.
The only interesting aspect of the movie is it's cast. There is an abundance of cameos in the third act of the film. Stephen King himself shows up in a shoehorned in role as a cemetery guard, who does nothing but act like his hillbilly character from "Creepshow". Among the less obvious cameos, however are horror directors Clive Barker and Tobe Hooper. John Landis also shows up for some reason, but I assume he's there because of his work on "An American Werewolf in London". There are a couple other familiar faces in the cast as well. Ron Perlman makes an early appearance as a police officer, but he's not on screen nearly long enough.
Overall, this is a very weird film. This is definitely not Stephen King's best work, and one he ought to look back on in embarrassment. The plot is very strange and silly, and the characters are painfully stupid at times. There's a lot of lame dialog and campy one-liners throughout, and it doesn't seem anything like the rest of Stephen King's work. It's definitely a film to pass unless you're a die-hard Stephen King fan. Not recommended.
Enjoyment- 2/5
Quality- 1/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105428/
The main problem with this film is the plot itself. The sleepwalkers are the main characters and villains of the film, but their presence and backstory is never explained, sans a few throwaway lines towards the middle, leaving us with some very confusing moments throughout the film. Apparently a mother-son sleepwalker duo has to consume the soul of a female virgin, and stupidly decide on an able-bodied 17-year-old, who ultimately ends up killing the both of them. Their plan to get the girl's soul is incredibly flawed complicated as well. For some reason they felt the need to move into a new home and register the son in school with false identifications, all to get to this one girl. Logically one would think the sleepwalkers would just go around the country feeding on little girls, sort of like vampires. This not only would be a safer bet for their set of rules, but save them a lot of trouble and help them avoid getting caught.
The characters are equally flawed and stupid. Not only are the sleepwalkers incompetent, but they have a creepy Oedipus complex thing going on, which is probably the only creepy part of this supposed horror movie. These scenes are completely unwarranted and add nothing to the plot, and seem to only be there to make the audience uncomfortable. The human characters are just as brainless. All of the protagonists fall prey to horror movie cliches, like poking the killer's body to make sure he's really dead. All of the characters are extremely flat as well. Our lead heroine gets the most screen time of the protagonists, but she still seems as thin as the paper her dialog was written on. A lot of the characters talk without ever saying anything important. There's a several points throughout the movie that could have had character development in them, but are instead pumped with filler dialog.
The special effects and death scenes in this film are both ridiculously stupid and ridiculously fake. The son sleepwalker spends the latter half of the film half-transformed into a sleepwalker, and looks like a reject from Cats: The Musical. When the duo finally reveals their true form, they look like the dog creatures from Ghostbusters, and the costumes look absolutely stupid. With the exception of a horribly fake hand-severing scene towards the middle of the film, all of the character deaths are crammed into the last 20 minutes. It's as if Stephen King forgot that his books usually have some violence in them, and decided to make up for lost time by making it stupidly over-the-top. There's bitten off fingers, broken limbs, gouged eyes, explosions, slashings, and a death by corncob. And in one of the strangest aspects of the film, the sleepwalkers' only weakness is cats. Yes, the sleepwalkers constantly remain in fear of cats, until they both get attacked by hordes of feral cats. But they don't get clawed to death as one my think; they burst into flame after being attacked, like a vampire exposed to sunlight.
The only interesting aspect of the movie is it's cast. There is an abundance of cameos in the third act of the film. Stephen King himself shows up in a shoehorned in role as a cemetery guard, who does nothing but act like his hillbilly character from "Creepshow". Among the less obvious cameos, however are horror directors Clive Barker and Tobe Hooper. John Landis also shows up for some reason, but I assume he's there because of his work on "An American Werewolf in London". There are a couple other familiar faces in the cast as well. Ron Perlman makes an early appearance as a police officer, but he's not on screen nearly long enough.
Overall, this is a very weird film. This is definitely not Stephen King's best work, and one he ought to look back on in embarrassment. The plot is very strange and silly, and the characters are painfully stupid at times. There's a lot of lame dialog and campy one-liners throughout, and it doesn't seem anything like the rest of Stephen King's work. It's definitely a film to pass unless you're a die-hard Stephen King fan. Not recommended.
Enjoyment- 2/5
Quality- 1/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105428/
June 24, 2012
Movie Review- The Blob (1988)
The Blob was a movie that really could have used a do-over; he original 1958 film is a fun science fiction film, but the special effects and script are very dated and needed a bit of fine-tuning. It was movie in desperate need of a remake, and when the film's 30th anniversary rolled around, we finally got it. The 1988 remake is just as good if not better than the original. It has its flaws, but it manages to do the 1958 version justice. It's gory, intense and a lot more revved up than the original.
