Necrotard Reviews

Slumber Party Massacre (2021)

A fun subversion of expectations

[7/10 · 3 October 2022]

The original three films had boobs & drill kills. That's what people came for and that's what they got... but not much else. All three films were made by female directors, and this one feels like women finally taking the genre back rather than just following sleazy orders.

It's not without issues. The acting isn't always great, there are some annoying weak false scares, and the killer manages to not age in the 30 years between the prologue & rest of the film. But I had fun with the twists, gore, and amusing references to the first two movies. So overall, I enjoyed.

The writing starts off corny but gets better as it goes. Characters are definitely written for the youth of today, which is obviously going to turn off some older fans who enjoyed the originals. Times change and there isn't much anyone can do about that.

If boobs are half the reason you watch slashers, or if you've ever unironically called a movie "woke trash," just don't bother.

I've seen some complaints asking who this is for. It's for female slasher fans, and male slasher fans who aren't too sensitive to have their genre critiqued & played around with.

Doom: Annihilation (2019)

Doesn't deserve such a low rating.

[6/10 · 20 October 2019]

The sets are great, and the writing, acting, special effects, and cinematography are passable. None of it was bad enough to yank me out of the narrative. The music was decent, but some metal would have made it feel more like Doom.

A few of the action beats felt weak and the very end left a little to be desired, and I'm sure the budget is to blame. It feels just as cheap as the 2006 movie, but it has more gore and faith to the source material.

Overall, I stayed entertained. I appreciated the faithfulness and I loved the Hell sequence late in the film, which I thought looked great.

Scrolling through the reviews, I'm seeing a lot of complaints about the fact that the lead character is a woman. I don't care. "Doom Guy" is a blank slate in the games and I honestly don't give a crap who fills his shoes. It's not like this scrawny little woman is pulling off absurd feats of strength. She's pulling triggers on guns.

I've seen reviews call the movie "feminist," just because the lead is a woman. Gender is NEVER brought up in the film in any way. There is no "girl power" message or equal rights agenda being pushed in your face. It's just an action movie where a small percentage of the gun-toting cast is female. I'm not insecure enough with my gender to get upset by this.

I even saw one review that only brings up one negative: the marines say "clear" a lot. Really? People are so eager to hate this movie that they start nitpicking military protocol that's in every movie with soldiers in it?

I came for demons and gore and that's what I got, with the badass Hell sequence being a cherry on top.

Jeepers Creepers III (2017)

Waste of Time

[4/10 · 22 January 2018]

Jeepers Creepers works. It drags on too long and has way too many moments where the characters stand around and do nothing when they should be running, but it has some good atmosphere, introduces the creature well enough, and builds to an ending where the creature gets what it wants and flies away.

Jeepers Creepers 2 also works. The title doesn't really make sense anymore because that only had solid meaning in the first film, but it's a logical continuation of the story. Everything to do with Ray Wise's character is fun and the film leads up to the end of the creature's 23-day feeding period. We actually see how it goes dormant and get a little more insight into how the creature works. I have gripes with the character development and the corny moment where he eats a guy's head, but overall, it's an entertaining movie with better pacing than the first one. It's not as good as the first, but it's more fun, so I feel like the first two movies are about even but I enjoy the second one more.

Then comes Jeepers Creepers 3. The first film feels like an introduction, the second feels like a conclusion, then this one feels like... wasting time for no reason in between part 1 and 2. It takes place in the few days between the first two movies and doesn't really bring anything new to the table, even though it repeatedly feels like it's trying to. (More on that later.)

The creature uses its ax and truck again, which were missing from the second movie. It was nice to see those again. It was also cool that the truck was developed more... but some of the revelations about the truck were corny. I especially hated the little car-seeking bombs that rolled out of it.

There was also a lot going on in the daylight. The first two movies had more action at night, which was more moody, but this could have been a budgetary issue.

Most of the effects and cinematography were fine. For the budget, I thought it was a pretty good looking movie. I had really low expectations and was surprised at how decent it looked. There were a few shitty effects shots though. There were only three brief effects that particularly bugged me, but they hurt the movie quite a bit.

