Forbidden World (aka Mutant) (1982)

Forbidden World (aka Mutant)  (1982)


During the early 1980s, there was a whole string of really crappy low-budget sci-fi/horror flicks that were basically made to cash-in on the success of Ridley Scott's Alien (1979).  A couple of these were produced by b-movie king Roger Corman (including this one).  All of them followed the 'group of people stuck in an enclosed area being stalked by a monster' formula.
All of them had really corny titles like Galaxy Of Terror, Horror Planet, and in this movie's case, Forbidden World.  Note that the title doesn't have anything to do with the movie at all.  There is no "forbidden world" in the movie.  The studio just thought it sounded cool.
NOTE:  The title of Robert Rodriquez' Grindhouse flick Planet Terror was a throwback to these; even to the point where the title Planet Terror had nothing to with that movie, either. Also note that during this time, it was common for a movie studio to change a movie's title at the last moment, which is why even though the posters for this movie clearly say Forbidden World, in the actual opening credits the title is Mutant.


So why would I waste my time watching something as admittedly bad as Forbidden World?  Because some of these awful old sci-fi/horror flicks are hilarious, that's why!  Honestly, I laughed out loud more often during Forbidden World than I have at any recent comedy.  Forbidden World is the kind of movie that the phrase "so bad it's good" was invented for.
I won't write a traditional review (because honestly, who cares?).  Instead, I'll just go over some of the unintentionally funny highlights of the film.

-The male lead in this movie is apparently supposed to be a real cool ladies' man.  This guy doesn't go after the women - the women go after him.  I mean right after he gets it on with the blond lady scientist, he is immediately propositioned by the brunette lady scientist.  So why is this funny?  Because the actor who plays this guy is the goofiest-looking, douchebaggiest guy you've ever seen in your life!  There is nothing cool, handsome, or "sexy" about him.  The actor (Jesse Vint) was in the '70s movie Macon County Line which apparently made him a "star" at the time.

Apparently because this guy is so irresistibly sexy, he also gets away with screaming at the women occasionally, like when he yells at the blond lady scientist, "That's the dumbest damn thing I've heard all day....no offense."

-This guy also has a robot sidekick named S.A.M.  Now I'm sure S.A.M. is an acronym for something really advanced and scientific, but for some reason I got the distinct feeling that this robot was really a guy wearing a costume.

S.A.M. looks like a Storm Trooper from Star Wars, but for some bizarre reason he talks in a child's voice!  Seriously, it's very strange and a little disconcerting.  It's stuff like this that makes these weird old movies so enjoyable to me -you really have to wonder what the hell the filmmakers were thinking when they made decisions like these.

-And now the highlight of the movie:  about halfway through, there is an unintentionally hilarious sex scene that really must be seen to be believed.  It starts out like a futuristic-themed early-'80s softcore porn, complete with cheapo red-tint lighting and throbbing synthesizer funk on the soundtrack.  But then, during the sex scene the movie starts cutting to other things going on in the spaceship, and it ends up being like a really goofy '80s music-video style 'montage' sequence, with the synth-funk bumping away while we inter-cut between the couple having sex, some guy watching them on a video monitor (!), the head scientist doing whatever he's doing, the robot screwing around, etc etc. 
My description of this scene is not doing it justice.  I really can't come up with the right words to adequately describe it.

-Oh!  Speaking of '80s softcore porn, there's also a scene where the two lady scientists take a shower together....not because it is implied that they are lovers (it isn't), but simply because they are casually taking a shower together.  And this isn't just any run-of-the-mill shower.  No, this is a really "futuristic" shower where there is no water, and instead flashes of laser light cleanse the body.  Uh huh.  So basically what I'm saying is, the scene is two naked women standing there with disco lights flashing on the walls.  That's Forbidden World!

-I also have to mention a scene where the two female scientists attempt to approach the alien monster to try and communicate with it.  The monster can apparently understand English and can even operate the ship's computers telepathically. Don't ask.  No, really.  Don't ask.
So anyways the blond one types into the computer monitor, "Can we co-exist?"  To which the monster gives her a toothy grin, the '80s synth music starts going into overdrive, and the thing shoves a tentacle between her legs and through her body (exiting through her back).  When you hear the term "exploitation film", this is what that means.  This movie is obviously a rip-off of Ridley Scott's Alien, but where that movie was subdued and mature, Forbidden World goes the complete opposite direction.  In other words, it takes what worked about Alien and exploits it.

