Home Blog

Empire State of the Dead (2016) movie review

0

This is, I think, the worst zombie movie I have ever seen. And I’ve watched some tripe over the years. This really is a turgid, horrible mess of a film, and a worthy entry in my fabled 0.5 out of 5 club. Zombies are normally a sure-fire bet for a low budget production. If the story’s poor you can at least enjoy some undead carnage. That Empire State of the Dead fails to engage on any front is not just remarkable, but strangely impressive.

Now, I may have been able to get along with it if it wasn’t for the fact it runs for nearly two hours. TWO. HOURS. I’d allow that for a George Romero movie, or even Zack Snyder’s Dawn remake, because stuff actually happens in those films. Letterboxd says this film is only 90 minutes long. I wish. It would have saved me half an hour of my life. I will caveat that by saying I spent the second half of the film replacing the back of my old Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge, which had taken an unfortunate tumble a year previously. That engaged me far more than the movie, both before, during and after the repair.

This is yet another example of a strong blurb selling a terrible movie. That blurb said that a crack military team are sent into a city overrun by the dead in a bid to restore order. Well yes, that does happen. But it happens very, very slowly and without any aim or purpose. There’s stuff going on in the woods, like a subpar episode of Stargate SG-1. There’s people arguing with each other, and a few zombies here and there.

There is absolutely nothing that suggests we’re getting a “Zombies in New York” style movie. It’s kept to limited and out of the way locations and you never get a feel for the big city. It could pass for New York State perhaps, and down one of the quieter roads that nobody ventures down. The locations are ripe for horror movie usage, but do not suit this particular story.

And down that road are performances that are stilted and wooden, to the point of dragging things down further into the mire. Not a single performance stands out to me, resulting in a film that is for all intents and purposes a long collage of grey, with occasional splashes of claret to wake you up. It’s very much like a group of friends decided to make a film, but without a script, a plot or a movie crew.

Can I say anything positive about this experience? Yes. The title is pretty good, and the blurb that sold me on watching it did its job. Oh, and the director is the gloriously named Ron Bonk. If he’s not Dutch then it’s an incredible name that is far better than the movie he has churned out. Aside from that, my advice is to steer clear of this mess. Don’t make the same mistake that I did.

Trouble Every Day (2001) movie review

0

I’m fairly certain that Vincent Gallo only plays one character. That is, the guy who stares mournfully off into the middle distance, while his life falls apart and other lives go on around him. He’s often monosyllabic, a bit creepy, and prone to siezing up at the thought of any inopportune memory. In that respect he’s got a lot in common with introverts like me, so perhaps I shouldn’t be quite so judgemental.

The title Trouble Every Day comes from a Frank Zappa song. Is it a coincidence that Gallo’s character looks a lot like the crazed guitarist? Possibly. It’s also perhaps a little misleading, as the plot here isn’t so much of trouble every day, more trouble over an ongoing and lengthy period of time. Besides, that song is about being forced to experience bad news on television and comments on discrimination. I’m not sure I fully appreciate the link if one was intended. If anyone wants to enlighten me on this, I’m happy to hear your thoughts.

Anyway, back to the review. Gallo is Shane, recently married to June (Tricia Vessey). They are an American couple on honeymoon in France, where there are shady goings on involving Core (Beatrice Dalle) being locked up by herself in a big empty house. A couple of youngsters decide to try and break into the house and, well… things don’t turn out well for them. Shane meanwhile is fighting against his urges, but the true meaning behind them is unclear. Keep watching, weary traveller, for all will soon be revealed.

This is a modern take on the vampire story, albeit one where the script is almost too obtuse for its own good. Here’s a thought: be arthouse by all means, but offer just a little explanation to your audience if you want to get anywhere with it. Honestly, it doesn’t have to be much, just a few pointers. A little dialogue here or there wouldn’t go amiss either. There’s only so much angsty staring into the distance you can tolerate before you start reaching for the remote to turn it off. Well, unless it’s an Ingmar Bergman film, in which case carry on as you were. It might have helped a bit too if the script hadn’t taken so much time to get going. It’s beyond the halfway mark before something genuinely interesting and different happens, and by then most of my good will towards the film had started to ebb.

On that note, the gore and violence scenes are top notch, although sadly all too brief. They add a literal dash (or maybe splash?) of colour to the story, and drag it up from its otherwise mildly tedious approach.