My biggest issue is that the whole movie ended up feeling completely pointless. Having it set in between the first two movies meant that it couldn't show the end of it's 23-day feed and it couldn't be killed. There wasn't even really a major finale. It basically just ends without any reason. The creature just vanishes and the characters say "I heard it's gone now. Won't be back for 23 springs." "Oh, that's good." WHY? Why would it be gone? Why would they have reason to think it's gone?

As for the movie's major "reveals/twists":

SPOILERS

1. One of the main characters from this movie ended up on the bus from the second movie. Okay? Well he obviously wasn't IN the second movie. That wouldn't make sense if he was. All of the athletes on the bus in the second film had no idea what the creature was or what was going on. If he was on that bus, you'd think he would have spoken up. So he must have gotten off and stayed at their destination. (Apparently he mutters some throwaway dialogue that confirms this, but I missed it.) Then what are the implications of showing that he was on that bus? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! It's just "Hey, remember that bus from the other movie? Well, this character was on that bus one time." SO FUCKING WHAT??? Does this mean he lead to creeper toward the bus or something? This reveal just doesn't appear to add anything to the story or change it in any way. It feels totally pointless and stupid. It comes off like a big revelation, but it's more like an Easter egg that was splattered in your face as opposed to hidden. MAYBE his involvement with the team could serve some purpose in part 4, but I struggle to imagine what such a purpose could be.

2. The creature's hand got cut off in 1978 and if you touch it, you learn what the creature is. Ooooh, enticing. So what is it? What do they learn? They learn that "it's an ancient thing." Oh. Okay? We already knew that from previous movies? So are there any other implications here? Do they learn how to kill it or something? If so, they don't really say it. They just "learn what it is" and then they leave a sign for it saying "We know what you are." So fucking what? What are the grand implications of them knowing what it is? They never give any new information to the audience and their knowledge doesn't seem to have any bearing on the story. But still, the creeper seems very upset by this sign and falls to its knees and roars as all of the crows die around it. (That scene was actually pretty cool, but I still don't get how it affected the story in any way at all.) This seems to be the only thing that provoked the creature to fly away at the end of the movie. It's clearly scared that they can hurt it with the information they got, I guess. So this "big revelation" is something that won't be revealed until the next movie if it even happens. This tiny little concept is the only part of this movie that hinted at serving a purpose, and I feel like they could have just introduced it and followed through on it in the same movie instead of just trying to drag the series out longer.

3. In a tacked-on ending scene that wasn't built up to in any way, we suddenly see Trish from the first film. She's putting out a call to arms and announcing that when the creature comes back in 2024, she's going to kill it once and for all. WELL THERE'S YOUR FUCKING STORY! Why didn't you tell THAT story for part 3? The final ending to the creature would actually carry some weight and affect the damn story. But no, instead, you just chose to waste our fucking time meandering in between part 1 and 2. Thanks.

END SPOILERS

Overall, the movie was underwhelming and it filled a gap that nobody asked to be filled. It did so without bringing any worthwhile information to the table or doing anything significant for the story of the series. This would all be fine for a slasher film if it were at least entertainingly gruesome, but it doesn't really hit the spot there either.

The way Salva wrote this one just seems to be a big set up for the next one. He should have just blown his load and finished the series with this third movie, because the whole film industry is trying to distance themselves from him for his pedophilia and I'll be surprised if he manages to get part 4 off the ground. I've been interested enough in the series to watch them all, but I don't feel the need to own them. I'll give part 4 a rent if it happens.

And to ease my conscience over giving money to Victor Salva, I made a donation to his victim, who is trying to fund a tour to raise awareness of sexual abuse and help other victims. I recommend that the high & mighty keyboard warriors who condemn Jeepers Creepers fans shut up and do the same: https://www.gofundme.com/we-r-their-voice

Jeepers Creepers - 5/10 Jeepers Creepers 2 - 6/10 Jeepers Creepers 3 - 4/10

Blair Witch (2016)

Well I personally loved it.

[9/10 · 20 September 2016]

It's 16 years too late for most people, but this was EXACTLY what I wanted from a Blair Witch sequel.

I found it very effective and I loved the story. With the exception of the unethical marketing campaign, it has everything that made the first movie effective and then some. (Yes, I know the marketing is MOSTLY what people found effective about the first film, but that magic can never be captured again, so let it go.)

My only complaint is that there were too many false jump scares.

If you're not burnt out on found footage and you're open to the idea of a Blair Witch sequel, give it a shot.

