Bloody Bs

Anyone who knows anything about making independent movies will see the funny side of this. It is also full of really pretty girls and has some quite credible gore scenes even though it is primarily a spoof. For what it is, it's very entertaining.

If you've ever wondered what "Caddyshack" would be like as a horror movie then this is for you. It's reasonably gory and the murders are mostly quite inventive. You'll never work out who the killer is in a million years so it'll keep you amused right up to the end.

There was lots of blood, some nice effects, but it was a very stupid story. I won't even mention the acting. I still can't decide if this was meant to be a comedy or not. It wasn't far from being a porno though.... not that that's a bad thing!

As a B movie pretending to be better than it is, it actually looks quite well shot at times. That is until you see that the "werewolf" is just someone dressed up in a hairy costume. It's supposed to be a real werewolf though... really, it is.

When Angela drowned the girl in the outside toilet I was almost amused for a second but nothing in this film was all that memorable. It seems it was made with hardly any budget at all so don't expect to see any cutting edge gore in this one.

There was a macabre sense of humour to this that appealed to me for some reason and I really liked the Angela character played by Pamela Springsteen (yes, she is Bruce Springsteen's sister). She's quite pretty too.

Not very gory, not very scary, but it has Monica Keena looking all gorgeous and pouty... oh, and it's supposed to make you think about about the afterlife...

It's a B movie but not a totally bad one, and maybe I am getting more lenient lately due to having nothing else to watch.

It's all yak, yak, yak with hardly any action. It's very studio bound and poorly done, sort of like a school play but with more sets. I think there's supposed to be suspense (what with the "Spirit Trap" being a "clock" and all!) but all the timing is way off with this film and the ending is extremely rushed.

I really don't think you should watch this unless you fancy Nicholas Brandon or Jaime Pressly... and even then it will still disappoint you.

Watch this and learn how, in spite of a low budget, a good story and a sexy vampiress can impress the hell out of anyone! Except me, that is.

If it didn't have the stupid demon I would say this film was average.

This is yet another one of those films that I put off watching for ages because I had the suspicion that it was going to be crap. I didn't watch it when it first came out as a straight-to-DVD release in 2003 and tried my hardest (albeit mostly unsuccessfully) to avoid it when it was shown on TV horror channels ever since. I really didn't want to ruin the happy mid-80s' memories I had of Stuart Gordon's "Re-animator". But, you know how it is, you get bored and eventually spend an hour peeling the security tape off the DVD case and, before you know where you are, the damned thing has somehow got into the player and you're watching it. That's my excuse anyway and has nothing to do with the fact that I got the DVD for $2 from a certain auction site.
It's now been 18 years since Brian Yuzna took over helming with "Bride of Re-animator" and that was hardly a good film either although, with hinesight, it is a lot better than this. Fabiana Udenio really had more to do with making that film memorable than anything else for me as it really added nothing new. 13 years on from "Bride of Re-animator" Brian Yuzna went the comedy route with "Beyond Re-animator" which doesn't bode well for next year's planned "House of Re-animator" either.
I can't quite put my finger on why but "Beyond Re-animator" just failed to deliver. Although obviously low-budget, it was a good story, had reasonable amounts of gore, good actors and sexy actresses (especially Elsa Pataky), but it just had the wrong pace and tried hard for humour when it should have gone for scares. Oh and it's a Spanish production so there are a lot of unknown Spanish actors in it in case anyone wondered. That doesn't always doom a movie to failure but I have noticed a trend... which reminds me to stick to Pedro Almodóvar rather than Jess Franco in future too.
The story is much the same as the other two in the series. Dr Herbert West is still re-animating bodies albeit now from inside a prison where of course he is encarcerated. A new prison doctor arrives who turns out to be a kid who saw the results of Dr West's experiments when one of them killed his sister. Then a reporter turns up who looks just like the boy's sister and there is a love affair thing going on just to bulk out the plot. The reporter turns out to be more interested in "the experiments" than her original prison story and ends up getting more than she bargained for when she is predictably killed by the evil warden and then re-animated herself. That's not much of a spoiler as all this pretty much occurs within the first ten minutes.
The new spin on things in this movie is that Herbert has now discovered how to harness the "nanoplasma" which leaves the body at death and is responsible for human consciousness. Thus begins a lot of body swapping nonsense, first with a couple of rats and then between different people.
I kept losing interest when all the quirky prisoners were doing their thing and I lost it even more when I realised that I really wasn't going to see Elsa Pataky (also in "Snakes on a Plane") get totally naked. There is a minor sex scene and one shot of her squashed boob but it was down to the also attractive Raquel Gribler to get hers out instead. And glorious they were too! You'll remember them for a long time, trust me on this.
A more amusing scene worth mentioning involves a re-animated, dismembered dinkle fighting a rat. It soon stopped being amusing though it must have pleased the director because it also continued throughout the end credits. It wasn't that funny.
So, apart from Elsa Pataky, there really weren't any great things to mention about this film. Jeffrey Combs does his usual performance but is just too much of a nice guy to instill anything really sinister into the mix... well, that's if you can call his role as Herbert West, a man who re-animates dead bodies, a nice guy! He's certainly more sociable this time round but you know he's still obsessed.
The ending left the way open for the possible fourth film in the series which I hope doesn't actually come to anything. I really think it's time to give up on this story now. I can't see it going anywhere else except further and further down in quality and it's a shame because the original "Re-animator" was an absolute genre classic.
Final verdict: Watch it if you want to but don't expect miracles. Herbert West himself could not raise this movie from the dead.