What did I like then? The score is pretty good, as is the concept for the film. It’s a great alternative take if you can see past the flaws presented by the script. Notions of lust and desire exchange time with the battle between nature and science. There’s also an undercurrent of characters hiding their past from others, in part to disguise mistakes they have made, and partially to protect loved ones from mistakes, passion and uncontrollable urges.

The performances, too, are solid throughout, working around the script as best they can. Despite her script lacking in detail, Claire Denis is a good director and keeps the camera close to the actors at all times. It’s an almost intimate approach to the narrative, and entirely fitting under the circumstances.

This is the first film from Claire Denis that I’ve seen. It’s likely that I will seek out some of her other works eventually, but I’ll admit that I’m not in a massive rush to do so. There’s some very good ideas here that are hidden by a script that doesn’t serve the story or the characters well enough. That is perhaps the only serious complaint I can raise. And, sadly, it’s more than enough to stop me from outright recommending Trouble Every Day as a film you should watch.

Nightmare City (1980) movie review

0

Facts and Comments
1. Watched on 21 May 2018
2. These zombies have surprisingly perfect teeth. They must use Colgate.
3. Invisible lawnmowing zombies – I knew it!
4. CRASH ZOOM!
5. Priest with a candle takes on bearded man with a candlestick. Check and mate.

Plot Summary in 280 characters
Not-quite zombies attack the living. Meanwhile a reporter tries to escape the attack with his surgeon wife.

Themes
Atomic power is a bad thing! It’s messing with nature, man!

Fast or Slow zombies?
Fast

Review
I’ll admit, and long time readers will know, that I am partial to a bit of zombie action. The best zombie things have two things – plenty of gore and violence, and a theme that makes a point about something. George Romero was the best at doing this. His series of zombie movies covered everything from racism to commercialism to the widespread and occasionally ludicrous use of social media (go on, check out Diary of the Dead).

The success of the zombie genre throughout the 1970s led to low budget Italian zombie flicks flooding the market. Two of the most notable names from that era are Lucio Fulci and Umberto Lenzi. While Fulci is responsible for some of the best low budget Italian horror movies of that period, Lenzi also made a significant impact. All those films played on specific themes, and Nightmare City is no different.

The theme is nuclear power and the dangers it presents. Now, it’s highly unlikely that nuclear energy would ever create a zombie apocalypse, but just go with it, okay? It’s entirely representative of the time it was made, so nuclear power is always going to be the big bad.

And of course, all the trappings and clichés of the sub-genre are present. Crash zooms abound, albeit perhaps used slightly more sparingly than Fulci. Lots of people are killed in a gruesome manner, even if many of those deaths could have easily been avoided. Most of those bitten by zombies go to their fate almost willingly, half-heartedly fighting the undead off whilst offering a glimpse of flesh for them to nibble on. There’s even a Goblin-esque soundtrack to emphasise that this isn’t an entirely original production.

The zombies look pretty good for the time, like they have all suffered horrible radiation burns and then decayed. In many respects they are like a living dead version of the Toxic Avenger. It’s fine work from the makeup and/or special effects teams on the film crew, but not spectacular. That’s all fine until you see their teeth. These zombies must have an incredible dentist, because despite the horrific injuries to their skin their teeth are all perfect. You’d think a detail like this would have been spotted, certainly after going to so much effort to make the zombies look properly dead. But alas, that’s not the case.

There are also the unfortunate misogynistic aspects that are prevalent through the grindhouse and video nasty type movies released at this time. Women are bit-part characters, there mainly to scream and be saved by their husbands or other burly men. This is despite them often working in quite high profile roles – in this instance the lead female character is a surgeon. Inevitably this approach leads to lots and lots of women – rather unnecessarily – being stripped of their clothes by zombies before they are bitten. In some instances they are bitten on the chest and… well, bits are ripped off. It’s unpleasant not because of the gore but the gender politics at play.

There’s a fine line between an enjoyably bad film and a painfully bad one. Nightmare City falls just about on the right side of that divide, a cheese-infested guilty pleasure.

The Marine 3: Homefront (2013) movie review

0

I’ll admit to approaching this franchise a little bit backwards. I watched The Marine if not on release then shortly thereafter. My next film was The Marine 4: Moving Target in 2015. And I think that one was because it showed up on Now TV. So, until Summer 2018 I had not seen this, the film that introduces Mike “The Miz” Mizanin as its star. And it’d be hard to call him anything else now that he has three “Marine” films under his belt and, apparently, a fourth one on the way.

