Halloween (2007)

--Reviewed by Lindy Loo

Plotline: We get the same plot-line as the original, infinitely better version of this movie, 'cept with a) a lot more back-story, and b) a lot of minor, unnecessary changes.

Scariness factor: Infuriating. Because the original scares my f-ing pants off. But this one I found myself ho-humming through. Not once was I white-knuckled like in the original.



Gross-Out Factor: Way more violent than necessary.

Complaints: Oof. Where to even begin? If you're gonna remake a classic movie, a movie that is in the f-ing CANON of most-worshipped horror flicks, then you better do a GOOD stinking job. And this was most definitely not the case. As I've said on several prior occasions, I *WANT* to like Rob Zombie, but dude: for someone who loves horror movies so much, HOW DO YOU NOT GET WHAT MAKES THE GOOD ONES SO VERY VERY GOOD? I mean, this remake seems to have misunderstood EVERY aspect of the first one that makes it scary. For example: Mike Myers wasn't ENORMOUS in the original. He was average-sized. And that's part of what made him scary. He was just like any one of us and yet seemingly INVINCIBLE in his destructive capabilities. Also, the very minor "backstory" we get in the original is also what lends to Mike Myer's spookiness. In the original, we are met with a stereotypical, squeaky-clean type suburban family, so when Mike Myers walks out of the house with a bloody knife in his hand and raises his mask to reveal an adorable little boy, we are SHOCKED and HORRIFIED. The disparity between the quiet, squeaky-clean perfection of suburbia/the picturesque boy, and the horrific events that just transpired is what gives that moment so much punch. In the remake, Mike Myers comes from a home where anyone in their right mind would feel the urge to stab up most of their family. (And a sidenote with regard to that: is it just me, or does anyone else, upon watching a Rob Zombie flick, just feel RIDICULOUSLY bad for the man? I mean, every time I see one, I think to myself, if THIS is how you see families in the real world, you must've had SUCH a terrible childhood. His films (and families) are just so completely inundated with the ugliness of humanity. And that's something that completely turns me off from them as well.) And of course, this movie didn't have ANY scariness propelling it forward. I didn't feel tense the whole time like I do with the original. Also infuriating is that Laurie Strode has been reduced down from a strong female character in the original film, one who is able to take on Mike Myers, rescue the kids she is baby-sitting for, etc., to a screaming, sniveling, helpless female who is barely able to take care of herself. I know at some point someone's gonna read this and think, "You need to just judge the movie as it stands and stop comparing it to the original." But I'm sorry: if you're gonna have the balls to try to take something already near-perfect and think you can make it better, then you DESERVE to be burdened with comparisons.

High Points: Really not much, other than I thought Malcolm McDowell was a good choice to play Sam Loomis, and there were a couple nice shots nuzzled in there. But even with that, I think I'm just grasping at straws.



Overall: SOOOOOO very much not worth your while.

Grade: F

Bug

--Reviewed by Lindy Loo

Plotline: An abused woman whose ex-husband has just gotten out of the joint finds solace in a kind drifter. Unfortunately, he begins to inflict his own paranoid madness on her--what starts out as a passing mention of bugs turns into a full-blown obsession.

Scariness factor: *Snort*

Gross-Out Factor: Teeth get pulled out. That's about the worst of it.



Complaints: Wow. Seriously. I've not seen such a bad movie in quite some time. The plotline was just plain old boring. Bugs infesting your body, sent by the government? Surprisingly uncreative. The acting was equally bad: Harry Connick, Jr, you need to stick to singing and/or Will & Grace, because you just can't pull off a bad-ass, friend. Harry Connick aside, the manic moments in the film were just BEYOND laughable. I felt like I was watching little kids put on a movie, and watching their interpretation of "craziness" unravel into goofbally over-the-top horribleness, which is excusable in children, but not so much in a film.

Conversation between lead actors:

Ashley Judd: How can we pull off "crazy?"
Michael Shannon: Let's throw ourselves onto the bed and writhe around a whole bunch.
Ashley Judd: Cool! And maybe then we can jump up and down on the bed wildly and scream?
Michael Shannon: Ooh! Good call!
Ashley Judd: And then I can shout "I am the super bug mother!" really loud a few times!
Michael Shannon: OMG! Seriously: brilliant. It is hard to believe you've never won an Oscar, Ashley Judd.
Ashley Judd: I know. I AM THE SUPER BUG MOTHER!!!!!