The plot is pretty basic, an alien life form lands on earth and eats people. It's not a very original premise, but considering it's based on a B-movie from the 1950's, I'll cut it some slack. There's also the generic "this seemingly unimportant scene in the first act that pays off later" scenes, and a lot of generic characters, but the movie has a very likable charm to it that washes away the camp of the remake. I'll also give it props for being one of the only movies ever to kill off a child. It's somewhat of an unspoken rule that kids under the age of 15 or so can't die in a movie unless it's some sort of drama, and the death is the focal point of the film. The Blob treats the kid as just another casualty, and it takes serious guts to do that in a movie.
The remake doesn't veer too far from the original film's plot, but there are a few changes. Our cast of characters is slightly different, thankfully no longer the silly 1950's character archetypes, and thankfully not any equally silly 1980's character archetypes. The only major plot change, and an unfortunate one, is the addition of a government conspiracy subplot. In the original film, nobody believed the protagonists about the blob, and they ended up having to draw a large crowd before anyone would listen to them and get something done. In the remake, the local authorities still don't listen to the heroes, but about halfway through the film a legion of guys in hazmat suits show up and quarantine the town. These guys actually listen to our heroes, but have sinister ulterior motives. In a disappointing twist, it's revealed that the blob is a failed result of the USA's attempt at germ warfare. In the original film, the blob is just deadly space goo, which is far creepier than overgrown pathogens.
The main attraction to this film, however, are the special effects. The original film had some very clever but campy special effects, mostly involving miniature angled sets and whatever kind of jelly the blob was made from. The remake doesn't hold back and gives us the grossest special effects in a science fiction movie this side of 1982's "The Thing". We get gruesome imagery of the blob melting people, pulling them down drains, and coming out of people's faces. The special effects for the actual blob are questionable, though. When it isn't eating people, the blob is moving around, and it more often than not looks like a pile of scrambled eggs. The blob in the original film was actually made from some sort of gelatinous mixture, but it's quite obvious that they used an abundance of latex for the remake. It's still pretty cool that we get to see the blob so much, but I wish it looked more like the creature in the original.
Overall, this is a solid remake of the original film, and for the most part is actually better than the original. The first half of the film is great, but it starts to get really campy once the government guys show up. That besides, this is still a very fun movie and a definite must for fans of creative special effects. It's not perfect, but it's a close as you're going to get with a movie about killer silly putty from space.
Enjoyment- 4/5
Quality- 3/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094761/
The plot is pretty basic, an alien life form lands on earth and eats people. It's not a very original premise, but considering it's based on a B-movie from the 1950's, I'll cut it some slack. There's also the generic "this seemingly unimportant scene in the first act that pays off later" scenes, and a lot of generic characters, but the movie has a very likable charm to it that washes away the camp of the remake. I'll also give it props for being one of the only movies ever to kill off a child. It's somewhat of an unspoken rule that kids under the age of 15 or so can't die in a movie unless it's some sort of drama, and the death is the focal point of the film. The Blob treats the kid as just another casualty, and it takes serious guts to do that in a movie.
The remake doesn't veer too far from the original film's plot, but there are a few changes. Our cast of characters is slightly different, thankfully no longer the silly 1950's character archetypes, and thankfully not any equally silly 1980's character archetypes. The only major plot change, and an unfortunate one, is the addition of a government conspiracy subplot. In the original film, nobody believed the protagonists about the blob, and they ended up having to draw a large crowd before anyone would listen to them and get something done. In the remake, the local authorities still don't listen to the heroes, but about halfway through the film a legion of guys in hazmat suits show up and quarantine the town. These guys actually listen to our heroes, but have sinister ulterior motives. In a disappointing twist, it's revealed that the blob is a failed result of the USA's attempt at germ warfare. In the original film, the blob is just deadly space goo, which is far creepier than overgrown pathogens.
The main attraction to this film, however, are the special effects. The original film had some very clever but campy special effects, mostly involving miniature angled sets and whatever kind of jelly the blob was made from. The remake doesn't hold back and gives us the grossest special effects in a science fiction movie this side of 1982's "The Thing". We get gruesome imagery of the blob melting people, pulling them down drains, and coming out of people's faces. The special effects for the actual blob are questionable, though. When it isn't eating people, the blob is moving around, and it more often than not looks like a pile of scrambled eggs. The blob in the original film was actually made from some sort of gelatinous mixture, but it's quite obvious that they used an abundance of latex for the remake. It's still pretty cool that we get to see the blob so much, but I wish it looked more like the creature in the original.
