A place that will be reviewing the free films and shows at Hocus Focus Productions' free online cinema as well as indie movies you can watch on Streaming Services.
Please, use the comments to offer your own, well thought out and honest reviews.
You can see this one on Amazon Prime at the moment.
I don't know if I'd call it "Dark Comedy", but it's certainly comedy in a dark situation. Not for the kiddies.
Trying something new wit a video review to save on some typing.
I mention in the review that the movie has no nudity. This is true in the Amazon Streaming version I watched, but may not be accurate in all cuts. Watch with care.
See DARK FUTURE starring Darby Hilton, Svetlana Nemirovskaya, Leonard Donato on Amazon Prime.
"Solid State", starring Debbie Rochon, Suzi Lorraine, Ava Brunini and featuring Vivica A. Fox, is a visually stunning, low budget sci-fi fantasy of epic proportions.
First, let me say, that this is one of the most beautifully shot movies I've every seen. The muted colors to set the glum mood almost made me sad because the settings and shot composition were just so gorgeous. The wide shots and camera movements were poetic. Seriously, movies like this, low budget movies that may never be seen in a theater, are why Hi-Def and 4K TVs exist. There is so much to visually showcase that an old style TV could not have done it justice. Cinematographer Fabrizio Meynardi just did a wonderful job.
If you've ever wondered how a "washed up", all girl rock band making a come back in Italy would react during a world crisis from another world, "Solid State" is the movie for you.
I already said that I loved the Cinematography, right? I mean, I wasn't too subtle about that? Other things I love about this movie, Debbie Rochon ( no secret there ), Suzi Lorraine ( her character had the few funny lines in the movie. It wasn't being played for camp. ), the tremendous scope, the epic underlying story, and the way it calls back to global disaster movies of the 60s and 70s. It shows the world is in this horrible situation, but concentrates on a small group of survivors to show how they're dealing with it. Unlike many of those movies, we eventually find out why this group of survivors is the one we're watching.
There is a great use of stock footage here and some good CG. There are also some F/X, which at this point, have become a bit overused in indie cinema. Of course, back in 2012, they may have been a bit more at the cutting edge. I never really did fully grasp exactly what was going on with the giant meteor and the zombie like monsters it spawned, but that may have been me not paying close enough attention to the story. Also, there aren't a whole lot of likeable characters from the start, although the mains grow on you as the movie goes along and fans of Rochon, Lorraine and Brunini will likely be attached to their characters somewhat by virtue of who plays them.
Keep an eye out for a nod to "This is Spinal Tap".
Another thing that stood out as "was that necessary" were the two montages sort of wedged into the movie to bridge one act to the next. They weren't bad, but they didn't seem to entirely fit with the rest of the movie's style. Of course, things that "don't quite fit" into one's expectations kind of create a whole new style. Maybe?
I'll say this, the movie was a bit of style over substance in my opinion, but not to the point where it wasn't entertaining. It was just engaging in a different way than you'd expect and then it would snap back into the formula, "look there's a big glowing light effect" kind of sci-fi epic we all expect.
I would recommend this one for genre fans. I think it's highly stylized shooting and editing may put some audience members off, but if you're the right viewer, this is certainly the right film and there are quite a few memorable moments.
Currently streaming on Amazon Prime. I feel like it's on some other free streaming services, but I'm not sure which ones. If anyone knows, please comment below. Legitimate streams, not pirated stuff.
Instead of a movie review today, I'm giving you a Holiday Gift. Thomas Edison's 1910 production of a "Christmas Carol" presented in 3D anaglyph conversion with stock music added.
I fell asleep on last night's movie and don't have time this morning to finish watching it, so here we are.
It's about 11 minutes long. Works with red and blue glasses for a "deeper" look and is totally known to most everyone.
Feel free to review it in the comments below or share with friends to spread holiday cheer.
I'll be back to reviewing indie, free movies soon. I hope.
...and whether or not that's a good thing is totally dependent on your taste in old movies.
"Cave Women on Mars" is a throwback to sci-fi adventure movies of the 1950s. As such, it has everything you'd get if you just watched one of those movies, with a few in jokes added, and a computer generated effect or two. It doesn't add much to the genre, doesn't tell a terribly new story and doesn't have a whole lot of laugh out loud moments. My wife, who sat it through it twice (once only hearing it as she worked in another room) because I fell asleep on the first viewing thought it was a pretty good movie. I found this interesting since her exposure to the genre it's based on is mostly through walking in on me watching some old movie on DVD or Amazon. She may have liked it even more than I did because to her some it was "fresh".