-There's also a scene where the brunette female scientist is walking around the darkly-lit spaceship, naked, with sunglasses on for some reason.  Why?  I have no idea.  It's like something from a Lady Gaga music video.

And, really, that's about all there is to say about this one.  The alien monster itself is actually kind of cool looking (sometimes, anyway).  It has the aforementioned toothy grin from H.R. Giger's Alien design, but aside from that it's a pretty original creature.  Earlier in the movie it actually has more of a multi-legged arachnid appearance, and later on it's just sort of a big black blob with teeth.

Well that's enough time wasted on this one.  See ya!

Martyrs (2008)

Martyrs is a French film from 2008 that I have heard wonderful things about. Martyrs is also a reminder that sometimes a mediocre movie with a novel concept can be wildly over praised.
Here’s the short version of my review: Martyrs has a really cool ending. Seriously, the ending is though-provoking, spooky, and disturbing. It will remind you of a Stanley Kubrick film. The ending, mind you, I don’t mean the whole movie. Unfortunately, everything leading up to the ending is dull, slow-paced, and derivative. I honestly cannot recommend this movie and I really have to wonder how so many people could’ve been so awestruck by it.

Short version of review over.

Martyrs is definitely a movie that you want to go into knowing as LITTLE about it as possible. Trust me, what little enjoyment there is to be had here will depend greatly on making sure that you do not spoil the movie for yourself beforehand. So, having said that, if you are planning on watching the movie, you probably don’t want to read any further.
Also, I am not going to go into the film’s story. One, because it would take way too long to describe and I don't really feel it's worth the time to go into it, and two, because even describing too much of the plot would ruin some of the surprise for anyone who watches this.

The movie has two distinct halves, and they do not gel at all. The first half of Martyrs and the second half of Martyrs feel like two completely different movies, in tone. Not a good thing, and makes for an emotionally incoherent film. Both halves of the movie feel very derivative, with the first half feeling like The Grudge mixed with the 1994 independent film Fun (which was about two teenage girls killing a woman in her home for no reason). The second half feels a hell of a lot like Hostel. Fans of Martyrs will vehemently deny the movie is at all like Hostel, but don’t listen to them. It’s a lot like Hostel. Add a healthy dollop of Hellraiser-type imagery and cap it off with a really cool, existential ending (the only good part of the movie), and you’ve got Martyrs.

The real problem here is when the second half begins, the movie does a complete 180 and changes in tone, in story, everything. The whole supernatural vs. psychological element from the first half is dropped completely. And the second half is very episodic and repetitive as well. It literally feels you start watching The Grudge and halfway through it suddenly turns into Hostel.

Here’s another big problem: the visions of the girl that haunt Lucie. Are we to believe that Lucie is simply delusional, and these visions are all in her head, a product of her guilt at leaving the girl behind? Or is she really being haunted by an actual ghost? Because the Grudge-like scenes where the “visions” attack her sure make it seem like a ghost and it’s NOT all in her head. She even gets wounds on her back that would be hard for her to self-inflict. If you’ve ever seen the ‘80s horror film The Entity, it’ll remind you of that. The movie never really tells us what the case is here. Not because the filmmakers were trying to be ambiguous I believe, but because they couldn’t make a decision themselves.

Also, we never get to know anything about the two main characters, which makes it hard for us to find them engaging.
My honest opinion? I think the writers had a pretty cool idea, but they knew it wouldn’t be enough to sustain a feature-length film, so they padded it out with all the Grudge stuff in the first half. They should’ve just made a short film of the second half instead. As it is, it’s a dull, mediocre movie with a great ending.

Harmony Korine's "TRASH HUMPERS" (2009)

---

Harmony Korine's "TRASH HUMPERS" (2009)


Trash Humpers is the new film from controversial filmmaker Harmony Korine. Korine, for those who don't know, is the creator of Gummo; a film that was disgusting, disturbing, and almost universally hated by everyone. Except for me! I love Gummo! In fact, it's one of my favorite films. I don't even consider it a "movie" so much as a piece of avant-garde expressionism put to film.