Not that this backwards way of watching the series has had any impact on my enjoyment. There’s no continuity between them whatsoever, so it’s possible to watch them in isolation and not have to worry at all about continuity or such.

The same can’t be said for the plot, which is standard action fare. The Marine 3: Homefront introduces us to Jake Carter, a marine who has just returned to his home town following a period of service. Shortly thereafter, his sister witnesses a terrorist (Neal McDonough) shoot a guy (IN THE FACE) and she is taken hostage. Working with and sometimes against the local police and Feds, Carter puts to use his own particular set of skills in order to free her.

One thing I can appreciate about the Marine franchise is its villains. They’re always inevitably set to fail, but their reasons and motivations are generally well structured and believable. Here, McDonough’s Jonah Pope (a typical example from the movie villain name generator) wants to teach the US government an example, making a point about how they never look after the little guy. Fair enough, but blowing stuff up will generally get you a prison sentence or worse. It seems that Pope didn’t read that memo.

The script has a number of double bluffs and enough twists to keep you engaged, but there’s little else to it beyond that. It’s generally by the numbers and produced on a budget. Most of the action takes place in a single location, namely the moored boat that the terrorists take residence on as they plot their nefarious scheme. From my many years of watching Stargate, it’s also obvious that filming took place in Canada. I’d recognise those forests every time.

The good news is that The Miz is far better than Ted DiBiase Jr, and I would say better than John Cena too. At least Carter has a bit of personality to him besides being a dumb jock. Now, I appreciate that Cena has gone on to develop a half decent movie career, but The Marine was not a great gateway for the showing off the stuff he’s good at. Here Carter’s character balances nicely with The Miz’s own personality, and he’s more than capable of putting on a show of physicality. It’s here in the action sequences that The Marine 3 shines, even if they are unfortunately all too brief.

As generic as it can be at times, I’d say there’s enough here to entertain. A few tweaks here and there, and maybe a slightly larger budget could have helped. As it is, it’s perfect as a mindless Friday night action movie.

The Marine 2 (2009) movie review

0

Ever wondered what it would be like if Die Hard took place at a tropical holiday resort? Well whether you wanted it or not, The Marine 2 delivers exactly that. Well, it delivers exactly that but without all the high octane action and adventure of that film. While the location shoot looks very nice (no doubt a great little holiday for all involved), it’s not that great a film.

Joe Linwood (Ted DiBiase – the younger) is on an island resort with his wife Robin (Lara Cox). She’s there on business for her generally unpleasant boss Darren (Robert Coleby). Then terrorists arrive, take most of the guests hostage, including Robin, and Joe has to work to save them. If the Die Hard parallel wasn’t obvious before, that should clear up any confusion.

But as a Die Hard clone, is it any good? Not really, no. Sure, the likes of Michael Rooker and Temuera Morrison are reliable enough, but there’s not enough meat on the script to really stretch their abilities. Morrison gets more from the script than Rooker, mostly because he gets to play the bad guy. He plans on teaching these rich people a lesson, something about Western expansion into indigenous cultures or something. He’s surrounded by a group of faceless/nameless henchmen that exist solely so they can be bumped off by our heroic lead. Rooker meanwhile gets to wisecrack and make light of almost everything – in other words, playing it perfectly to the established WWE Films formula. He’s not quite the sidekick, but that’s essentially his role.

So what about our lead, Ted DiBiase Jr? As you might expect, he’s very good at the physical action sequences, of which there are a fair few. For everything else he’s about as wooden as driftwood floating through the marina. He’s never asked to emote anything beyond mild confusion and, occasionally, broadly angry. It’s a shame because with a little more effort from all involved he could have provided a decent performance.

The only scene I liked the look of was the opening missile attack by the terrorists. Thankfully director Roel Reine doesn’t follow in the footsteps of John Bonito, who directed the first film. Bonito has an 80s-style obsession with filming an explosion from twenty different angles. Reine has his own grittier visual style and it suits the film well. It’s just a shame that it doesn’t make the terrorists a credible threat like Hans Gruber and his crew were.

If you’re looking for a cheap action film that doesn’t ask you to think about it too much, then this might be the one for you. For everyone else, and those who are more discerning about their action movie choices, a few mildly entertaining action sequences aren’t enough.