There was just *nothing* interesting about this movie. You never really develop a sense of caring about the characters. Their relationships with one another aren't convincing at all. The movie's really not all that suspenseful or interesting. I think it was *trying* to be deep, but it just failed miserably.

High Points: That it ended.



Overall: Wow. So bad. If you want to make fun of a movie, then rent it. Otherwise, stear clear.

Grade: F

Sorority Babes in the Slimeball Bowl-O-Rama

--Reviewed by Lindy Loo

E surprised me by ordering me a copy of this and sending it directly to me in the mail a couple weeks ago. I finally got around to watching it this weekend, and MAN was it terrible.

Plotline: As part of a sorority initiation, a couple of girls are told to steal a trophy from a local bowling-alley. Accompanied by a trio of nerdy boys, they accidentally let loose an imp that was living in the trophy, and he wreaks havoc on them all, trapping them in the bowling alley, and killing most of them.

Scariness factor: The imp looks like a hand-puppet. The two girls he puts under his control are about as frightening as whipped cream. And the special fx are terrible. So... no.

Gross-Out Factor: Again, this movie looked like it had a budget of, say, $10, so not much in the way of special fx.

Complaints: E and I agreed that this truly may have been the worst movie we've ever seen. As with most campy gems, I suppose this is a good thing. The movie is rife with TONS AND TONS of incongruities--for example, when the girls are being paddled at initiation, there are at least 1/2 dozen women in robes doing the initiating--suddenly most of them vanish and leave only the three main sorority girls. That and there's TONS of gratuitous nudity. They set up very dubitable reasons to have people nekkid or half-nekkid during most of the movie. For example, after one initiate gets sprayed with whipped cream, she spends a RIDICULOUSLY long time showering to get it off. In one shot, she'll be completely clean finally, but two seconds later when they cut back, she of course still has some whipped cream on those bare nipples of hers. The special fx are terrible. There is a bad-ass female character in it who's named Snake. Everybody is totally 1980s. The acting is horrible. And the storyline makes little sense.

High Points: See complaints.

Overall: Lord--I'd be surprised if you were able to stumble across this crap-fest without having to look around for it, but if you do, might as well drink a few beers and enjoy yourself.

Grade: F (but an A in the world of camp)

The Fog (2005)

--Reviewed by Lindy Loo

I ordered the Jamie Lee Curtis version of this movie from the library last week, but apparently (and really goddamn unfortunately), they sent me this stupid piece o' crap instead...

Plotline: Fog rolls in over a cape-town and crazy fog-men start to do bad stuff.

Scariness factor: Scary as an ass-rash. Oh wait. No. I guess that would actually *be* kinda scary. So, not even THAT scary, folks.

Gross-Out Factor: Mild mild mild. You get to see some mildly gruesome after-effects, and you get to see folks thrown through windows, but that's about it.

Complaints: This movie sucked. That's my complaint. Ok ok--I'll be more specific. Everything is computer animated, including the f-ing fog, and you *know* how much I love me some CGI. *eye roll* The acting is terrible--think OC meets Gilmore Girls or something. The "sex" scene was lame and felt like it fell out of a bad Rated G Axe commercial or something. The movie was way too inadvertently piratey-esque. The bad fog-men were SOOOOOOOOOOOO not scary and SOOOOOOOOOO super CGI. I didn't care about any of the people or any of the bad fog-men. I wish they would've all just died so I wouldn't've wasted 100 minutes of my life on them. I actually fell asleep during about 5 minutes worth of the climax of the movie, if that tells you anything. And seeing as I woke up to a chick making out with a dead vapor-dude, I would wager to say that I didn't miss much.



High Points: *Wracking brain* You get to see a dead vapor-dude make out with the lead chick, if that's your kinda thang. *Sobbing* Oh god, I can't lie. Even that wasn't really a high point.

Overall: Despite them having sent me the wrong movie, I did try to psych myself up to watch this last night--I realized that perhaps a movie about pretty, Hollywoodish-looking people getting killed off might lift my spirits some after all. It did not. This movie stinks like the most stinkly stink you've ever stunk. Stear the fuck clear.

Grade: F

Scary Movie

--Reviewed by Lindy Loo

Plotline: Basically that of Scream, but in parody form.

Scariness factor: It's a spoof, so it's pretty much as low as it gets.

Gross-Out Factor: Again, it's a spoof, so not much in the gross-out category.