It's all supposed to be one of those "degeneration into madness movies" in this case caused by a female Oedipus complex. It's not much of a horror film then. The only really nasty moment is five minutes from the end and even that was done much better in "Betty Blue".

"Scarred" is just another formulaic low-budget slasher with a better backstory than it deserves and poorer execution than you could possibly imagine.

If it had some humourous moments you could almost see this as a comedy... but it's so bad it isn't funny.

This was just on the wrong side of average for me. In a lot of ways it is derivative of "The Bad Seed" and "The Good Son" (which came out at the same time) but it is just a little bit sicker and without the suspense of the former or the horror of the latter.

If you like seeing lots of teenagers running round screaming and dying all over the place in a film with one of the lamest endings ever, then this is for you!

One of my biggest criticisms of the movie concerns the death scenes of victims. They are dragged out to such an extent that it all gets very boring and very repetitive.

I really can't find anything good to say about this apart from it had giant CGI scorpions in... and you don't see those every day!

It's overlong, there isn't much action, there's only one really sexy scene and that involves some old grandad in a leather coat, and it just sucks.

It's just a low-budget slasher and the kid who plays the lead role is annoying as hell. There isn't much to scare you in it though but it's still quite entertaining. As a black-comedy, it sort of works and some bits are quite funny.

The only saving grace this movie has is that Lauren Woodland and the other girl are nice to look at.

I hope this was intended as a comedy even though it isn't intentionally funny by any stretch of the imagination.

I really wish that this had been a straight kiddy-killing ice cream man movie not a stupid comedy which isn't all that funny.

So it's just a even lower budget version of "Wrong Turn" and "The Hills Have Eyes" though actually made at the same time as the former and three years before the remake of the latter.

The acting sucks but I think that's down to the director more than the cast. It's just so insipid.

I don't think I've seen anything quite this bad since "Hearts and Armour" (from 1983) - I bet you'll be Googling that one now!

Avoid this film unless you are an arty-farty buff who likes to pretend to know more than normal people.

It was a nice idea but it failed in its execution. (I don't believe I just wrote that! lmao)

The only real way to ever make something like lycanthropy scary is to show the kill. Apart from the agony of transformation, it's what the audience are waiting for. You'll wait forever if you expect to see anything like that here though.

I think I've now seen the second worst horror movie of all time. I can't say it is the worst because I really have seen a more badly made film than this but if I hadn't then this would definitely take first place.

Ironically this film is also known as "The Forgotten" and it damn well should be!
It's poor on every level. Lousy acting, bad camerawork with washed out colours, really bad sound, an interesting story ruined by inept characterisation and writing, and no scares or gore worth mentioning.

I ended up watching most of this on fast forward as it was so drawn out and slow that I felt my life ebbing away as I watched. It was originally conceived as a parody but for some reason the company who made it decided to play it straight instead.

It's not much of a horror movie as you can imagine but it's a cheesy bit of fun in places.

This was like a poor man's version of every "Ed Gein inspired" type story out there. Nothing new, nothing very entertaining, and the most ludicrous thing is that all the characters could have escaped the place at any time.

Janet Gunn who is actually a lot more gorgeous than her character allows her to be.

For a vampire film there isn't a lot of blood. Well, not any that I can remember.