And they missed a trick by not having DiBiase replicate his father’s maniacal laugh. Just once would have been enough. Look, I know that was never his gimmick in WWE, but it would have been a fun nod and a wink to the audience at least. Hey ho.

Le Silence de la Mer (1949) movie review

0

The year is 1941. War has engulfed Europe and France has fallen to the Germans. It is a time of great upheaval, a genuine threat to the established order, to culture and history.

When local Nazi official Werner von Ebrennac takes up forced residence in a French home, the occupants, an old man and his niece, do as ordered, but otherwise they do not speak to him or even acknowledge his existence. So, he spends his evenings regaling them with stories of his life, going back to his youth, his past loves, his role in the army. He monologues, never inviting their response – knowing all too well that he will not receive one.

To cloud matters, von Ebrennac seems like a decent sort. He’s respectful of the house and its inhabitants. Quite the opposite of the vile stereotype Nazi that has become prevalent and, undoubtedly, formed a huge part of public opinion at the time.

It’s a surprisingly forward thinking position for a film to take in 1949, the war and its atrocities fresh in the public’s memory. More so as von Ebrennac’s personality becomes more established. We learn almost nothing about his French hosts by comparison, only that they are glad to discover that he is a half decent person.

The thing is, there is an element of principle to their silence. Once a certain amount of time passes their resolve wavers, albeit briefly, until it becomes an established part of the routine, nigh on impossible to break whilst he remains living under their roof.

Other than the old man looking like Bob Mortimer hastily made to look like an old man, I couldn’t fault the production. It is a resolutely simple idea executed well. von Ebrennac may journey to Paris, or the characters may go for a walk around the snowy streets of their home town, but the majority of it takes place in a small lounge complete with fireplace and a piano/organ.

In the context of this story, von Ebrennac is one such man. His reaction at discovering the purpose of the Treblinka camp is heartfelt and from a genuine position of dislike. Here is a man who applauds culture no matter which country it originated from, praising the French philosophers as equally as he does German classical artists. This slow build of his character makes his objections to the death camps all the more believable.

To sum up the story overall, it is a plain and simple character study and doesn’t try to be anything more than that. It emphasises that you cannot tar everyone with the same brush. It is easy to vilify the Nazis and the German people who knew of the death camps but did nothing to stop the atrocities. But there would have been many more who did something, in their own way, to fight back against it.

In the grand scheme of things this might not be much, but in isolation it’s a potent gesture all the same. And that, really, is the point. Individually we may not have the ability to affect change on a grand scale, but in small ways we can make a difference. At the very least, like von Ebrennac, you can maintain your sense of honour and pride in your nation whilst also setting yourself apart from the butchers that have tarnished that once impeccable reputation.

Double Jeopardy (1955) movie review

0

A drunk, Sam (Robert Armstrong) stumbles home one night, looks out the window and sees his wife Marge (Gale Robbins) necking with another man, Jeff Calder (Jack Kelly) in the car outside. On going inside they argue and, as she’s about to leave, she’s stopped in her tracks by him revealing that he has money. This money, it transpires, is the proceeds of him blackmailing Emmett Devery (Jon Litel), his former business partner.

Marge is a manipulator, working her husband and his affection for her to get exactly what she wants – this in spite of Sam knowing all about her and her relationship on the side with Jeff. Sadly for her it all backfires after Sam’s accidentally killed by Jeff. Jeff, it turns out, wants the money for himself. No wonder too, he’s a used car salesman. I can’t imagine the commission is all that great. This then leads Marc Hill (Rod Cameron), a lawyer and friend of Emmett, stepping in with Emmett’s daughter Barbara (Allison Hayes) to uncover the truth.

It’s after 35 minutes that the true purpose of the story reveals itself, a slow build towards a fight and an arrest at the end. It doesn’t stretch on any longer than the story will allow, or indeed beyond the film’s budget. At 70 minutes this is exactly as Mubi described it, a cinematic palette cleanser. You can check your brain at the door and not have to worry all too much about the story’s complexity.

As far as 1950s B-pictures are concerned – and it may surprise some to note that they weren’t all science fiction stories – this is a film that is entirely par for the course. There are no unexpected twists and turns, no more characters than the story demands. There are less than 10 main speaking roles throughout, with the core focus on, at best, six of those characters.