There's not much else to say without spoilers. I just wanted to stop by and offset some of the hate.

Daddy's Little Girl (II) (2014)

A review from someone who doesn't know the filmmakers.

[6/10 · 30 January 2016]

Yes, most -if not all- of the people who gave this 9's and 10's are likely family and friends of the filmmakers, but the people giving it 1's are being pretty melodramatic and jaded.

Cinematography, writing, acting, directing, editing, music - it's all passable. None of it really wow's, but it all gets the job done. A lot of the dialogue feels forced and unnatural, but none of it yanked me out of the narrative.

Where the film excels is the violence. The gore effects are all very good and a lot of it succeeded in getting under my skin. I don't understand how so many reviews here can point out how good the effects are and still give the movie a 1. I think the technical work on the gore is easily worth at least a 3 out of 10 on it's own.

(minor spoiler) My only major complaint is that I don't think people can scream like that with a tracheotomy. Though maybe I'm wrong there. I also didn't like how the mother character just completely disappeared from the movie after the funeral. (/end spoiler)

As far as revenge films go, this isn't a satisfying ass-kicker like John Wick or The Crow, nor is it a classier drama like Man on Fire or Ransom. It's more of a torture film, comparable to Guinea Pig: Flower of Flesh and Blood. But if you're into that, definitely check this out.

The Cell 2 (2009 Video)

Just as entertaining as the first movie, but only because it's hilariously bad.

[1/10 · 30 March 2010]

The Cusp is a killer who repeatedly kills his victims, then brings them back to life, until they beg to die. Some psychic chick has to go into the killer's mind to find his latest victim before she is killed.

I'm a fanatic for the first film. On a scale of 1 to 10, my excitement was about a 15 when I heard this sequel was being made. When I found out it was going direct-to-video, that excitement plummeted to a 2. Looking back, I realize that even after that drop to a 2, I was way over-excited for this movie. Yes – it's THAT bad.

The plot doesn't sound too terrible. I like the idea of a killer making his victims beg for death, and doing that by actually killing them is interesting. But the delivery of this concept was painfully lame. The victims don't put very much effort into their performances at all. The first girl, who's getting her heart cut out, responds as if it's only a minor inconvenience. Seriously, I picture the director behind the camera saying, "Okay, now act like you're in mild discomfort." I also thought the killer would be using some ritual or something interesting, but instead, he's using legit medical practices. One example is suffocating his victim with a plastic bag, then performing CPR to revive her. It's just not very interesting. I'm not sure if a ritual would be much better, but what we're given is just underwhelming.

There are so many little details about this movie that are just flat-out tacky. First of all, the intro to the movie is a short clip from the first film, during which a narrator says something about how a psychic entered the mind of a killer, and "now ... there is another". This is the only time we hear the narrator's voice. It feels rushed and stupid. (It had me and my friend laughing mere seconds into the movie.) Then, during the end credits, we see aerial shots from a helicopter. Half of the shots have the chopper's shadow in view. (It seems like they spent half of their budget on renting this helicopter so they were milking it for all they could.) Then the credits stop twice to showcase brief behind-the-scenes shots. Both of these shots are boring and offer absolutely nothing interesting. There's no point in their presence what-so-ever. Any class that the picture could have had is flushed down the toilet by dumb little moments like these.

An especially tacky aspect of the script is the use of FBI vs. local cop clichés. Not only is the local cop the hero, while the FBI guy is almost a villain for doing his job, but this movie teaches me that it's okay for a cop to tightly grip an FBI agent's testicles and threaten him in order to get a point across. Apparently he won't get fired, arrested, or sued for sexual harassment. Wow. You learn something new every day.

The only connection this story has with the first movie is A.) the brief intro that simply mentions J-Lo's character, B.) the general concept of entering a killer's mind to save one of his victims, and C). the ethnicity of the main characters. It really seemed that they cast the leading lady in this sequel for her ethnic appearance, rather than acting ability. There was no reason for this. We don't care what ethnicity she is, we just want someone who can act.

The way they depict the mind in this sequel is nowhere near as stylish or visually interesting as it is in the first movie. I feel like I shouldn't rag on this aspect too much, since they were obviously on a very small budget. There is one very small visual that's slightly interesting when you see it in context, but it's delivered with horrible CGI.