Even David McCallum, the Man From Uncle, can't save this one. He probably should have stayed as the Invisible Man because I'm sure he would want to disappear after being in this travesty.

It's just another load of talky political nonsense with no action and nothing that you will care about one way or another.

If you haven't seen this yet, don't bother. All you will see is Christine Taylor (who looked quite pretty in "Zoolander" but isn't quite so hot here) running around, seeing demons and screaming for about an hour. Actually that makes the film sound good...

There were very few moments of action and it the characters were so poorly defined that you didn't really know who was who. I fell asleep several times watching it and had to rewind so any suspense that this movie probably had was completely wasted on me.

There was nothing especially scary or gory in this film so I think the overall effect can really only be described as "bland" even though it is also brimming with sex scenes. It's sort of a proto-"Wishmaster" but without the witty dialogue. The appalling "Wishmaster 4" is pretty much just a remake of "Witchboard 3" anyway.

You know how annoying skateboarders are? Well these snowboarders are even worse than that. A load of of potheads who say "Dude" a lot getting hacked to pieces by an axe-wielding psychopath may not be everyone's idea of fun but I enjoyed it. It also has quite a surprise ending.

The zombie attack scenes are confusing to say the least and mixing them with lots of different angles, coloured filters and an amateur heavy metal soundtrack makes the whole thing seem like a very bad Kerrang video. Chelsea Jean is pretty though.

It's not scary, the gore is less than you'd get in a Sunday afternoon TV movie, and there's nothing sexy either. Brenda Vance, who plays the heroine Alex, is pretty in a 1980s' kind of way but she's wasted in the film anyway. The only remarkable thing at all in this travesty of a werewolf film is Kato Kaelin's awful mullet!

I didn't understand a great deal of this movie. I am most baffled by why this was even made at all.

There was just too much time spent on characterisation and not enough action so that it ended up just like the final episode of "The Colbys". Ok, so there's a bit of a difference in that the "greys" are quite nasty but Jason Connery really shouldn't get involved in this kind of rubbish.

There were hardly any gore scenes although a lot was implied, the camerawork was all over the place and very distracting, and not one of the cast seems to know how to act. It tried to be a cross between the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and a "thinking man's horror" but failed to accomplish either. As a vampire film, it sucked - but not in a good way.

It just didn't do anything for me except make me want to kick the telly in every time another character said the name "Lucy" especially in the last 10 minutes. I am however thinking it could be useful for a "drinking game" for serious boozers. You'd die of alcohol poisoning though if you were to attempt more than a sip for every time you hear, "Lucy, Lucy, Lucy!"

There is no chemistry between anyone, nobody reacts to what the previous person has said without a discernable delay, and I really think the box that the DVD comes in has more of an emotional range. I would like to say that all the nudity redeemed things but even that was so unerotic that there was nothing good about this film at all.

It was a nice idea and even had quite a neat psycho scene featuring Tom Savini in the middle but it isn't something that will leave its mark on the British horror film industry. It's really just another "trapped in the woods" slasher but with a supernatural element that doesn't quite make any sense.

I didn't like C.H.U.D. when I first saw it and I like it even less now. Like many people, I just rented it because it had an amusing title and it had the potential to be a little bit different from all the slasher films which had flooded the market in the mid 80s.
Unfortunately none of that potential was realised. It just didn't have enough action or scary monsters and I still don't know if it was trying to be serious or funny.
The joke was on me in any case as I was the one who wasted my time watching it.
I've seen quite a few low-budget B movies since but at the time I was absolutely appalled that something this bad and cheap looking could make it onto the shelves in my local video shop. I think I may have even complained... bitterly. I probably got my money back too.
I don't even consider this to be a horror movie. It really should be renamed C.R.A.P.

The titles are quite good but that's all. It's just not funny.
There are much funnier films than this which don't even try to be. Even the rubbish that Troma produces can be more entertaining.
This is definitely the worst movie of all time.

There is very little shock value now to this film as the idea of 10 year olds running amok and killing people for fun has pretty much become a reality in today's society. It was quite novel back in 1981 though. How times change!
There isn't a lot of gore in this but the death scenes are reasonably inventive even if unrealistic.
Although this is just another B movie slasher pic, it's different enough to be entertaining. Just don't expect it to have any great acting in it or for the plot to explain anything.

