Problem: This review is like what?

Review:This is the biggest load of crap that I have seen in a long time. The last time I hated a movie so much was whilst watching "28 Days later" and "Magnolia". There is absolutely no point to this movie, except to see some really sick and twisted sex/rape scenes, Gillian Anderson relieving herself on the side of the road, and every single sentence of dialog having to use the "F" word at least a couple of times in it. It has extremely cheap acting and is very low budget. My friend and I eventually turned off the movie after about half an hour. We had tried to give it a chance, but nothing could save this crud. DO NOT WATCH IT!!!
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:This ranks way up there on my top list of worst movies I've seen so far on Starz on Demand. They seem to pick up every straight to DVD crap-fest they can find and put it on here.

Why? Who knows! Apparently anyone with a digital camera and a shoestring budget can come up with a horror movie and get it put on TV. To be honest, this looked terrible from the moment I saw the trailer--but I did give it a real chance.

I always try to have an open mind about low-budget movies. Some of the best movies I've ever seen were films that worked around their low budget or in other cases only required that low budget to be great.

This is not one of those movies.

You know the plot by now, I'm sure, if you're reading this. Either you heard about it on Starz on Demand or for whatever reason you ended up on this page out of boredom. It's about a pathetic and whiny girl we get to know for all of 3 minutes in an incredibly bad "heavy metal" music video. Whoever put it together must have thought it looked really interesting, but it really, really doesn't. Anyway, she kills herself. Then she possesses someone. Then some killing starts. It's really unmemorable and as completely average and boring as possible. When the first gunshot goes off in her apartment it quite seriously sounds like a piece of popcorn popping. Was that the best sound effect they could come up with? I could find a better sound effect to use for free, (with no copyright,) on the internet... right. now.

Don't let the other reviews claiming this is a 10 star movie fool you. They are obviously either distributors of the film or maybe even the director trying to con you into thinking this piece of junk is worth buying.

Laughable.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:This could have been a rather entertaining film, but instead it ranks with other duds like Leeches and Rest In Pieces at the bottom of the cinematic food chain. Had they played this flick tongue-in-cheek, it could have been a very entertaining film, like Re-Animator or Dead ALive, but Juan Piquor Simon plays it tongue-in-cheek in spots but straight more often.

The premise of this film is a small community that is besieged by mutated slugs. There is an abandoned toxic waste dump near a sewer line that mutates the slugs into aggressive, meat-eating monsters - albeit monsters that move slowly and can be squished under your boot. Health Inspector Michael Garfiled and two accomplices are the only people that seem willing to fight the slugs while the sheriff and mayor think they are crazy. The climax is a laugh riot - unintentional at that - which makes you scratch your head as to how stupid (actors and screenwriter) the scenario of destroying the slugs is.

STORY: $$ (No new ground charted here. Simon seems to play the gore elements tongue-in-cheek but the dialogue is straight. Had Simon worked with a clever script - one with plenty of one-liners and eccentric characters, this could have been a cult film).

VIOLENCE: $$$ (You won't be letdown here. We get plenty of exploding chest cavity scenes as well as a grand head explosion in the middle of a fine Italian restaurant. The blood and guts, that many horror film watchers enjoy, is in full swing here. You also get corpses of people who have been picked clean by the slugs and plenty of slug smashing scenes).

ACTING: $ (Wow! Michael Garfield seems to know that this script is a stinker and he delivers his lines with a facial expression that suggests he knows how preposterous this film-making endeavor is. Kim Terry, as his wife, does an adequate job even though she does little beyond the hold-your-face-while-you-scream bit. The "teenagers" were all horrible actors - no exceptions. Man, this film could have used Bruce Dern or Jeffrey Combs!)

NUDITY: $$ (Two teens get naughty in bed before they get dispatched - in a poorly done scene - by a horde of slugs that crawled into the girl's bedroom. Both male and female nudity here).
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:OK, first of all, Steve Irwin, rest in peace. You were loved by many fans. Now...this movie wasn't a movie at all. It was "The Crocodile Hunter" TV program with bad acting, bad scripts, and bad directing in between Steve capturing or teaching us about animals. He was entertaining as an animal seeker/specialist. Millions will miss him. But the whole movie idea was a big mistake. The plot was so broken, it was almost non-existent. Casting was horrible. The acting wasn't even worth elementary school-level actors. The direction must be faulted as well. If you can't get a half-way decent performance out of your actors, no matter how bad the script is, you must not be that good in the first place. I could have written a better script. I wish I had never been to see this movie. Of course, I watched it for $3 ($1.50 for me, $1.50 for my son.) while out with friends who insisted upon seeing this instead of Scooby Doo Live Action. My son, who is not so discriminating, liked the movie alright, but he still has never asked to see it again. If you want fond memories of Steve Irwin, buy his series on DVD. Avoid this movie like the plague. If I were Steve, I know I wouldn't want to be remembered for this movie. Respect him: avoid this movie!
+++++++++
A:
negative