Since Gummo, Korine made a couple other films (Julian Donkey Boy and Mister Lonely) neither of which I've seen and both of which I've heard very mixed things about. He also wrote the "script" for Larry Clark's nefarious 1995 film Kids...but I'll try not to hold that against him.

Which brings us to this, his newest film, Trash Humpers. The movie is shot on old VHS video. You even see the "AUTO TRACKING" message pop up occasionally. The desired effect was obviously to make the movie feel like 'found footage' (much like Gummo).
You certainly can't accuse Korine of giving this movie a misleading title. The movie is filled with trash (both literally and figuratively), and yes, it features many scenes of guys humping dumpsters and trash bins.

The movie follows three depraved people in old-guy Halloween masks (you know those Halloween masks that are supposed to look like wrinkly creepy old men) as they wander around a blighted suburban landscape vandalizing things, smashing rubbish, and generally acting insane while also encountering other weirdo individuals (calling them "characters" would be inaccurate) along the way. And, yes, they also frequently hump trash.

So, coming from a person who loved Gummo, how is Trash Humpers?
Difficult to sit through, as it turns out.

To put it bluntly, Trash Humpers fails in every way that Gummo succeeded.
While watching Gummo, I genuinely felt like I was watching found footage of somebody's nightmarish home movies.
While watching Trash Humpers, I felt like I was watching a rejected "Jackass" sketch. Honestly, that's what the movie feels like. A rejected "Jackass" sketch that goes on for 75 minutes.

With Gummo, I couldn't take my eyes off the screen despite (and sometimes because of) my revulsion.
With Trash Humpers, I wanted to get up and turn the movie off....not because I was disgusted, but because I was BORED.

I also want to note that the movie takes a decidedly grisly turn about 2/3 of the way in (which puts the movie more in the realm of a horror film).  This change in tone seems strangely tacked-on, as if Korine decided that the movie wasn't "shocking" enough and decided to push things further.  The very end, in particular, seems put there simply for the sake of being "shocking", and feels rather desperate.  I almost expected Korine himself to walk into frame and say, "Hey, pretty shocking huh?"

Also, the person behind the videocamera filming everything in the movie keeps doing this REALLY irrataing high-pitched laugh that was, by itself,  almost enough to make me stop watching the movie.

I'm not sure what Korine's aim was with this movie, but whatever it was I think he missed the mark. One could argue that the movie has some kind of message about the prevalence of trash (again, both literally and figuratively) in our culture...but whatever. At the end of the day, it's 75 long minutes of guys in masks humping trash cans.
Better luck next time, Harmony!

Sigh. I never thought I'd be so disappointed by a movie called Trash Humpers.

CABIN FEVER 2: SPRING FEVER (2009)

CABIN FEVER 2: SPRING FEVER (2009)

Cabin Fever 2: Spring Fever is such a mess of a movie that it's almost difficult to review.
The 'plot' involves the flesh-eating virus from the first movie getting transferred (via bottled water) to a local high-school prom.

First a little background: Cabin Fever 2 is of course a sequel to Eli Roth's Cabin Fever, a movie that not everybody loved, but I personally thought was excellent. It was unconventional, suspenseful, fairly unpredictable and was populated with pretty likable characters.
Because it was moderately successful, Lionsgate wanted a sequel. Two drafts of a sequel script (one by Eli Roth himself and one by Hatchet/Frozen creator Adam Green) were submitted and rejected. I have no idea why Lionsgate didn't like Roth's and Green's scripts, but I certainly cannot imagine they were much worse than the script that the studio finally agreed on (by somebody named Joshua Malkin)!
So...they hired up-and-coming genre director Ti West (House of the Devil, The Innkeepers) to direct. That seems fitting, seeing as how the first Cabin Fever put Roth on the map, so another promising newbie should take on the sequel.

Flash-forward to the present: Cabin Fever 2 was completed in 2007 and sat on the shelf for two years until it was finally released straight-to-DVD in 2009. And director Ti West apparently hates the final product and actually wanted his name removed from the movie (Lionsgate wouldn't allow him to).