There is one area in which this movie genuinely impressed me. I was blown away by this movie's ability to make the most simple moments hilarious through awful editing, camera-work, and performances. There's a part where two FBI agents are chasing after the two main characters. It doesn't sound funny, but the horrendous editing, effortless camera work, and HALF-ASSED JOGGING of the actors makes the scene side- splittingly hilarious. There's also a car-chase scene that is made incredibly funny by the awful camera-work and editing. This is honestly one of those movies that I'd show to film students as an example of what NOT to do.

Overall, the movie has one or two interesting ideas wrapped into the script, but the weak acting, lazy film-making, crappy writing, and tacky moments make this movie funny as hell, and there are no interesting visuals to save it. I find this movie just as entertaining as the first film, but only because it's so hilariously terrible.

The Tattooist (2007)

Has the quality of a good Sci-Fi Channel Original... *very mild spoiler*

[3/10 · 3 March 2010]

A boring tattooist with the personality of a dead animal becomes cursed by an evil spirit for misusing his tattooing career. …At least, that's what we're lead to believe, but then the story sort of shifts away from that and becomes a cliché ghost story.

There are a few decent ideas wrapped up in here. There's some slick set design, decent camera work, and an interesting visual or two. That's where my compliments end.

You can probably assume most of my reasons for hating this film based on my plot description. The character is boring as hell. There's absolutely nothing interesting about him. The actor portrays fear well enough, and might have been capable of expressing an interesting character, but the script didn't provide one. A love story gets wedged in there too. I NEVER complain about chemistry between lovers in movies… but in this case, I will make a girly exception and say that these two people didn't have any reason to give a crap about each other, aside from a compatible set of reproductive organs. Two boring people have boring interactions and suddenly screw each other. It seemed forced, sudden, and unnecessary. Perhaps they should have spent more time developing the characters, rather than having every single person prattle off historical facts about tattoos. Seriously, we don't care.

The trailers and plot synopsis suckered me in with some seemingly original and cool concepts, but as written above, this simply ended up being another cliché whodunit ghost story. Screw that. That's not at all what I bought this movie for.

The score is terrible. Some of the best moments in the film are completely ruined by a crappy, cheap-sounding soundtrack. The rap music didn't sit well with me either. It was annoying and it just didn't fit.

The only reason I would ever recommend this film is so you can laugh at the hilariously out-of-place scene involving the fat ethnic kid who can communicate with the dead when he rides in a fast car and blasts rap music loud enough. You think I'm kidding… but that seriously happens.

Someone got a decent idea to start with, but then they were lazy about every other aspect of the production after that point. The writing is lazy, the characters are lame as hell, the score sucks, and there are some ridiculous moments that just don't fit. The overall presentation is as about as compelling as the hair on my scrotum.

Day of the Dead (2008 Video)

At least it's better than Contagium and NOTLD 3D...

[4/10 · 10 September 2008]

Literally seconds into the film, it's fairly obvious that this story will bear absolutely NO resemblance to the original "Day of the Dead". So why call it a remake? Well, my friends, that's why the world keeps shunning this film as an excuse to make money rather than a legitimate work of art.

Cons: --The fact that Nick Cannon is alive and steps in front of cameras… At least they cut that horrible "It's a bad day to be a zombie." line that nauseated us all in the trailers. (I think it was cut anyway… I don't remember hearing it…) --Some weak writing and performances. --Some pretty crappy effects here and there. --Some absolutely RIDICULOUS missteps in logic. I'm not the kinda guy who looks for things like that just so I can complain, but God damn. Zombies breaking right through windows, then seconds later, being stopped dead in their tracks by another window; zombies jumping at great distances & crawling on the walls and ceilings, but then not being able to reach a few characters peeking through an air duct; zombies' heads exploding because their bodies have caught fire, (funny, but WTF???) --Some absolutely HORRIBLE sound-editing. --The cliché "No. Don't shoot him. He's my friend." "BUT HE'S A ZOMBIE NOW!" "I don't care. I'll take care of him if I have to, but nobody else is allowed that privilege." Not only is this cliché present, but it's taken a little bit too far… --One of the zombies didn't eat people… He was a good guy… He retains most of his humanity too. Why? Because he was a vegetarian in life. ...No. Just no. --A happy ending... Are you kidding me?