It's not even set in a bog but a lake. The creature that rises from the depths to suck the blood out of the locals is just a guy in a rubber monster suit and you don't see the kills anyway as the camera pans to the nearest bush everytime something happens.
Pacing is slow with appalling dialogue, the only acting demonstrated is bad, and the whole thing is just stupid.
It's the worst kind of cheap and shoddy B movie there is. Sometimes you have to wonder how awful films like this ever get released. This was filmed in 1978 but didn't find distribution for 5 years. It really should have stayed on the shelf (or at the bottom of a bog) forever.

If you've ever seen "Frankenhooker" or "The Man with Two Brains", this will seem like a much poorer, lower-budget, black and white version of the same thing.
It was obviously the film that inspired them though and is a nice example of trashy early 60s B movies even if it is a bit slow and silly. There's a bit of gore at the end too.

Yes, that is the correct spelling of the title even though the band featured in the movie is named "Killer Barbies" just like the famous dolls. Being English, I have the UK version of this movie which I bought from Poundland (a lot like Dollar Tree) a couple of years ago for the princely sum of, yes, you've guessed it - £1. It's just known as "Killer Barbys" everywhere else for obvious reasons.
Now, knowing my taste in movies as you may or may not yet do, you'd expect me to absolutely hate this lesser valued Jess Franco effort with a passion usually only spent vilifying Hollywood remakes. But you'd be wrong. I thoroughly enjoyed it!
Perhaps the main reason I liked it was because of all the boobs and blood. Yeah, baby, I like those. I also liked it because it reminded me of yet another "bad movie" from 1985 called "Der Formel Eins Film" ("Feel the Motion"). How can that be when "Killer Barbys" is a vampire horror movie and "Feel the Motion" is just a load of Europop bands performing amidst a weak storyline? Well, the truth is, "Killer Barbys" is just a vehicle for promoting the Spanish rock band of the title amidst a weak and cheesy storyline too.
Now, using an unknown (to the rest of the world) mid-90s rock band who all travel in the same van and have sex with each other as the focus of a movie may seem like wishful thinking on the part of "Scooby Doo" lovers everywhere. Well, it certainly was for me. But more than that, even in spite of poor dubbing and dialogue, I really liked the characters. We're not talking about something of quality like "The Monkees", "The Beatles" or even "Cliff Richard" with this little adventure though as none of them could act their way out of a wet paper bag. I could however see a great parody of "Summer Holiday" here as, in many ways, it was just as if Cliff and the gang somehow took a very wrong turn and ended up in Transylvania.
The Killer Barbies unfortunately do not actually end up in Transylvania either. They are very much in Spain all the way through but it's always nice to see a bit of Europe that you haven't seen before. The camerawork is generally pretty good and things don't look too low budget even though they obviously were. It's really only some of the poorer practical effects that let it down but there's nothing too noticeable apart from a couple of really fake bodies and heads.
Which brings me back to the nudity. Heads? Nudity? You will see my reasoning when you learn that the vampire Countess who the band encounters when their van breaks down exists on a diet of blood and semen. Oh yes and there's an oral sex scene too just before to make sure I complete the segue.
Mariangela Giordano plays the Countess with a great deal of sexual allure considering that she is the least attractive of the three female leads and is actually 59 years old! Seeing her naked isn't actually the horror you might expect from a woman her age which has me feeling a bit ill for some reason. Silvia Superstar who plays the lead singer Flavia also spends a bit of time nude and is one of the better looking women I've seen in any Spanish movie so I'm sure she'd be rated as the most attractive by a lot of viewers. The one who did it for me though was Angie Barea. She plays the overly horny blonde backup singer and is hot as hell! Trivia fans will love that she used to host a sex programme on Spanish TV too. Obviously she was typecast.
There's very little for straight females to enjoy here unless they like seeing a hairy willy in a bath. Now there was horror for me as I certainly didn't expect to see one of those half way through the film! I wouldn't say all the males in the film are ugly or anything but they are quite plain in comparison to the women. There are even a couple of dwarves in it but they don't do much at all really which is a shame.
The big question is should this even count as a horror movie? Hell yeah! I even got into the story though it's certainly nothing original. Is it scary? Hell no! It's not scary at all unless women of nearly pension age rubbing blood all over themselves is a phobia of yours. Actually it might be one of mine now even though it turned me on!
If you are feeling a bit down and there's nothing else to watch then I can thoroughly recommend "Vampire Killer Barbys". It's worth the conversion rate of $1.50 of anybody's money but if you can't find it to buy then I suggest a rental. As "bad movies" go, it isn't actually that bad at all.