So the movie must be pretty bad, right? Well, YES!   It is!
First of all, the movie reeks of studio tampering. Scenes feel out-of-place, as if the movie was re-edited and scenes aren't in the order they were supposed to be in (which is probably really the case). And it feels like some scenes are missing completely - when the prom starts in the movie, there's a long scene with two characters who were not previously introduced. It seems like we're already supposed to be familiar with these two, making me suspect that they were originally in the movie earlier but their scenes got left on the cutting room floor.
Which is not to say that any deleted footage should've remained in the movie - Cabin Fever 2 already feels overlong as it is (not a good sign when it's actually only about 80 minutes long), and I find it difficult to believe any amount of deleted character interaction would've improved the movie.

Speaking of the characters, they're awful!
In fact, the main problem with Cabin Fever 2 is the characters. Because this is a 'horror-at-the-prom' movie, all the characters are teens. We get the likable everyday guy as our protagonist, his 'funny fat guy' best friend, the cute girl the guy likes (and she IS gorgeous I might add), and of course her stupid jock boyfriend who doesn't want the protagonist "messing with his girl".
It's pretty obvious that the movie was going for a Superbad kind of vibe with these high-schoolers. The problem is, NONE of them is engaging or likable. At all. Early in the movie, there are endless scenes between the teen characters, and I found it literally impossible to pay attention or care about what they were talking about or doing. To be clear, I actually had to try to MAKE myself pay attention to their interactions, but I found it almost impossible simply because they were so unfunny, unlikable, and unengaging.

There is one scene in particular where the nice-guy protagonist declares his undying, teenage angst-filled affection for the female lead that is just AWFUL. Seriously, he stands there in the parking lot of the high-school and yells in his whiny voice, "I LOVE you! Can't you see that? I LOVE you SO MUCH! Why can't you just love me too!" This scene wouldn't have passed in a bad TV teen melodrama, let alone here.

The teen actors aren't worth mentioning, so I won't bother.
Rider Strong (the main actor from the first movie) is given top billing, but please DO NOT rent this movie if you're a fan of his, because he's in the movie for about 3 minutes, tops. And he has NO dialogue, not even one line.   SPOILER:  He wakes up in the woods, staggers around a little, and walks out into the street where he is immediately splattered by a bus.

Giuseppe Andrews as the bizarre Deputy Winston is the only other returning cast member from the first film. Unlike Rider Strong, Andrews actually gets a fair amount of screentime in the sequel. In fact, I think he's in the sequel more than he was in the original. But unfortunately his character has kind of changed. Deputy Winston was funny in the first movie, but his scenes here just kind of seem like a half-heated attempt to mimic his weirdness from the original. Also the movie can't seem to decide what kind of a role Winston is playing in the sequel. Is he a complete idiot who can't figure out what's going on? Is he the unlikely idiot-savant hero, who actually decides to do something about the infected water? Or is he a jerk who only cares about saving himself? We're never really sure, and I don't think that was supposed to be the intent. The movie keeps cutting from the action at the prom to the side-story with Winston, but I was never sure why, and in the end Winston's character doesn't have any impact on the "story" at all. He may as well have not been in the movie.

When the shit finally hits the fan at the prom, there are some okay gross-out effects, but I challenge you to care enough about what is going on to actually appreciate them.
There are references to the first movie (pancakes, guy in a rabbit suit) and references to other prom-based horror movies (Carrie, Prom Night).
Oh and another thing: in the first Cabin Fever, when somebody got the virus it slowly crept up on them and got worse and worse gradually. In Cabin Fever 2, everyone at the prom suddenly starts vomiting blood and so forth at exactly the same time!
So...the police barricade everyone inside the prom to keep the virus from spreading....the male & female leads try to escape...meh, whatever. I didn't care while watching it, and you won't care while reading about it.

The ending feels completely tacked-on and doesn't match the rest of the movie (probably a result of the studio tinkering).
Oh and there's animated opening & closing credits sequences that are actually kind of cool.

And...that's about all there is to say about Cabin Fever 2. Fans of the first movie won't like it, and neither will anyone else. Great job, Lionsgate! I wouldn't even recommend watching it out of curiosity.