Pros: --Decapitations. A lot of them. Headshots and car impacts make for some fun as well. --Mena Suvari is cute. --Some effects were okay. --Directing wasn't too bad. --I actually really liked the cinematography. --The zombie make-up was decent. I appreciate it because it's elaborate and in such great numbers. --As with all of the screw-up spin-offs of Romero's "Dead" films, (this means all but Savini's "Night" and Snider's "Dawn"), they tried to explain the outbreak. Their explanation here was actually decent, in my opinion. However, it shouldn't be there. That's not what George's movies were about. In his films, we didn't need to know how the outbreak started, it was all about how the survivors reacted to it. So I didn't know if I should put this point in the Pros or Cons list… If this wasn't a remake of "Day of the Dead", then it would be a purely good thing. --But this film's most important Pro: Laughing at every single one of the Cons I've listed.

This would be a mildly decent zombie flick if it weren't for the ending and the "Day of the Dead" name. Watch it for mindless fun.

6/10 on it's own. 1/10 as a remake. I'll give it a 4.5/10 overall.

Bug (2006)

Fascinating Stuff

[9/10 · 21 December 2007]

First thing's first; this is NOT a movie about killer bugs. This is a psychological exploration based on a play of the same name. If you're not into that, or you're not in the mood for it, then don't watch this.

This is already getting negative feedback similar to what "The Village" got. That really wasn't a bad movie once you looked passed the twist. The big difference between "Bug" and "The Village" is that "Bug"s true story wasn't hidden. Anyone who did a little research would have known what this was about, so it's really not much of a spoiler for me to tell you. (I don't even think I should have flagged this review for spoilers... but I don't want to get blacklisted...) I didn't read at all; I just bought this based on the disturbing previews. I thought I'd see a disturbing horror film about parasites that consume people from the inside. While I was mildly disappointed to see otherwise, but the product grew on me in a different way. I also look back and realize the film really did succeed in disturbing me... so I did get what I was after in that sense. But the story was very, very fascinating.

Sure, the previews were a little misleading, but I'm not sure how else they could have advertised this without giving the whole story away.

The only complaints I have are that it started off a little bit slow and I didn't really like how the ending was edited. But these are VERY small blemishes on this overall interesting, well acted, and well made movie.

This turned out to be one of the most interesting films I've seen in a while. I see myself watching this again. I recommend it to anyone who's interested in psychoanalytical flicks that take you through the minds of crazy people.

Kuchisake-onna (2007)

Stands Out To Me

[8/10 · 21 December 2007]

A town is haunted by the myth of a woman whose face has been mutilated in a very awesome looking fashion. She wears a mask over her mouth and shows up to people asking "Am I pretty?" Their answer almost always leads to their death.

I loved this movie. The story was different. I haven't seen anything too similar to it before. The story was interesting, even a bit touching at points. It never got laughable to me. The whole thing stayed pretty dark and serious. (I'm sure the horrific involvement of children in the story helped that...) The camera work was really slick. I loved the lighting and the atmosphere towards the end. It had a great pace. It moved fast, even by American standards. (This is surprising for an Asian flick.) The ghost was unique by Asian standards. (She didn't have the hair over her face, nor did her hair seem to be alive.) The woman with the sliced mouth was a very cool visual.

This has been one of my favorite Japanese horror films yet. Another big difference from most Asian films I've seen is that IT ACTUALLY MADE SENSE. Many Asian flicks like to have ambiguous endings that don't seem to have a definite meaning, so the audience can discuss their take on it. That, or the films are just made very bizarre, outlandish, and hard to follow. But this one actually made sense to me all the way through.

Most of what I've read say it's "average"... I'm sorry, but all of the really famous Asian horror flicks I've seen seemed to be very similar to each other... I'd call those "average". In my eyes, this shied away from Asian routines, (which are sadly becoming American ones now...).

I highly recommend this to any supernatural horror fan. I thought it was a great little ghost flick with a good story and some awesome eye-candy.

Night of the Living Dead 3D (2006)

I don't care if it's a remake. It's horrible on it's own...

[1/10 · 21 December 2007]

The second remake of George Romero's classic. Zombies, small group of people banding together in a house, etc.

This time, we're given an explanation to the outbreak. Aside from some pretty good zombie makeup, this explanation was the ONLY decent part of this movie. It was a fairly decent back story, but a lot of fans really don't want that.