Don't expect a lot of impressive F/X, they would be out of place. In fact, I feel like the rocket looked like it was CG in some shots, when it should have a been a model. I low detail model to really fit into the look they were going for with this black and white homage to 50s science fiction movies.
If you can't sit through old Flash Gordon Sequels, think there's too much blowout in movies like my own "Onyx Origins" or feel like rubber suited monsters belong in the past and only the past, this movie isn't for you. If you have seen every 50s, 60s and 70s drive-in movie you can get your hands on and just want more, then you're the reason this movie and others like it exist.
The cast is mostly capable, but some of the attempts at mimicking 50s style stiff acting go too far to the point of being annoying more than funny. Some of the jokes are references to 80s pop sci-fi, so you'll need to be a fan of that too in order to catch them.
The movie checks most of the boxes for a space travel flick meant to be from the 50s:
1. Minimalist Spaceship set.
2. Rocket powered ship
3. Astronaut jumpsuits with stripes and shoulder pads (these costumes were particularly spot on)
4. Attractive women on Mars who find Earth Men fascinating, masculine and mysterious.
5. A Gorilla with Horns
6. Oversized Communicators. ( I would have liked to have seen a three foot long antenna on one of these though )
7. Things that go "Zap".
8. Talk of radiation.
9. A Matte Painting
10. Short skirts.
It also has one or two things we wouldn't normally expect to see until the mid-late 60s, but that were necessary for moving the plot along with the small cast:
1. A talking computer.
Actually, that may be it. I feel like I'm missing something. This actually bridges the horned gorilla appearance in Flash Gordon to the One in Star Trek pretty well.
What it could have used to round it out: 1. Dinosaurs. Stop Motion or somebody's pet lizard blown up to monstrous proportions. (Don't glue fins or horns to them. It's not necessary and a bit uncomfortable for the lizard, I imagine). Stock footage would have been cool here too.
2. A random Rubber spider or giant insect.
3. Giant mushrooms or some other bizarrely sized fruit that if brought back to Earth could end hunger. (Maybe that's more 60s I'm thinking of) 4. Gold, diamonds, oil or some other thing that makes our brave characters rich by sneaking just a little back to Earth.
So there you have it. A movie worth watching if you're addicted to the genre, want to get the whole genre condensed into one film or need a few laughs with your scientifically inaccurate science fiction.
I'll start off by saying I'm not a huge fan of documentaries. I'll watch ones on subjects I'm really interested in, but otherwise, I don't seek them out. This one, however, was a fun watch. I didn't know it was a documentary when I added it to my Amazon Prime viewing list and I did fast forward through a bit when it all got just a bit too much "clips from movies with no context", but overall it was an interesting watch. I would have liked a longer segment on Kathy Long though.
Top Fighter 2: Deadly China Dolls is described like this on Amazon: "Top Fighter 2 takes in a depth look at the female fighting superstars, of stage, ring and screen, with fantastic action footage." That seems accurate enough with perhaps the words "in depth" not applying to all of the female superstars we're introduced to in the f ilm.
The movie takes a bit of a historical walk through women in martial arts cinema and does use plenty of action of footage, when available, to get its point across.
The interviews are uneven throughout, with some seemingly shot on the fly in whatever location they could get the interviewee to agree to meet. This causes some audio issues in places like restaurants or maybe hotel lobbies where you can hear the crowd around the speakers. Machines running in the background get a bit distracting in other interviews, but being from the mid-late 90s one has to remember the equipment wasn't as easily accessible as it is now, so wireless mics may not have always been an option. It's a minor distraction at worst.
If you're into martial arts and action films, then this is definitely worth seeing, even if it could use an update. Some of the introductions and commentary with doubtlessly sound sexist to modern audiences, but try to take it in as part of the history lesson the whole movie is. We've still got some evolving to do.
It is a great movie to have in your Amazon Watch list to you can look for your favorite female fighters, hit "Other Titles" and see which other movies are on Prime for you to watch.
I couldn't find a trailer for this one on YouTube.
This has to be the question that the producers of "Shadowchaser" must have asked themselves because the movie is exactly the answer to that question.