Complaints: Basically, the movie just sticks to spoofing Scream for 90% of the plot, with a heavy nod to I Know What You Did Last Summer and some 2-second smaller nods to The Sixth Sense, The Blair Witch Project, and The Matrix thrown in for good measure. (Maybe it's just me, but has anyone here really ever thought of The Matrix as a *horror* film? I mean, wtf?) This is really what made it drag so much. I might as well just watch Scream myself and make fun of it, seeing as that's all this movie does. And it's not even really FUNNY at all. I mean, it makes fun of the stupidity of some of the events in Scream, but not in any sort of interesting, pointed kind of way like parodies usually do. And man alive, how boring is it to parody just *one* movie?? I mean, I was expecting lots of horror flicks to be referenced, but they sure as hell weren't.

High Points: Pretty much nothing. I'm all about comedies and stuff (even fart-joke ones, once in a while), but this one pretty much failed to be entertaining and failed to be funny.

Overall: I dunno. I was just bored with this movie. It was lame and pretty dumb, and really didn't offer up any kind of fun parody at all, of horror movies in general or of Scream in specific. If you want a good horror movie parody, go rent Shaun of the Dead instead--it's entertaining and actually succeeds at being funny. Or just rent yourself some good campy horror flicks and sit around and Mystery Science Theater them yourselves--you'll have MUCH more fun.

Grade: F

Exorcist: The Beginning

--Reviewed by Lindy Loo

Wow. This truly is the worst movie I've seen in a really long time--it actually gives Van Helsing a run for its money, and we all know how much I loved that movie. If you dig movies in which the holocaust is exploited, numerous children are tortured in various ways, and every tired trick in the horror movie book is used, then this is the movie for you!

Plotline: This is the prequel to the fantastic and classic The Exorcist. Long before having to drive the demon from Regan, Father Merrin finds himself uncovering an old church in East Africa and battling the same bastard demon within its confines. We also finally come to see the wavering faith that drives Merrin in the HUNDRED TIMES BETTER movie afterwards.

Scariness factor: Oh my god. Lemme just tell you: you could watch the original Exorcist over and over every day for a full year, know the whole damn movie inside and out, upside and down, know every thing that's coming and it'd STILL be about a thousand times scarier than this piece of crap.

Originality: *Hork* Where to even start? Lemme just say, this movie pulls the same tired moves as every other really bad horror movie out there. And dammit, it's not allowed, because it's a movie about EXORCISM, not bad guys in crazy masks chasing big-boobed co-eds around campus! I mean, there's a fricking SHOWER scene in this movie where you get to see a bit of side-boob. AND IT'S COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY BECAUSE IT DOES NOTHING FOR THE FRICKING STORY! I'd be able to justify this gratuitous side-boobishness if this were some sorta not-so-serious slasher film, but this stupid movie is so smitten with itself and takes itself so seriously that it honestly believes that there was some sorta need for such a scene. Also, apparently the devil has nothing better to do than tease people like we used to when we were little--by turning the lights off on them so they're forced to roam around blindly in the dark and then *WHAM* turning them back on! *Wetting myself with memories of such past horrors* I mean, doesn't anybody else think that if they were all powerful and shit, they might make better use of their time, say, torturing people or something? And every twist can be seen from a mile away in this movie. Every fricking twist, lemme tell you. Unless you are blind and deaf and mute. And it is chock full of such original lines as "Evil's inside each of us." And finally, this movie (which is set in East Africa) feels about as authentic in scenery and native-culture as, say, Brendan Fraser and The Mummy. And the CGI scenes are ten times worse--but we'll get to that soon enough. Oh, and *SPOILER ALERT in the closing scene, in which we're supposed to see Father Merrin finding his way back to the religion after passing through a spiritual wasteland, we're given the following stunning dialogue: Random dude: "Goodbye, Mr. Merrin." Merrin: "It's Father Merrin."
Spiritual BURRRRRNNNNNNN!!!!! /END SPOILER
Please, make it stop.

Complaints:

The fricking computer animation. I mean, wtf, people? The dudes who did the computer animation in this movie CAN'T EVEN MAKE A DOZEN FLIES FLITTING ABOUT A BLOOD-CRUSTED ROOM look real. (And I'll just pretend not to even consider why they felt it necessary to computer animate flies instead of just bringing in a dozen REAL flies for the scene because I can already feel my blood pressure rising.) And yet they thought it smart to computer animate multiple fly-scenes which are just the pits. *AND* *SPOILER ALERT a hyena scene where multiple hyenas tear a small child apart while looking completely and ridiculously computer animated /END SPOILER. Look, Mommy, Buzz Lightyear is eating up a child! *AND* a blue-screened or computer animated or some such schlocky scene of the demon host running down a tunnel like some undead thing from Army of Darkness.