As if to emphasise its relatively low budget, the same shots and locations are used time and time again. It’s also cut together in a very quick and simple manner. There’s barely any coverage and a lot of scenes play out without any significant cuts. If you get more than one angle on a character at any one time, you’re lucky.

The ending is very quick to arrive, and without much deduction needed from Marc or involvement from the police. There’s a punch up at the very end which is borderline hilarious, simply because of how it’s structured. The police just happen to be driving past at the time and everything is tied up neatly in a bow. The bad guys (and girls) are arrested and Marc gets the girl. The end.

While it’s not a classic by any stretch, Double Jeopardy is an entertaining 70 minutes and doesn’t try to do anything more than is absolutely necessary. Plus, the alternate title is Crooked Ring. Genius, if only for the fact the only crooked ring is Marge’s wedding ring, and by extension her marriage to Sam. Boom boom.

Total Recall (2012) movie review

0

So it’s Britain and yet almost everybody has American accents? Hmm.

Anyway, this remake was always going to find itself hard pushed to impress. The 1990 effort from director Paul Verhoeven and starring Arnold Schwarzenegger was hardly a classic (I mean, it is, but you know what I mean), but it was an enjoyable, occasionally silly action romp. It had a point to make about corporations exploiting normal everyday folk, and also had an interesting subtext about the nature of reality and the difference between dreams and the real world.

Visually this 2012 effort looks the part, exactly the sort of sprawling dystopia that Ridley Scott forced into our minds with Blade Runner. It’s also as far away from Paul Verhoeven’s 1990 Total Recall in almost every sense other than a similar plot and character names. And, to be fair, it’s less a remake than a reimagining.

And there’s no Mars.

Instead we have “The Fall”, a massive tunnel system that shunts workers from “The Colony”, aka Australia (could it be any more subtly racist?) to the United Federation of Britain. And it does so via the Earth’s core.

Somehow, getting your ass to Mars seems much more believable in that context.

Big names are summarily wasted in their roles. Bill Nighy shows up for all of five minutes, as does Ethan Hawke (in the Director’s Cut anyway – more on that in a moment). Bryan “Walter White” Cranston is a mostly impotent big bad, rocking up for a bit towards the end but otherwise contributing little. Kate Beckinsale, while it’s always nice to see her, appears to only have been cast because she’s married to the director (at the time anyway). She is, in essence, the real villain of the piece, the one with a direct link to Colin Farrell’s Doug Quaid and persistent in chasing him from one location to the next.

Jessica Biel is on the side of good, but could have easily been played by anybody. There’s just nothing there of any note or interest.

As for Colin Farrell, I’m not anywhere near as critical of his work as a lot of people out there. He’s perfectly serviceable in the role although everything he does is so serious that it almost becomes a parody of itself.

What this film is attempting is a commentary on class divide, the haves and the have nots. Very similar to Verhoeven in that respect, and for a dystopian world it’s a good starting point. What it fails to do is really get into the specifics of it, the detail that would cover precisely the same ground as Verhoeven’s version.

It seems the main difference between the two films is that Verhoeven has a good grasp on this method of storytelling. Len Wiseman does not.

The Director’s Cut proves to be a marginal improvement over the Theatrical Cut. Some extra context and character moments are added, but it’s still lacking that certain something that would make it a decent film. Getting rid of all the nods and references to the 1990 film would have been a good start. By all means, carve much more closely to the original story, but don’t pay homage to the other film. It’s this lack of confidence in its own message that really hamstrings the 2012 Total Recall.

And if you’re really not enjoying it, just enjoy counting all the S-bombs. I managed 19 in the Director’s Cut, but there might be a few more lingering there. Have a go at counting them yourself and let me know what you find.

Moon 44 (1990) movie review

0

Ahh, I remember the days of practical models and effects fondly. There’s an air of realism to seeing an actual scale model travelling towards a planet. It creates a very tangible feel to all aspects of the film, and even helps to combat any budget issues that would have otherwise appeared on screen.

And let’s face it, if you compare Moon 44 with fellow 1990 sci-fi release Total Recall, there are clearly vast budget differences between the two. It’s a far cry from Roland Emmerich’s later film efforts. At least here he’s only destroyed Earth from afar. Well, its natural resources anyway.