I don't spend half the review telling you happens in the movie. You can read the description on Amazon or IMDB to get an idea and watch the movie to fill in the blanks. What I will tell you is what's great, good, mediocre and flawed about the movie so you can decide whether you want to watch it for yourself. "Shadowchaser" runs the whole list, but it was popular enough to spawn a few sequels and honestly I enjoyed every one of them back when movies like this were the filler between blockbusters on cable TV. I'm glad that Amazon Prime is making them accessible again.
Amazon has the movie as being released in 1989. IMDB lists it as 1992. Either of these years puts it far enough behind, but close enough to, the release dates of the movies it obviously "mockbusts". It's almost essential that you have a previous knowledge of "Die Hard" and "Terminator" before you watch this movie. You'll miss some of the in jokes if you don't and even some of the suspense will be lost. You see, they spend so much time mimicking scenes from those movie, that when something doesn't play out as it did in the movie it's lifted from, you're shocked!
It should be noted that movie also has a tiny bit of "Demolition Man" in it, even though either date has its release as BEFORE the popular Snipes/Stallone movie.
Things this movie has a lot of:
1. Automatic weapons fire. A lot of these guys, on both sides of the good-guy/bad-guy fence must have trained with old school Storm Troopers
2. Crawling around in ducts.
3. Nods to previous movies.
4. Uncomfortable, stalky 1980's moments of what used to pass for "flirting" and now would be considered criminal.
5. Explosions. (not "lots" by Michael Bay standards, but quite a few for a low budget affair)
Things it has less of than you might expect from a low budget action movie:
1. Quotable, clever, one-liners. If there were any, I missed them. There may have been attempts, but nothing quotable.
2. Unstoppable android action. It's present, but really, it seems like a separate movie when the fact that Romulus ( Frank Zagarino) is an android finally becomes noticeable and relevant.
3. Nudity. It was a staple to get the "R" rating these movies often wanted as a selling point, but I don't think there was any in this movie. It wasn't missed, but notable since "Die Hard" practically wedged it into the movie and Terminator made use of it as well, although it was more important plot-wise.
4. Good green screen F/X. There was some matte F/X, but it was what you'd expect in the late 80s on a budget.
So, I am calling this movie with Meg Foster and Martin Kove an "Indie". In the mid-late 80s and through the 90s, a slew of "bigger" independent movies went straight to video and cable. There was money to made there at the time and digital cinema was just on the horizon. Things hadn't become affordable for all yet, although at the time, we thought they had.
What worked in this movie? Well, Meg Foster and Martin Kove. Actually, the whole cast was amazingly solid as was the lighting, cinematography and F/X work ( dated chroma key not withstanding. ) The production values are all pretty solid and there's actually some pretty impressive miniature work. I miss the days before "affordable CGI" made substandard CG the go to effect instead of competent miniatures, which often look better. Over all, a solid production, as these mid-budget movies often were.
What didn't work? Some of the plot. It had more twists than M. Night's entire career and some of them seemed to be written in as they shot the movie.
Some of the directing and editing was also "off". There's a chase near the end that has no flow. It's like a music video, cutting drastically from one scene to the next and recycling footage to keep things moving. It was like a montage of a chase, but in the 80s that was sort of a thing. Also, the aforementioned gun fire. I think that too was a product of it's time, but when you see a movie like "Die Hard" handle it and then see a movie like this try to imitate it, you can sort of see how there's a finesse to it that not everyone gets. Budget plays into it for sure, but there's also a tempo that needs to be kept up that just wasn't here in most of the gun scenes.
So, will you watch "Shadowchaser"? Have you seen it? Comment below. Let others know where you do and don't agree with me.
Also, does anyone know if "Shadowchaser" and "Project Shadowchaser" are two different movies or just different cuts of the same movie?
The Awakening is streaming on Amazon Prime. It's a 2005 super hero movie that looks a bit like a TV pilot from a decade earlier. It starts off like a lot of super hero movies with a character who is weak and dying and someone who loves her doing desperate to save her, which in turn winds up giving her super powers. This "cure", however, comes with more than just super powers, it also brings along insanity as a bonus.
The F/X are, as I mentioned, good for a late nineties TV show. They're not on par with what many will expect now in our age of a new Super Hero blockbuster every month and multiple super hero and fantasy TV series on every platform possible. Still, they're fun in a "comic book", retro kind of way. Mike Conway, the director, also made good use of sets we've seen in his earlier movie, Terrarium.