Don't make a movie with holocaust scenes in it unless you're sure it's gonna be a good movie, for christ's sake. I mean, it's difficult enough to make a serious movie about the Holocaust and do a good job and not seem shlocky. So why anyone doing a really fricking bad B-movie would touch the topic with a 100-foot pole is beyond me. But they did. And it's bad. So bad. They should be ashamed for exploiting this topic for such a bad bad bad movie. Ashamed.

Why is it that in horror movies, everyone always does activities that necessitate haste as SLOWLY AS FRICKING POSSIBLE?? "We must kill possessed boy before he destroys our tribe with his curse! Well then I shall stand here with this knife hovering over him, lowering it at a fraction of a centimeter every minute that passes, despite the fact that windows have begun shattering, the bed and the boy are shaking like an earthquake, amd my buddies' bones are all being snapped in two like twigs. And of course, the knife will be knocked out of my hand before it ever so slowly plunges into his chest. Yes yes." Lemme just warn all you folks: if I ever find myself trapped with any of you in a horror-movie like situation, you're all goners. All you have to do is hiccup or pass gas or something, and that's it--I'm assuming you're possessed and lopping of your head with whatever sharp item is nearby. None of this retarded 3-hour bumbling. No fricking way.

Children are tortured and killed left and right in this movie. I mean, four children meet horrible horrible deaths. And multiple others are tortured. I don't know if this was supposed to capture the horror of what the devil will do, but it didn't. It just seemed gratuitous and just in bad taste.

High Points: The scene in which the demon-host spiderwalks along the interior walls of the cave was ALMOST creepy. Until I realized I was just fricking desperate at this point and had the Stay Puff marshmallow man tap-danced across the cave walls, I probably woulda been just as impressed.

Overall: This is, hands-down, one of the worst most lame most terrible most ridiculous most unscary pieces of crap I've seen in a really really really long time. Avoid at all costs.

Grade: F

The House of 1000 Corpses

--Reviewed by Lindy Loo

Plotline: Take the plotline to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and throw in a freakshow/museum of horror and you've got yourself the plotline to The House of 1000 Corpses--a group of kids driving cross-country to document weird and wonderful roadside attractions stops to get gas at a freak show/museum of murder and horror in some small town. They then decide to do a quick search for the resting place of a local murderer, end up picking up a hot female hitchhiker, and are dragged back to the hitchhiker's house where they become her crazy family's prey.

Scariness factor: Gah. Blah. Mah. Apparently Rob Zombie thinks that grossness and gore is equal to scariness. I beg to differ.

Originality: Like I said, complete Texas Chain Saw Massacre rip-off.

Complaints: Oh lord. Too numerous to get into. I was actually more than willing to give Rob Zombie the benefit of the doubt, knowing that he is a big nerdy horror fan like those of us who read and write this blog. I thought I'd at least be charmed by his obvious smittenness with good horror movies. But there's a difference between appreciating a good gore-flick and RIPPING OFF a good gore-flick.

As I've mentioned, my biggest complaint is that it was a complete and total rip-off of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. I understand that the whole "crazed family" trope is used a lot in horror movies; I understand that the whole "carful of teens breaking down and unravelling into a night of horror" is used a lot in horror movies. But this movie's structures is a complete and total rip-off of TTCSM. And given that TTCSM is so damn good, I'm not sure how Zombie expected to one-up it by using the exact same premise.

The family was more irritating and obnoxious than spooky and scary. Sheri Moon is a fricking hottie, and yet she annoyed the piss out of me with her obnoxious baby-voice through the whole movie. The rest of the family was so over the top that they became more silly than anything.

The movie started off as a "crazy murderous family" movie and then totally got sidetracked into some sorta weird nonsensical bullshit. Suddenly 3/4 of the way through the movie, we start being introduced to all these torturous freaks who live in catacombs underground--a dentist who tortures his patients, a bizarre-looking man-creature who chases folks with an axe, a bunch of creature-men that live in muddy waters below and tear apart the people that the crazy family sacrifices to them. Now, maybe it's just me, but I don't quite understand how ONE FAMILY manages to rope in ALL the crazies in the surrounding states and get them to a) willingly live underground, b) willingly spend their time in a damp dank mudpit filled with water and bugs awaiting the occasional person who gets placed down there in a coffin so that they can tear them apart, c) etc etc. It just doesn't make sense to me. If I were a murderous crazy, I think I'd wanna be doing my own thing--be some sorta crazy murderous independent contractor or something. And if I WANTED the group support of OTHER murderous crazies, I sure as hell would get turned off by the whole "living underground for the rest of eternity" thing. And I sure as HELL would not spend days and weeks in a mud-pit awaiting the occasional victim. Fuck that.