So now that I've gotten the two positives out of the way, onto the long list of feces this movie dumps all over it's viewer.

For one thing, the characters are shown watching "Night of the Living Dead" multiple times, then relating the events going on to the events in the film. ...This is a ridiculous way to do a remake. It's fine in a PARODY sequel like "Return of the Living Dead", but not in a remake. In addition to this, THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND ZOMBIES! They JUST watched "Night of the Living Dead", yet they don't understand that you need to hit them in the head to put them down? They also don't shoot their buddy when he gets bitten. They don't seem to worry about him too much.

The famous "They're coming to get you Barbera" line, (which I totally want on a t-shirt), has been modernized by showing up in a text message... I didn't find this funny... just irritating... especially since it's written in text abbreviations. I just thought it was dumb.

You may be thinking what I thought going into this film... "How bad can it be? I hear it's terrible... but it's in 3D!!! Zombies and gore reaching out of the screen. Even if it sucks, how could this not be a fun viewing?" Well I assure you, it succeeded in being completely unenjoyable despite it's possible advantages. The 3D is very poorly done, utilizing the old school red and blue, (which annoys me very quickly in itself). There were also very few 3D gags and the few that were there were pretty lame.

We had a gratuitous nude scene that made the film feel immature. I can't even describe how stupid the scene was... She runs away completely naked, gets into a car to protect herself, while the guy, (in his boxers), runs over to the car and starts trying to pull zombies away from it with his bare hands. The idiot actually doesn't die for a good 30 seconds. Then the dumb chick in the car is apparently too stupid to lock the doors, as the zombies keep opening them while she makes a frantic attempt to keep them shut. The overall scene was just so painfully stupid.

But what of gore? It's a zombie film, so surely there's some good, gruesome eye candy that makes the film mildly entertaining? Nope. Very, VERY little effort is put into the violence. We see one gun wound, one burning body, a tire iron that was discreetly impaled through a guy without him noticing (???), and one zombie that's been stabbed in the mouth by a shovel. (We don't actually see the shovel nail him, but we see him standing there with the indented shovel against his mouth.) That's IT. I recall thinking the gore in this film could EASILY be topped by a school play. There was absolutely NO effort behind the violence. That says something about makers of a horror film... something very bad. Throw down some devotion, guys. Come on. Making a good film is one thing, but making an ENTERTAINING film really isn't that hard.

Another thing that REALLY made me angry was a scene in which a man gives another man a gun and asks, "You know how to use that?" The other guy replies, "Of course; I grew up on video games." while he loads the gun knowing every single detail on how to operate it. This supports the idea of violent media training kids how to kill. What kind of horror film maker supports this idea? It goes against the horror genre itself. It was insulting and ignorant. Absolutely ridiculous.

To top it off, the acting was terrible and most of the music was very bland.

Lame directing, stupid story decisions, bad acting, terrible 3D editing with few 3D gags, lame music, and next to NO EFFORT towards any violence. This was one of the worst movies I've seen in a while. If you're like me, you'll want to check it out anyway, but do yourself a favor and rent it first. Don't throw away the $20 I did. I can't believe how terrible this was.

I'd give this a zero if I could.

Bleeders (1997)

Awesomely bad.

[5/10 · 18 September 2007]

My friend and I love to rent awful, gruesome, horror films, then sit and make fun of how bad they are (while enjoying the gore). So far, this film has been the most enjoyable for us. The little gnome dudes are funny themselves… and watching them kill is hilarious… Then the characters are so lame and the concept of the gnome's origin is kind of goofy too. There is some gore and some nice images in here, but the concept, acting, and characters just make this film incredibly cheesy… I mean really, how many movies feature a doctor who looks at a corpse that was mangled in a boat's propeller and says "Hm… I'd have to say death by severe mutilation."… WE WERE IN TEARS AT THAT LINE. That was the funniest thing we'd ever heard! Now, whenever somebody gets diced up pretty bad in a film, we have to make reference to it by quoting that line.

I gave this movie a 5 out of 10 because it really is awful but I found it incredibly entertaining… in a "Mystery Science Theater 3000" kind of way.

(And if you're having trouble finding it, the DVD was released under the title "Hemoglobin".)