The year 2038. Resources have run out on Earth. This has led the conglomerates to head off into space and mine the stars. After standard corporate rivalries lead to them attacking one another and valuable trained pilots are wiped out, some corporations are forced to use convicts to bolster their workforce. These convicts fly helicopters on the asteroids and moons being mined, while back at base they are directed and guided by a young tech nerd apiece.

Michael Pare is Felix Stone. He’s asked to go undercover on the titular Moon 44 to find out why automated mining tools are going missing. He’s a smoking, wisecracking son of a gun who doesn’t know the meaning of the word “undercover”. Right from the off he seems intent on letting people know who he is and why he’s there.

The mining facility is run by Malcolm McDowell’s Major Lee, and his very angry and incredibly shouty second in command Sergeant Sykes (Leon Rippy). They are the first line of suspicion and, let’s face it, the script doesn’t have anywhere near enough depth for it to be anybody else. Meanwhile genre favourite Brian Thompson offers a bit of tension as an angry convict, and Lisa Eichhorn is the obligatory female face. Don’t expect character development for her or, indeed, anybody else. There’s a weird scene where one of the young tech guys is either beaten up or raped in the showers. This would have had far more impact if they had developed the characters involved in that exchange more. As it is, it seems like a random inclusion that adds little to the final product.

Stephen Geoffreys, possibly best known for his role as Ed in the original Fright Night, plays a very similar character here called Cookie. Thankfully he doesn’t have much to do or say. If he did, there would be a very real risk of something being thrown at the television. Whether that’s his actual voice or it’s just his “screen voice”, the fact is it grates horribly. The sooner somebody else has opportunity to talk, the better.

All this is fine if it was either exciting, compelling, different, or a combination of all three. It happens to be none of them. The only redeeming factor is that they use practical models. All of those sequences look the part. Unfortunately it’s let down by bad acting and a script that doesn’t know what its’ trying to achieve.

The worst part? It makes his other films, such as the horrendous 2012 look like they’re almost worth watching. Trust me. They’re not. They simply prove that throwing money at a project can’t make up for a poor script. Although, ironically, Independence Day doesn’t quite fall into the same trap.

Piranha 3DD (2012) movie review

0

I’ve not seen any of the other Piranha movies, either the original three from the 70s-90s, nor the 2010 reboot. So, by all accounts going in with Piranha 3DD immediately is a sensible choice. I certainly don’t feel like I’m missing out on anything in doing it this way, I’ll say that much.

So we begin with a recap of the events from the 2010 film before we jump to the present and the first of many, many cameo appearances in the form of Gary Busey. He is the first to encounter the piranhas that will soon bring the pain to The Big Wet, a nearby water park. The majority owner, Chet (David Koechner) has introduced an adult element to the park in a bid to keep it open. This is something that the minority owner, stepdaughter Maddy (Danielle Panabaker) is not happy about.

Now, the whole purpose of this film is to show off some cheesy 3D effects. Thus, watching it in 2D means it lacks a lot of the initial appeal of seeing it in the cinema. It doesn’t work quite as well without that 3D filter. Make of that what you will.

Most of that appeal is, admittedly, aimed at teenage boys. Gratuitous nudity and lots of women wearing very little is the order of the day.

Suffice to say, there isn’t much of a plot beyond the arrival of the piranhas and that lots of characters are going to die in a number of gruesome and increasingly silly ways. Trust me, the methods of death start silly and get more and more ridiculous as we progress.

Aside from Maddy there are no female characters who appear capable of managing any situation by themselves. All of the women featured, including Maddy, exist as objects of lust for the male characters and, by extension, the audience.

For me it was more fun enjoying the random cameos – Busey, Christopher Lloyd, David Hasselhoff and the like. They must have had a blast making the film, and their performances show it. Everybody else with a speaking role are equally enjoyable, however the characters are mostly cardboard cutouts with no depth to them. Which, in honesty, is what you’d expect from this sort of film.

And, to be fair, the humour is very self aware and knowing. There are spoofs of other big creature features aplenty, mostly Jaws. Plus, if there’s a piranha problem at your water park, who else is better to have on hand than The Hoff?

It’s not a great film and never tries to be. The jokes and gore are enough to keep things ticking over. But if it was me, I’d have placed more emphasis on the jokes and less emphasis on the nudity. Because, you know, it could have been even better.

As it is, the most amount of laughs come from the outtakes and bloopers in the end credits. That is usually a bad sign. Here, it’s more an indication of what could have been if a little more time had been spent getting the script into better shape.