High Points: The guy with the axe was creepy. That's about it.

Overall: I was sorely disappointed with this bastard of a movie. It was obnoxious and uncreepy. It was gory and nonsensical. I'd definitely not recommend.

Grade: D-/F

The People Under the Stairs

--Reviewed by Lindy Loo

Historical note: This was the movie I saw on my first date in high school. It was with a really big sweet oaf of a football player two years older than me. We held hands. The movie still sucked.

Plotline: A young boy named Fool attempts to help a family friend rob his landlords' house so that he can save his family from being evicted. In the process, Fool is trapped inside with the insane landlords (a brother and sister masquerading as parents) and all their reject boy-children who they've kept trapped under the stairs for years. Fool attempts to liberate himself and their daughter (who's never seen the light of day) from this terrifying house, all the while battling a "father" dressed like a gimp with a penchant for shooting up the walls and mommie-dearest.

Scariness factor: Lame lame lame. The gunk stuck in the crack between my toenail and toe is scarier.

Originality: Eh--if the plotline wasn't so ludicrous, it might pass as being somewhat original.

Complaints: The "parents"/landlords are so completely over-the-top that they are a far-cry from ever passing as scary. Wes Craven apparently missed the idea of subtleties here--killers who pass easily as sane are WAY more scary than crackpots holding crackpot signs and wearing crackpot t-shirts.

My big complaint was the lack of scariness in this movie--I mean, have you SEEN what the people under the stairs look like? Regular folks with really thick caked-on white makeup. *Dying of fright*

Other High Points: Pretty much nothing. The fact that it's one of the few horror movies that features a main character who's black could've been interesting. But it wasn't.

Overall: I was bored with it, just like when I saw it back in high school. Probably even moreso since back then, I had even LESS discerning tastes.

Grade: F

Santo vs. Frankenstein's Daughter

--Reviewed by Patrick



Plotline: The daughter of the infamous Dr. Frankenstein is alive and well, living in rural Mexico. There, she has invented a serum, which restores the youth of whomever is injected with it. The only problem is that its effects on her are diminishing. In order to make the serum more potent, she needs to the superhuman blood of famed Mexican wrestler Santo! So, she sends her henchmen out to kidnap his girlfriend and lure Santo into her clutches. Much fighting and wrestling ensues!

Scariness factor: Umm..I'll repeat..it stars Santo, a Mexican wrestler, so unless that fact scares you, there are no actual scares in this film.

Originality: Santo has been the main character in over 50 films and, except for this one; I've seen none of them. I'm willing to bet that most follow the same formula: someone gets kidnapped; Santo must come to their aid and wrestle a lot of folks. Though the kitschy Batman like costumes and props were fun, I'm sure even those were borrowed from other flicks.

Other High Points: As I mentioned, the movie is high in 60's kitsch value. Watching a guy walk around always wearing a wrestler mask is funny, as well, for about 15 minutes.

Other Complaints: Personally, I found this movie boring as hell. I know Santo has a big following, especially among the B-movie crowd. Maybe I just don't "get it." But, I found the fight scenes, numerous as they were, stilted and boring and the plotline just seems like a mishmash of various ideas. You can almost imagine the brainstorming session:

Writer 1: We need Santo to fight someone!
Writer 2: How about Frankenstein's daughter!
Writer 3: Brilliant! And how about she also creates a Frankenstein monster he must fight?
Writer 1: Brilliant! What if he fights a half-man/half-beast creature, as well? We can even get the same actor to play both monsters!
All: Brilliant!

Overall: It's amazing how far a silly mask and a few headlocks can carry a franchise (I'm even told that this movie has less wrestling scenes than a normal Santo film). After hearing about the Santo phenomenon for so long, I was really looking forward to finally seeing one of his films for myself. But, the whole movie seems like nothing but filler and plot devices that serve nothing more than to lead to more fighting. Not recommended.