Lara, our unwitting super hero is played by Tamra Ericson Frame . She gives a solid performance most of the time and does the physical acting well. Her character goes through some changes that at first are easy to follow. At first, the movies plays a bit as a lesson on how "power corrupts", then it becomes a bit of a "husband vs wife" struggle, then it starts to look like something resembling a condemnation of feminism, almost suggesting that a powerful woman will finally be able to demonstrate that she actually hates men and would rather break male necks than be in a relationship with one. I'm not saying this was the movie's message, but in today's political climate, I definitely saw things that could be interpreted that way. Maybe you'll see them too. Maybe they're not there. It's a bit of a slow build, so plan on multiple sittings or gear yourself up to get through story and character development before the real action begins. All origin stories are like this and they should be. When the action does hit, it hits hard. Lots of gunplay, demonstrations of super strength and things you just don't expect from an ultra indie. Mike Conway can stretch a budget like nobody else. If you've seen every comic book and super hero movie out there or long for the days when characters with super powers were a bit more flawed than the polished nuggets of team fighting they are now, give this movie a go. I'd say watch it for the "grittier" F/X too (like what Lara does to a van), but in reality, a lot of the F/X are the digital predecessors to the movies we see now, proving that Conway was a visionary when he made this movie, even if the technology was in its infancy (at least for home users and small producers).
Kirsten Khalfani isn't the only thing in "Close Encounters of the Fourth Kind: Infestation From Mars" that is larger than life. The whole movie is just made on a tremendous scale for what appears to be a real independent effort. I wish there was more trivia on the IMDB page so I could be sure that the whole town of Sandusky was behind the production of this movie.
As a reviewer on IMDB points out, there are a lot of nods in this movie to classics like, "The Blob" ( both versions), "The Fly", and "Species" was a big influence. The special F/X are largely achieved through practical means and are amazingly effective. (If you're a fan of "Reptilicus" keep an eye out for the green slime). Kristen Khalfani gives a great performance as the housewife turned alien. Very little is needed to make her an imposing figure and the minimalist approach to her "monster" persona works well.
The acting by minor characters and some of the audio hint at the movie's lower budget, but the scale of scenes involving the police and fire department are worthy of a major motion picture. When mixed, they create a genuinely unique viewing experience.
I suggest this one for sci-fi monster fans.
It's currently available on Amazon Prime or as a DVD (might make a neat gift for that sci-fi fan who owns all of the other movies I mentioned already). I will note that the picture didn't fill my HD screen in any direction. I'm sort of surprised Amazon let that by, but once you're watching for awhile, it's not a distraction.
Also, the first half of the film seems like more of the scale you'd expect, but by the end they pull out all the stops. Watch for big locations and lots of action.
Also watch for sudden changes in the time of day. Hey, we indies can't get permission to shoot in places in twice. If the sun rises before we're ready, sometimes we have to run with it.
Normally I'd share the trailer, but I can't find it anywhere. Or a Facebook page for the movie. If the producers happen by this page and want to share those things, please do. Meanwhile, here are a couple of stills I managed to find online. I hope they don't mind since we are using these to promote the movie.
Kristen Khalfani chooses her meals by the cars they're wrapped in.
Kristin Khalfani as the alien who just really wants to go for a swim!
The Lurking is a movie for a very specific audience. That audience is people who want to get straight to the gore and don't really have a need for a plot, character building or any of those other distractions most movies employ.
I'll be honest here and say that I found the music annoying. So much so that I had the volume down low enough that I likely missed some dialogue and that may have cost me some story points, but I don't think so. You do need to pay attention between the obligatory sex scenes and murders to catch a few points that will play into a neat moment at the end of the movie, but I don't think there was anything that would have made me care about characters with deep meaningful names like "Wasteoid 1", "Wasteoid 2" and "Jogger". Basically, cookie cutter characters being stalked by a mysterious, faceless killer whose motivation we're never really given.
If, however, creative kills, blood, guts and moments of humor are what you want in a horror movie, then this one is for you. Most of the acting is average for a super low budget outing. (I recently heard a review of a "low budget" movie made for $14K. My last movie was a short that cost $4. "Low Budget" is relative.) When you're on a super low budget, you often show up, see the script for the first time and roll camera. Not a lot of time rehearsals, reshoots or endless takes. You have to finish this scene before the park ranger shows up and ruins your day.
The movie is currently on Amazon Prime and definitely worth the price of "Included with my subscription". For true fans of all gory and no story, it would even be worth spending money on. Get together with your favorite wasteoid friends, crack open some cold ones, pop some corn and enjoy The Lurking for the "killer in the woods" movie that it is.
