The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part
The Walking Dead
Log in with Facebook
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Already have an account? Log in here
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
We want to hear what you have to say but need to verify your account. Just leave us a message here and we will work on getting you verified.
Please reference “Error Code 2121” when contacting customer service.
No consensus yet.
All Critics (8)
| Top Critics (4)
| Fresh (3)
| Rotten (5)
It plumbs the lower depths of awfulness to a degree unmatched by pics merely inept and/or pretentious.
It's tough to be sure of anything in this murky experimental feature, which sadly fails to live up to its title.
Mystifying -- intentionally so -- and frustrating. But it's worth a look.
Reportedly made for less than $2,000, this 1970s-style horror oddity could pass for a perverse experiment masterminded by a mad scientist.
A demented and interesting piece of experimental/grind house horror filmmaking...
Frankensteins Bloody Nightmare is a wild cocktail of nightmarish sensibilities; its death nerve twitches to a disquieting mish-mash of strange images and even stranger sounds.
The shadow of 1970s horror films hangs benevolently over John Hand's A-for-effort/D-for-execution super-8 rehash of the Frankenstein story.
The bare plot has a scientist---or perhaps his monster, it's never quite clear---killing women to harvest their body parts so the doctor can resurrect his dead love. Director John R. Hand shows a remarkable technical ability to create unique visual and auditory environments inspired by the 1970s trash movies of Jean Rollin, Lucio Fulci, and Andy Milligan, only with with their cheap, desperate Super-8 stylistics amped up to surreal levels; the problem is that, for all its technical ingenuity, the movie has no story to tell, which will cause the average viewer to lose interest quickly.
How can you even describe this film, other than maybe, as it was in Screem mag, a horror film if it was made by Stan Brakish (I don't remember if it actually said that, but close).
This film is almost more avant garde in style than horror, although the title sounds like a Hammer film. It was really done minimally in terms of budget, and for those who think that's a bad thing: for shame! It really utilizes it's retraints to their best. Now if by the last comment one thinks I am saying "this film is good, considering...", one is wrong. This film is good, period. It's really like anything you've ever seen and the main character seems genuinely creepy, yet innocent.
There is so much going on in this film, and yet so little shown it the way, which gives a nervous and lonely quality and also seems alot like the movies of past where alot would be going on.
The premise is confusing but bsically a doctor is trying to keep alive his love. He is the head of a company, who are trying to flush him out. He's also under investigation from the police. Oh! and he has a monster who does his bidding in order to get body parts and life matter for his dying love.
What I have just given you, however, is not clearly stated but is what I figured out from watching it.
I watched the interview with the director on the DVD and he seems like a deeply interesting character and really the film seem like a labor of love, and something he really believed in.
So if you are in for something different go for it, but if you can't sit through a David Lynch movie, you might have trouble with this one.
*Note: John R. Hand is not too similar to Lynch, accept for the fact of abtract narrative, it was just an example.*
There are no approved quotes yet for this movie.