Grade: F

The Terror

--Reviewed by Patrick



Plotline: Lt. Andre Duvalier (played by none other than Jack Nicholson), a French soldier who, for reasons unexplained, gets separated from his battalion and stumbles upon a young woman, wandering along the coast. He follows her mysterious self to the castle of one Baron Von Leppe (played by Boris Karloff), only to discover that not only has she disappeared, but also she's been dead for 20 years! I'd try to explain the rest of the plot to you, but truly, it makes no sense. I'll leave it that Andre has fallen in love with this "ghost" and spends the rest of the movie trying to find out the truth about her and if she's even a ghost at all.

Scariness factor: Like a 7 year old with a new Halloween outfit, it tries so hard to be scary that you almost feel bad for it and offer up a "pity scream." But, sadly, that's about it.

Originality: I don't even know where to start here. Okay, this movie is original. But that's only because I've never seen a film that left one with such a feeling of confusion and bewilderment. Full of plot twists that make no sense (The Baron is really his wife's lover, who killed the Baron and assumed his role, only to start believing he was the Baron and killed his wife and her love - himself- ) and scenes which play no part in the movie whatsoever (at one point, Andre finds a cradle in the Baroness's room. It's existence or significance is never explained), I found myself really trying to figure out what the fuck was going on most of the time.

Other High Points: Richard Miller as Stefan, the butler. For those who are not as freakish as myself, Richard Miller played Mr. Futterman in the movie 'Gremlins', a film very close to my heart.

Other Complaints: I will devote this time to some quick bullet points, detailed huge plotholes not already mentioned:

• After he arrives at the Baron's castle, Andre's horse goes missing. It's assumed that the Baron stole it, but why would he do that, seeing as how he wants nothing more than to get Andre to leave?
  
  
• Apparently, being "mute" means you can only whisper, as the mute character, Gustaf, seems to do alot of talking.
  
  
• Even if we're supposed to believe that the Barroness's "ghost" is really the living woman, Helena, it's never explained how she can appear and disappear, at will.
  
  
• Why does the Baron flood the crypt to kill himself, instead of just use the freggin gun he handed to his butler, just moments before.
  
  
• Why are there only 2 people in the whole damn village? (and I mean only 2, there's not even a freggin' single extra in this movie).
  
  
• and on..and on..
  

Overall: I'll admit, I was expecting alot out of this movie. With Roger Corman at the director's helm, a young Francis Coppola (yes, you read that right, Francis Ford Coppola had something to do with this film) in the producer's seat and Boris Karloff starring, it had all the points needed for a truly great horror film. But, somewhere along the line, the script got ripped up, lost, replaced with pages from 'Moby Dick' and thrown back together again, making a most unwatchable film. Sorry, but do yourself and a favor and avoid this film.

Grade: F

Atom Age Vampire

Reviewed by Patrick

- With a name like that, what's not to love? Well..alot.

Plotline: Huh? You mean it's supposed to have a plot? Brilliant! Okay, from what I gathered through the choppy editing, it's the story of a stripper who gets horribly disfigured in a car accident. The disfigurement leaves her suicidal, until a "mysterious figure" offers to help her with an experimental new treatment. She accepts and, after a few shots in a basement labratory, is good-as-new. The only bad part is: the treatments don't last. She has to get further treatments to stay beautiful. Somehow, the doctor, who performed the surgery and has subsequently fallen in love with her, transforming into a horrible monster at night and killing young women, solves this. Keep in mind, this procedure is something he hopes to market to the world.

Doctor: "I have this new serum which will cure the world of ugliness!"

World: "YAH!"

Doctor: "But I'm afraid I'll have to kill a bunch of young women to make it."

World: "ummm...."

Does that make sense? No? Well, good, 'cause the whole movie is like that. Halfway through I stopped trying to understand it and hoped for a catfight or something (which, by the way, never came.)

Scariness factor: The scariest part of this movie is how much the stripper looks like Laura Dern.

Originality: It reminded me alot of "The Brain that Wouldn't Die", which also involved a stripper in a car crash and young women getting killed to somehow prolong her life. Other than that, it was definitely in a class all it's own.

Other High Points: Cheesy Dialog, a mute gardener named Sasha and an extended "Island Girl" dance number, where the dancer winks at the camera no less than 3 times. I wish I were joking about the last one.

Other Complaints: The sound! As if the story wasn't hard enough to follow, the sound, which varied between muted and freakishly loud, made conversations impossible to follow.

Grade: F