As far as revenge flicks go; this has got to be one of the worst and silliest ones I have seen in my lifetime!

Revenge flicks are always fun to watch and '80's action flicks are also always something special. So a combination of those two elements sounds like a totally awesome and entertaining thing but yet somehow this movie manages to be an absolutely terrible one!

Sure, it's a B-movie but I have seen plenty of B-movies that sill managed to work out as engaging and entertaining ones. This movie succeeds at neither. It's deprived of any emotions and the movie is more silly than entertaining really. Good thing about it is that it is a fairly short movie, so it never gets the chance to develop into something truly horrendous.

It's still one of those movies that gets worse and worse as it keeps on progressing. The beginning is still pretty promising and it made it seem like this could be a pretty good and enjoyable flick but the movie keeps throwing in lots of ridicules developments, that don't exactly make this a very convincing movie to watch. Even by normal genre standards, this is an absolutely ridicules movie, that goes completely overboard, once the gloves are off and unfortunately not in a positive or very entertaining way.

The idea of having a motorcycle gang terrorize the Gary Busey character and his family is a bit of a too simplistic one, that's lacking any true substance to it. The Busey character never comes across as truly mad or desperate, even though some terrible things are happening to his family in this movie. It's therefore also hard to get behind him and root for him throughout this entire movie. Besides, he's Gary Busey. It's not like he has a very sympathetic look to him and it seems like a pretty odd choice to cast him as the movie its main lead and hero. The same thing can also be said about the Yaphet Kotto character. It's a waste of two great actors, who are just normally way better and more fun to watch when they are playing villains. Who knows how awesome this movie actually could have been with Gary Busey as the main villain and Yaphet Kotto as his henchman.

It's a very sloppy movie, in just about every regard. Acting-wise, the writing but also the editing and action itself feels terribly lacking. Sure, there are some nice explosions and some pretty decent bike stunts but they aren't ever really incorporated into the movie and its story that very well. They appear at random and feel too much over-the-top.

Just too silly and not very enjoyable to watch.

4/10

Watch trailer

So I know "Troll 2" is supposed to be one of the worst movies of all time but this predecessor is pretty bad on its own right as well!

It's true that you can still have some fun with this movie though. It's a horror but then again, it also at the same time really isn't. It's a movie made in the time period when dozens of these light hearted, more comedy like, horror productions got released. The sillier the better, they must have thought. And "Troll" is definitely silly, just not all that great as a movie though.

The movie already has a flimsy script to start off with but they also did a horrible job handling it. The movie doesn't ever really seem to go anywhere with its story and yes, I have to say it's a bit of a bore at times. It doesn't ever truly build things up properly enough and there is never really a good flow to the movie and its story.

Seems to me that they tried to blend fantasy elements with horror, with as the only problem that none of the fantasy ever comes across as anything magical, fun or truly innovative. It really doesn't help much that the movie does a poor job at explaining anything. So yes, there are trolls but why are they here exactly? And what do they want again?

Besides, the trolls really aren't that great as characters. They are not scary or threatening looking, they are not doing anything truly shocking and they don't really have any personalities to them.

Really, I feel that if this movie was a bit more focused on its gore and horror this still could had been a somewhat more decent flick. Please don't watch this movie expecting any good killings or seeing plenty of gore. Guess the movie spend all of its budget on its sets and trolls already, which all aren't too bad looking to be fair but the movie just offers too little else.

It has a bit of a weird cast of mishmash actors in it as well, with Michael Moriarty, Sonny Bono, Phil Fondacaro and Julia Louis-Dreyfus all involved, as well as June Lockhart and daughter Anne Lockhart as the younger version of the same character.

As far as these type of '80's flicks go, this is definitely one of the lesser ones!

4/10

Watch trailer

Watch trailer

Watch trailer

(Review originally written at 31 August 2008)

It's not a horrible movie, just one of those movies that will leave a redundant impression. It's a movie you can easily do without. Disappointing, since I always heard good things about this movie.

Somewhere in this movie there is a story about police corruption and a faked gang-war but it all feels so disconnected and not developed well enough that you just never start to care about any of it. The movie is mostly about the Dennis Quaid and Ellen Barkin romance. I wouldn't say that the chemistry between them is anything too great, also since their entire romance seems to be sex-based above anything else really. Not really the actors fault of course, since they are obvious capable ones. The movie just perhaps didn't had the greatest casting.

Dennis Quaid seems to pick up and drop his New Orleans accent randomly. It's annoying when he in the one sequence speaks with a fat accent, while in the other he speaks in his own way.