Rob Zombie's "HALLOWEEN II" (2009)

Rob Zombie's HALLOWEEN II (2009)

I just watched this for the first time the other night.

My God. Terrible. Just absolutely fucking terrible.
I was not a fan of Zombie's first Halloween remake, but it at least had some redeeming qualities and was not completely awful.
But this...my God, I honestly don't even know where to begin. When the movie was over I felt like I had just climbed out of a pool of putrid, rotting shit.

There is absolutely no plot at all. Here's the movie: Michael Myers (fueled by hallucinations of his mother) roams around Haddonfield looking for Laurie Strode and kills anyone he happens to come into contact with. Laurie, meanwhile, is having trouble dealing with the events of the first movie and is living with Sheriff Bracket (Brad Dourif) and his daughter (Danielle Harris), both fellow survivors of the first movie.
There is literally nothing else to the story.

The main problem with Zombie's first Halloween was that he got Michael Myers all wrong. Meaning that he failed to grasp what the fans always loved about the character (the fact that we never truly knew what his "motives" were being chief among them).
But in Halloween II, Zombie not only still gets Myers all wrong, but he totally destroys the characters of Laurie Strode and Dr. Loomis as well.
Laurie (Scout Taylor-Compton) has apparently become "rebellious" since the events of the first movie...which means that she wears ripped-up heavy-metal t-shirts and says "fuck" all the time. Oh and she acts confrontational and angry towards everybody like a drama queen from a bad after-school special. Words cannot express how much Compton got on my nerves in this movie. I hated her. I hated her performance. I hope I never fucking see Scout Taylor-Compton in any movie ever again.
As for Dr. Loomis (Malcolm McDowell), for reasons that are not even explained, he has become a complete asshole. Now, make sure you understand me: I do not mean that Loomis is 'grumpy' or cranky'; I mean that he is a complete fucking asshole to everybody. He even threatens to hit a woman for no reason in one scene!
Additionally, Loomis serves NO purpose in this movie at all. His character does not affect the storyline in any way, and in fact he does not even get involved in what's going on until the very end of the movie (and even then his involvement is pretty inconsequential).

Here are a few things I'd like to say to Rob Zombie:
1). Michael Myers is not driven by delusions of his dead mother. That is Jason Voorhees. That is Friday the 13th. That is a completely different movie series. This is a Halloween movie, Rob.
2). Michael Myers does not wander around Haddonfield without a mask on or anything.
3). Michael Myers does not make loud grunting noises when he stabs people.
4). Your wife, Sheri Moon Zombie? The one you put in every single one of your movies? She SUCKS. She's a horrible actress, she is grating on the nerves, and she doesn't even qualify as eye candy anymore.
I never want to see her in a movie again. In fact, divorce her. Let her go back to stripping, where she belongs.
5). There is more to writing clever dialogue than just having everyone say "fuck" all the time. It's okay to have your characters say "fuck" a lot, but in order for the dialogue to be clever, there must be clever things being said by the characters in addition to the word "fuck".
6). Rob. You suck at making 'surreal' dream sequences. I can tell you were going for a David Lynch vibe in the dream sequences...but what you achieved was more along the lines of a crappy music video vibe.


I also want to say that Halloween II does not have ANY of the stylish directorial touches that Zombie displayed in his other movies, and were in fact one of the only saving graces of his first Halloween. Everything here is point-and-shoot, not to mention the whole thing is darkly-lit and cheap-looking.

I want to mention one scene in particular that was gratingly awful and basically summed up the whole movie for me:
Laurie (Compton) is driving around town screaming "FUCK! FUCKIN' SHIT! FUCK! HEY! HEY, FUCK YOU ASSHOLE! FUCK! FUUUUCK! FUCK!".
At this moment in the film, I don't think I had ever hated a movie as much as I hated Rob Zombie's Halloween II.
This is what Rob Zombie thinks makes a good scene in a good movie. Rob Zombie directed this scene, watched it in post-production, and thought that this was a well-made scene.

So was there anything good about the movie? Well...uhh...Brad Dourif, Danielle Harris, and Margot Kidder were okay in their parts...and that's it! I literally cannot think of anything else positive to say about this flick.

