Rubbish

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

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

This wasn't horror, it was barely fantasy, it was poorly filmed, badly acted and it didn't make any sense. This was, at its most basic, just a reworking of "Batteries Not Included" but without the feel good factor or cute little aliens. No wonder even Disney turned down this script.

"Puppetmaster" is badly directed/poorly edited, the acting is below average, there are huge plot holes where things are not explained at all, and the stop-motion puppet effects are not just really dated but were actually pretty archaic when the film was new too. Watch this to see how not to make a horror film.

It really is the acting, or lack of it, that lets this down. It's so deadpan that they might as well all be in Pet Shop Boys video. You get the feeling that once they'd all got dressed up, the actors decided that was enough to earn their money and gave up on the rest of it. I can't say I blame them either.

Well it's a Terry Gilliam film (you know that bloke who did the weird and unfunny cartoons for Monty Python) so what can you really expect? It doesn't even have the great set design of something like "Jabberwocky". Pacing is all over the place, dialogue is stupid and pointless, and every so often it tries to be funny and fails abysmally.

While there's still lots of gory fun including exploding heads, decapitations, gunshot wounds, eviscerations and other nastiness, "Battle Royale II: Requiem" just wasn't as good as the original. The main reason is that after all the excitement of the first half an hour or so it all gets very talky with huge boring sermons about how bad war is.

This film is a "Braveheart" (or even "Rob Roy") wannabe but with no big name stars, even more unintelligible dialogue, a lack of any acting skills anywhere and a contrived storyline that is only designed to make anyone British watching it ashamed to be so. A lot of people with "agendas" will overate "The Wind That Shakes The Barley" purely because of its subject matter. It's just nothing very original and isn't particularly well done.

Donald Sutherland mumbles, the rest of the acting is wooden, reactions to events are stilted, the sound is bad, the story is boring and the ghost attacks are all the same. It isn't scary in any way. In fact the scariest thing about it is that it got a theatrical release at all!

The opening scenes led me to believe that this would be a better version of "The Descent" but as soon as the new team of scientists turned up in the film I just knew it was going to stink. None of the characters were remotely interesting. Not even the presence of Russell from "Invasion" and Daniel Dae Kim from "Lost" were going to save this movie.

This is the reason why Robert Englund should stick to acting and not directing. The story, which is more or less "Carrie" all over again, is a complete mess and far too jokey to deliver any scares.

While I enjoyed the book by Hans Holzer, I can't say the same about this film. The special effects really aren't very special at all and it's just not scary. If you didn't know any better you would think it was a B movie. It went straight to video so it might as well be anyway. There are much better versions of the same story so this is really one to miss.

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.

This is supposed to be a cult classic but I just can't find anything of merit in this low-budget piece of trash. It's just stupid and not even very well filmed. As a black comedy, I just don't get it. Peter Jackson did much better with "Braindead" a few years later.

One of the most disappointing films I watched in the 80s as a horror fan. It isn't much of a horror film at all and is much more like a comedy. The trouble is that I can't tell if the comedy is intentional or not. If it was supposed to be serious then it really failed abysmally.

This is even worse than the first "Basket Case". Slow, dull and not at all what you'd expect from a horror film. I don't understand the appeal of something like this to anyone. Some kind of rubber monster in a basket is just not scary.

They are all completely awful but this is by far the worst of the "Basket Case" movies. Whereas the previous instalments had some murders shot in lov light to hide how rubbishy the creature was, most of this film is well lit and only goes to show how bad the latex costumes of all the characters actually are. It just looks like a little kids' Halloween party to me. Horror fans should avoid this one.

Another total bomb. It's slow, the script is dull, and the creature that the doctor turns into is ridiculous. Having a big beard does not make you into a bat-creature!
It's sort of like a werewolf film but with bats instead of lycanthropes. That's about as close to a plot as it gets and the characterisation is pretty much non-existent too. It isn't gory, sexy or horrific in any way.

Roger Corman is far from being my favourite director anyway but this was just terrible. Even though it is very much a product of its time, that's still no excuse. There isn't a haunted cave and the "beast" is just some guy in a furry suit with extra arms. It should have stuck to just being a crime drama. Everything is so slow that it's ideal for falling to sleep to on a wet afternoon though.

This doesn't even rate in the "so bad it's good" category. It's just an awful poor man's version of "C.H.U.D." with a messy plodding story and no real gore or violence. I am amazed that this film is actually listed on here as it's the kind of thing you find in bargain bins in "dollar stores" in the US. The movie poster is the best thing about it.

<