I blame mostly director Jim McBride. He's also a director that just never broke through and mostly works for TV productions and directs music clips. The directing makes the story looses its focus on its main story, which often just drifts away. It has as a result that nothing ever really fully works out in the movie, including its climax. But the worst thing about the entire movie was its action. This seriously was some of the worst action and definitely action-editing it had ever seen in my life. It's the sort of stuff that will make you laugh instead and makes you wonder; now what the bleep was that? Like Ed Wood had risen from the grave.

The movie gets mostly saved by the fact that its a rather light one, with light characters and dialog, which makes sure that the movie for most part remains an enjoyable one to watch, despite all of its flaws and weaknesses.

Just not a movie I would like to watch again.

5/10

(Review originally written at 9 December 2007)

For these type of serial killer movies you never need a budget worth millions of dollars to let it work out. Often a shoe-string budget work out the best for this type its movies, because it contributes to the movie its unpleasant atmosphere. You can say that in these type of movies the amateurism and simplicity all adds to the creativity and overall effectiveness of the movie. The best known example of this is the original first "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre", from 1978.

This movie is far less known and also isn't blessed with such a great title. The title of this movie somewhat sounds something like a based on true-events TV movie, without any graphic images. But don't be fooled, for "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" is filled with graphic violence and other disturbing moments.

The movie feels and breaths an '70's atmosphere. Also the overall style of the movie is very '70's like, in a gritty, dark and very straightforward type of way. It also of course helps that the movie at times uses 'home-video' movie, in which we get to see the killings/rapes from the perpetrators perspective alone.

It isn't a movie that has a true beginning or ending, in terms of having a conclusion that puts an end to things. It has instead now got one of the best possible endings thinkable, that is shocking, unexpected and satisfying even though it doesn't put a definitive end to things.

The real story of Henry Lee Lucas is even more shocking and disturbing but also a lot longer and more complicated of course. It's far too much to put in a movie and then prevent it from getting ever overlong or starts repeating itself and remain original. This movie obviously had to make some choices and even decided to not only exclude a lot but also to change and add certain elements, which all strengthens the story in this case. The story might seem very simple at first sight now but is's perhaps the very same simplicity that makes the movie so great- and let things work out in it so effectively. It makes some great choices with its story and build up, that seem simple but are all thought out and constructed cleverly.

The movie features the then still unknown Michael Rooker in one of his earliest roles. None of the actors are that impressive within this movie, which gives Michael Rooker all the more room to shine in his role. He plays a great two faced character, that can be both kind and sort of shy as well as ruthless. He does this very convincingly within the movie.

But it are the graphic killings within the movie that makes this a really watchable one. It doesn't show all the killings how they happened but only just a few, which makes the impact of them work out all the more and adds to the reason why this movie is regarded by many as one of the most shocking one's.

A great and effectively shocking movie within its genre.

9/10

(Review originally written at 4 September 2007)

Oh I feel dirty now, I actually liked this movie! Of course it was some typical '80's cheese but I also have the feeling that the makers really didn't thought that they were making something classic. It's pretty good for what it is; a simple '80's revenge flick, with basically every '80's ingredient in it thinkable.

Yes this movie has '80's written all over it! Fast sport cars, crazy dressed punks, roller-skates, bad '80's music and of course '80's star Charlie Sheen in it, just before his "Platoon" role, which really marked his breakthrough.

The movie and its story is kept fairly simple and because of that the movie also feels very straight-forward, which definitely is a plus for these type of movies. The main plot-line and fun characters are interesting enough to keep your interest. Its a pretty crazy concept and the movie mixes numerous movie types, such as science-fiction, action, horror, a racing movie, drama and much more. It's impossible to label just one genre to this movie and its even more difficult to say how to describe this movie. It's a cheesy silly B-movie, that because of that also at the same time becomes very entertaining to watch.

The movie has some nice looking races and the 'Wraith's' car is just basically every teen-boy's, from the '80's, dream. Also the other cars in the movie are really great, despite the fact that I'm really normally not a 'cars' type of person.

Let's be fair, Charlie Sheen has never been on any 'great actors lists' and this movie makes you see why. He's too flat in his role but luckily he isn't featured that much in the movie, at least not as much as you would expect from the 'main' character. The movie more focuses on the gang of drag racers, who are the bad guys of the movie, and on whom the 'Wraith' takes revenge, for killing him in the past. The gang features actors such as a young Nick Cassavetes (who now days is perhaps better known as a director) and Clint Howard in it. Further more, Randy Quaid also plays a role in the movie as the sheriff. He's good in his role but he's not really supported by most of the other actors in this movie, which also makes his performance look bad at times.

A very enjoyable, good looking, silly, cheesy, typical '80's flick, that you just have to take for what it is.

7/10