And, finally, a word about the ending. Remember the horribly laughable scene in Zombie's first Halloween where Nazareth's "Love Hurts" plays...and it's supposed to be serious? Well, in the sequel Zombie ups the ante by ending the movie with a cover of "Love Hurts". By the Cardigans. Yeah. The Cardigans. That is all.

Rob Zombie can be an okay director...but by this point, I think it's safe to say that he should not write screenplays anymore.
I hated his Halloween II. I hope he never touches this series again. You know it's bad when, as I was watching this, I couldn't help but think how much better Halloween: H20 was. Hell, Halloween: Resurrection was a more enjoyable movie than this. Seriously. No joke.

And when Rob Zombie dies someday, I hope somebody spray paints "FUCK" on his tombstone.

Nikos the Impaler (2003)

Nikos the Impaler (2003)

---

Nikos the Impaler is a gore extravaganza from Andreas Schnaas, a German "filmmaker" who is most "well known" (and I'm using these terms loosely, people) for his ultra-low-budget, shot-on-video, basically homemade Violent Shit gorefests.
Many moons ago I watched the original Violent Shit and, to say the least, was not impressed. There was no plot or characters to speak of, just a crazy guy wandering around brutally butchering random interchangeable people whom he happened to come across. Note that Violent Shit was not a "fun" gorefest at all - in fact there was nothing "fun" about it. The whole thing was completely humorless and uncompromisingly bleak and brutal. I think fellow reviewer countchocula said it best in his review of Violent Shit: "Schnaas ignores all instincts to camp up his schlocker with fun-loving characters and jocose dialogue. Shit is as bleak as bleak can be. I wasn’t prepared for such cold nihilism. The gore didn’t shock me, but the film’s uncompromisingly downcast mood raped my receptors".

Well, I am happy to report that Nikos the Impaler is a polar opposite to Violent Shit. Nikos is about as campy and goofy as a splatter flick can get...and all the better for it!
Make no mistake people: this is not a good movie. But it's a GREAT bad movie! You get me?
It is shot on video, but at least it's much higher-quality video than Schnaas' earlier "work". The gore effects are great, albeit in an unrealistic, over-the-top kind of way. But considering the movie's minuscule budget (reportedly $65,000), they're phenomenal. And in all seriousness, the acting is surprisingly good too! Considering that all the actors and actresses here were no doubt recruited from community theater or the drama department of the local college, almost everyone does a good job.
The only "notable" cast member is Felissa Rose, of Sleepaway Camp "fame". And now a word about Felissa Rose. I love her! I had a huge crush on her as a kid after seeing her in Sleepaway Camp....which, I know, is REALLY weird when taking that movie's ending into consideration. Probably says a lot about my horribly fractured psyche...but hey, whatever! Felissa looks great all grown up...not great in a glossy movie star kind of way, but great in an everyday-normal-person-you-might-run-into kind of way. She has a few really funny moments here and holds her own very well, even though she's never really given much to do except run away from Nikos, scream, and have the occasional sarcastic exchange with the male lead.

Here's the story: Nikos was a brutal marauder from ancient Romania. His mask is being held at an art museum in New York City. During an exhibit at the museum, some idiot thief tries to rob the place, a security guard shoots him, and the thief falls against a crate holding Nikos' mask. The thief's blood drips onto the mask and, faster than you can say Hellraiser , the blood resurrects Nikos. The ancient warrior then basically stomps around aimlessly, brutally massacring anyone who gets in his way for the rest of the movie.

Nikos the Impaler basically has an Act One, an Act Two, and an Act Three. I will briefly examine each Act, and tell you my favorite scene from each.