Overall, this is a solid remake of the original film, and for the most part is actually better than the original. The first half of the film is great, but it starts to get really campy once the government guys show up. That besides, this is still a very fun movie and a definite must for fans of creative special effects. It's not perfect, but it's a close as you're going to get with a movie about killer silly putty from space.
Enjoyment- 4/5
Quality- 3/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094761/
June 18, 2012
Movie Review- Jason Lives: Friday the 13th Part VI
The title says it all; "Jason Lives". In one of the franchise's weakest moments, it resurrects a clearly-dead Jason for yet another film. This could have easily been a shoddy and unimaginative Friday sequel, but Jason Lives keeps its tongue firmly planted in cheek, keeping this film afloat with intentional jabs at the series. The occasional knowing wink saves this film from being terrible, and it also gives us arguably the funniest of the Friday the 13th movies.
Right off the bat, Jason Lives informs that this is going to be a very silly movie. Tommy Jarvis has come back to incinerate Jason's corpse. But Jason is inadvertently brought back to life by a lightning bolt, Frankenstein-style, despite the fact that Jason is clearly rotting and probably seized with rigor mortis. This doesn't stop the hockey masked fiend, as he punches straight through one of Tommy's friends, and starts on his usual rampage. Before that, however, we get a hilarious opening title sequence, which parodies the famous James Bond title sequences. The rest of the story is standard slasher fare, with Jason hacking people up as Tommy tries to warn the police. The random interjections of humor, however, really keep this film moving.
In terms of comedy, Jason Lives derives much of its humor from being over-the-top. It could even be described as a self-referential parody under the guise of a slasher film. It manages to keep some restraint, and actually tries to be scary at times, as opposed to going all out on the laughs. Along the way, we get subtle references to Boris Karloff, former Friday producer Sean S Cunningham, and Nightmare on Elm Street's Nancy. We also get some seemingly intentional insipid exposition at the beginning, and equally bland characters. Really, the only main characters here are Tommy and his love interest, everyone else is pretty much just there to die. This really helps the film, though, because it reduces time spent on character development, and gives us more hilariously wanton carnage.
The death scenes in Jason Lives are the pinnacle of goofy and cartoonish violence in slasher films. Jason punches through people, smashes someone into a wall so hard it leaves their face imprint, beheads three people at once, and literally snaps a guy in half. The special effects for the deaths are a bit lacking, except for the aforementioned face-smash and guy-snapping, but even then it's pretty obvious how the effects were pulled off. However the special effects and deaths aren't as important, because Jason's comedic timing is killer. In a prime example, he stalks a camp counselor from behind a window, pausing when she does, and so forth, much like a cartoon. It's moments like these that make this film much more of a comedy than a slasher film.
Overall, this is a very silly and fun slasher movie. Jason Lives doesn't take itself seriously, and gives us a very tongue-in-cheek horror movie. The humor is great, and the acting is hilariously terrible. Jason Lives is right up there with Part 3 as my favorite Friday the 13th movie, although Jason Live's humor was intentional. This is definitely an improvement over Part 5, but unfortunately the series never gets better past this one. Jason Lives is not scary in the least, but you'll be laughing the whole way through.
Enjoyment- 4/5
Quality- 2/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091080/
June 8, 2012
Movie Review- Friday the 13th: A New Beginning
Friday the 13th: A New Beginning marks the gradual decline of the Friday the 13th series. People often bash this film for the exceptionally thin plot, the exceptionally thin characters, and lack of Jason. This might be one of the worst films in the franchise, but boy is it entertaining. Much like Part 3, which was often unintentionally hilarious, Part 5 is so contrived and over-the-top that the end result is a very entertaining slasher film.
The story picks up several years after Part 4, and Tommy Jarvis is now in a mental institution. Shortly after arriving, some kid gets ax-murdered by one of the patients after a dispute over a chocolate bar. That scene pretty much sets the tone for the rest of the film; extremely goofy and violent. Soon after, a copycat Jason goes around randomly killing people on his way to the mental institution. We then get a final showdown sequence, and after faux-Jason is dispatched, it's revealed that the killer was the father of the kid that got ax-murdered. It's a pretty lame twist, but at least there was a twist instead of the killer just being the crazed ax-murderer. A lot of people complain about this movie because Jason isn't actually in it. I personally thought this was a refreshing plot point. By slightly distancing itself from the other films, Part 5 prevents itself from copying the exact same plot of the previous 4, giving a bit of fresh air into the series.