Act One has a group of random, mismatched people trapped in the art gallery while Nikos begins his killing spree. We briefly get to know these peeps before the killing begins. There's a really cool college professor (the kind that only exist in movies), some college students, a stuck-up art critic and some weird wooly-haired guy that he is apparently friends with, a stupid old couple, a stereotypical gay couple (you know they're gay because they wear matching black turtlenecks and say 'honey' a lot), some security guards, yadda yadda yadda. Well anyway, once Nikos awakens he slaughters all of them except for a couple survivors who escape out into the city, setting the stage for Act Two.
I want to say that Act One really reminded me of Bava's Demons, with the random people trapped in the art gallery together trying to escape while bickering amongst themselves. There are a lot of really good kills here as well, a couple of them being direct homages to classic gore scenes from Anthropophagous and Michele Soavi's Stage Fright. And, in turn, a couple of the killings from THIS movie were later rehashed in some American horror flicks like the House Of Wax remake and Adam Green's recent Hatchet II.
Favorite Scene from Act One: Before the movie switches locations to the museum, we see the college professor teaching his class. Now, I don't know what college this is supposed to be, but I certainly hope the tuition is cheap seeing as how the students are sitting on fold-out metal chairs with no desks. During this scene, we meet the two "cool guys" in class. We know they're "cool" because they joke around and hit on women. Anyways, for some ungodly reason the two of them are obsessed with getting into this ugly nerdy girl's pants. I also want to add that these two "cool guys" from class have more sexual chemistry with each other than they do with the female characters they try to hit on...but I digress. Oh and also, the professor offers fifty extra credit points to anyone who goes to the art exhibit. FIFTY extra credit points?!? To go to an art exhibit?!? I wish I had this professor!!!

Act Two finds the last couple survivors escaping the art museum (which I forgot to mention was locked from the outside for some reason), and Nikos follows them into the streets of New York, laying waste to anyone he happens to come into contact with. This part of the movie is pretty fun, and  is basically what Friday the 13th, Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan should've been. Nikos wreaks havoc on the streets, in a gym, a movie theater, a lesbian bar, and a videostore. Look out for cameos from Troma mainman Lloyd Kaufman and b-movie starlet Debbie Rochen here.
Favorite Scene from Act Two: A rough lesbian attempts to rape Felissa Rose. Because, you know, that's what lesbians do, they're constantly trying to rape people. If the lesbian had seen Sleepaway Camp she might not be as interested in Felissa.

Act Three is where things get really kooky...because, even though it was never mentioned or even hinted at earlier in the movie, Nikos apparently also has magical powers! He can use his sword to make things explode (I think), and he can make inanimate objects come to life (sort of). At one point, when he's in the videostore, Nikos sees horror movie boxes showing zombies, ninjas, vampires, and for some reason Adolf Hitler...and he makes them all come to life. So in addition to Nikos (and his newfound magic abilities) we've also got zombies, ninjas, a really attractive Vampira/Elvira type woman, and, yes, Hitler involved as well.
Favorite Scene from Act Three: Nikos uses his magic powers to make Adolf Hitler explode (!), and then Eva Braun runs over to Nikos with a big smile on her face, drops to her knees, and starts sucking him off! Much to Vampira's disapproval, I might add. And if THIS doesn't tell you how vastly different in tone Nikos is from Schnaas' earlier stuff, I don't know what will.

So...I liked the movie. It's a fun, stupid, extremely over-the-top slasher.
Well, that's it, that's the review.

"RETURN TO SLEEPAWAY CAMP" (2008)

NOTE:  This review was written a couple years ago.  I dug it up to include in the Shameful Review-O-Rama.


"RETURN TO SLEEPAWAY CAMP"  (2008)

DIRECTOR: Robert Hiltzik

CAST: Michael Digby, Jackie Cohn, Paul DeAngelo, Vincent Pastore, Issac Hayes, Johnathan Tiersten, Felissa Rose



Hey guys!
Let me start by saying that if you haven`t seen the original "Sleepaway Camp" then there`s really no reason to watch this movie. So, DON`T.
Also, this is a direct sequel to the first movie, that disregards parts 2 and 3. Kind of like "Halloween H20"...........except that "Halloween H20" had a well-known cast, decent production values, and played in theaters.

 Well, onto the review!

This is one bizarre slasher movie, folks. The movie begins with a scene of teenage boys lighting their farts, and that pretty much sets the tone for the whole movie. Remember that Nickelodeon show "Salute Your Shorts"? Well, this is kind of like "Salute Your Shorts".....except all the kids are foul-mouthed jerks, and everybody is mean to each other. And every once in a while someone is brutally murdered.