The characters this time are thinner than ever. Several characters are introduced only to be killed five minutes later, and the only character with any depth is Tommy, but much of his character is just carried over from the previous film. That's not to say these characters aren't hilarious, though. All of the teens at the mental institution are comically over-the-top with their delivery, and because of the lack of character development, many of the characters seem to act at random, making for some very unexpected laughs here and there. The minor characters are hilarious, too. There's a foul-mouthed hillbilly and her son, who live next to the institution and do nothing but act like rednecks and swear. It's extremely juvenile but entertaining. There are also two greaser-looking kids who show up pretty early in the film. They get killed off quickly, but their time on screen is hilarious; one of the characters starts randomly singing to himself before getting killed by faux-Jason, and it's as funny as it is very unfitting for a slasher movie.
The death scenes are all very ridiculous and over the top in Part 5, which makes this film very enjoyable. There's a bizarre death by belt to the face, and an equally weird death by road flare to the mouth. There's a few generic axings and the obligatory "someone gets stabbed while in bed" scene. The makeup effects are pretty decent throughout, but for some reason we rarely seen any violence on screen. Most of what we see is the aftermath of the killing, which doesn't take nearly as much effort to pull off as a special effect. As someone who loves special effects, I couldn't help but feel slightly cheated.
Overall, this is a very campy and ridiculous slasher film. It doesn't feel like a Friday the 13th movie, but more of a parody of the series. The ridiculousness doesn't seem intentional however, and we're left with a slasher movie that doesn't realize how hilariously terrible it is. It's definitely a terrible movie, but it's just as enjoyable as the first four films, just not in the same way. This is definitely a film worth watching if you like the campier stuff.
Entertainment- 4/5
Quality- 2/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089173/
The story picks up several years after Part 4, and Tommy Jarvis is now in a mental institution. Shortly after arriving, some kid gets ax-murdered by one of the patients after a dispute over a chocolate bar. That scene pretty much sets the tone for the rest of the film; extremely goofy and violent. Soon after, a copycat Jason goes around randomly killing people on his way to the mental institution. We then get a final showdown sequence, and after faux-Jason is dispatched, it's revealed that the killer was the father of the kid that got ax-murdered. It's a pretty lame twist, but at least there was a twist instead of the killer just being the crazed ax-murderer. A lot of people complain about this movie because Jason isn't actually in it. I personally thought this was a refreshing plot point. By slightly distancing itself from the other films, Part 5 prevents itself from copying the exact same plot of the previous 4, giving a bit of fresh air into the series.
The characters this time are thinner than ever. Several characters are introduced only to be killed five minutes later, and the only character with any depth is Tommy, but much of his character is just carried over from the previous film. That's not to say these characters aren't hilarious, though. All of the teens at the mental institution are comically over-the-top with their delivery, and because of the lack of character development, many of the characters seem to act at random, making for some very unexpected laughs here and there. The minor characters are hilarious, too. There's a foul-mouthed hillbilly and her son, who live next to the institution and do nothing but act like rednecks and swear. It's extremely juvenile but entertaining. There are also two greaser-looking kids who show up pretty early in the film. They get killed off quickly, but their time on screen is hilarious; one of the characters starts randomly singing to himself before getting killed by faux-Jason, and it's as funny as it is very unfitting for a slasher movie.
The death scenes are all very ridiculous and over the top in Part 5, which makes this film very enjoyable. There's a bizarre death by belt to the face, and an equally weird death by road flare to the mouth. There's a few generic axings and the obligatory "someone gets stabbed while in bed" scene. The makeup effects are pretty decent throughout, but for some reason we rarely seen any violence on screen. Most of what we see is the aftermath of the killing, which doesn't take nearly as much effort to pull off as a special effect. As someone who loves special effects, I couldn't help but feel slightly cheated.
Overall, this is a very campy and ridiculous slasher film. It doesn't feel like a Friday the 13th movie, but more of a parody of the series. The ridiculousness doesn't seem intentional however, and we're left with a slasher movie that doesn't realize how hilariously terrible it is. It's definitely a terrible movie, but it's just as enjoyable as the first four films, just not in the same way. This is definitely a film worth watching if you like the campier stuff.
Entertainment- 4/5
Quality- 2/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089173/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)