Robert Hiltzik, the creator/director of the original, is back. And for some bizarre, ungodly reason, he decided to make the entire movie revolve around Allan (Michael Digby), who happens to be one of the most obnoxious, unappealing, and unsympathetic characters in cinema history.
Allan is a pudgy, dirty, greasy-looking kid who acts like a jerk to everybody........and then runs away crying like a little girl when the kids he picks on retaliate.
Allan spends his days acting like a dick, getting picked-on, getting eggs thrown at him, getting his ass kicked by a fat black girl, getting yelled at by the counselors, and not changing his filthy clothes. Sometimes, he relaxes by playing with frogs. Yes, he literally just sits there on the ground and plays around with little frogs.

I`m really not sure what Hiltzik wanted us to make of Allan. He`s not an engaging protagonist (at all), and it`s impossible to feel sorry for the kid because he acts like a total dick to everybody.
Oh and did I mention he constantly yells "Your ass stinks!" at everybody? It`s like his catchphrase or something, and apparently he thinks it`s pretty clever because he says it all the fucking time. Yes, that`s right. "Your ass stinks."
Basically, Allan is like the complete opposite of quiet, shy little Angela from the first film.

Well, uh, I`m not sure where to go next with this review.
There is almost literally NO plot to describe......the entire movie consists of Allan`s crass antics, and every once in a while someone is brutally murdered by a mysterious cloaked killer. I think maybe we were supposed to think Allan might be the killer......but if that`s the case, then Hiltzik really fucked up because we can plainly see that the killer is a grown adult and obviously not Allan.

Onto the cast!
Paul DeAngelo, Johnathan Tiersten, and Felissa Rose return from the original, playing Ronnie the head camp counselor, Ricky (Angela`s cousin), and of course Angela. DeAngelo actually isn`t bad but he sure hasn`t aged well over the years. Tiersten pops up near the end and basically doesn`t do anything besides walk around in the woods with a flashlight. Basically, there`s absolutley no reason for him to be in the movie besides to be another red herring...and to have another returning cast member.
As for Angela.......eh, don`t get too excited because she`s in the movie for about five seconds.
I think Angela`s appearance was supposed to be a big surprise or something.....but again, Hiltzik and company fucked up big time again because Felissa Rose`s name is right there in big letters on the DVD cover.

Vincent Pastore (Big Pussy from "The Sopranos") plays the camp owner and is alright I guess. He`s basically the same character as the sleazy camp owner from the original.....except Pastore`s character isn`t as sleazy (he doesn`t sleep with the counselors), just kind of fat and lazy.
The late great Issac Hayes pops up for about five minutes as the camp cook. He`s good with his little bit of screentime, but I have to wonder what the point of him being in the movie was. I thought it would be a play on his 'Chef' character from "South Park".....but not really.

The kills are alright. Not bad, but nothing really that special. A couple of them are fairly inventive. There`s one kid that`s skinned alive and the others find him writhing around on the ground like that. Ouch!
Oh, one of my favorite moments in the movie: there`s this one kid named 'Weed'. They call him Weed because he smokes weed. He gets killed. When the paramedics are taking his body away on a stretcher, one of his idiot buddies stands there screaming "WEEEEEEEEEED!!!!!".


Well, I guess I`ll end this review by talking about the end of the movie.
Don`t worry, I won`t include any major spoilers.

The ending is completely redundant and totally anticlimactic.
The killer is revealed......but by this point, anyone who isn`t mentally challenged will know damn well who the killer is anyway.
So the killer is revealed........and then that`s it. The movie`s over. No confrontation. No 'final battle' or anything. The movie`s just over.
And it took HOW MANY years for Hiltzik to come up with this?

Oh and by the way: Allan ends up having nothing to do with anything. That`s right, the main character of the movie could have been removed completely and the plot would`ve been exactly the same.

Now I might sound like I hated this movie.....but really, I didn`t. It`s enjoyable in the same weird way as the original. Hiltzik DID capture some of the weird mood from the first movie, I`ll give him that. The whole sexual element has been removed though. The whole thing with the homosexual/transsexual overtones that made the original movie such a bizarre and unique slasher is lacking......but in a way this still feels like a proper follow-up, as opposed to the 80`s sequels, which were fun slashers but really had nothing in common with the original.
As a goofy slasher curiosity, I`d definitely recommend "Return To Sleepaway Camp" as a rental.

That`s it. Review over.