I would be interested to know what kind of kills they come up with for a sequel if they ever decide to make one.
Here's the trailer so you can decide for yourselves.
Oh, and the reason "The Lurking" originally caught my eye was because the Amazon artwork was almost exactly what I suggested trying out in my Inside HFP video about how to get a quick piece of cover art approved by Amazon Video Direct.
So, I'm reviewing these two movies together for a few reasons. None of those reasons are because they're very much alike in plotline. Some similarities are just personal. Here is how they were alike, from my point of view:
1. Both took multiple sessions to get through. This was partially because of my schedule lately and also partly because they overlapped with a timeslot that something more interesting was on scheduled TV.
2. Both take the "slasher" genre and give it a sort of unusual spin. "Spaceship Terror" (great title when you find out where it came from, BTW), as you can guess is a killer in space. Not an alien monster though, as the Amazon Art might suggest.
"Dead of Knight"( notice that "K" in "Knight"?) is about a Medieval ghost that goes on a killing spree.
3. Both are technically very well put together for indie movies. Audio is mostly clear. Very few drastic changes in volume. Picture quality is clear at worst, artistic at times. Special F/X are fair to excellent. Costuming is solid. While the acting is somewhat uneven (More so in "Dead of Knight), the leads give mostly solid performances.
4. Both suffer from pacing issues and a little too much exposition. "Dead of Knight" spends so much time explaining how one character is "pure of heart" that it's nearly an hour before the real story seems to get going and then it stalls again for awhile. "Spaceship Terror" is a "maze" kind of movie, so the rules of the game are constantly be updated...and then broken.
With the similarities out of the way, let's take a look at each individual movie.
"Spaceship Terror" is an isolation movie with "torture porn" and slasher influences, set in space. I'm not really a torture movie fan, so it lost me there. That's not to say it isn't good. From the torture movies I have watched, it seems like a solid entry. Just not my mug of coffee.
For a 2011 production the CG and chroma key F/X are good to excellent. The spaceships were sub-par compared to big budget affairs, but nothing you would have blinked at had it appeared on mainstream TV ten years ago.
The gore F/X are spot on, even disturbing at times, which I am sure was the intended reaction. I may have missed the motivation for our killer, but it didn't seem like it mattered to the plot and if it doesn't matter to you, that's fine. It's often overlooked in more modern slasher movies and was usually pretty lame in later entries of the 80s, the golden age of the genre.
There are scantily clad women and there's nudity, but it's mostly for creating that "vulnerable" feel for the characters. This is definitely NOT one to watch with kids in the room. Much of the violence is over the top. There are some surprises, some unique kills and a few moments that are so out there you'll question your sanity for watching.
Overall, a violent roller coaster ride once it finally gets rolling. If that's what you're looking and you don't mind that it's mostly mindless, you'll enjoy this one.
The trailer for "Dead of Knight" spells out most of the plot. It's a shame the movie didn't jump into the fun as quickly as the trailer sums up most of the major plot points. Honestly, this one nearly lost me in the first 30 minutes or so, but it opened with an intriguing scene and had some truly beautiful shots scattered amongst the merely capable ones. There is one character in the main circle of friends who is nearly Jar-Jar annoying in his overacting, but the rest of the characters are pretty solid, if not two dimensional. The pace is slow and not in a "building suspense" kind of way for a good 45 minutes or so. Some of it is real story and character building stuff, but some of it is just dialogue to hit that feature length mark. (I've been guilty of this myself, so I hold no grudges, but it doesn't make it a positive point). Bringing the Knight action in and mixing it up a bit early may have helped here.
If you're a fan of the old "Kolchak: The Night Stalker" series you may remember the episode where he encountered a Medieval Knight. I couldn't help but get flashbacks to that from this. Our knight in "Dead of Knight", however, is more than a lumbering suit of armor. He has a mission, feelings and lines. You can see in the trailer that there may be some unintended humor. This movie definitely takes its kill scenes less serious than "Spaceship Terror" did, but I enjoyed them more. No unnecessary torture, but still, the occasional pang of regret when certain characters get it. Not a lot of surprises, but one or two. The detectives try to incorporate that dry "Law and Order" humor they used to have when they first found a body, but it just didn't seem to fly most of the time. Once or twice though it really hit the mark. I'd suggest this one for fans of horror with a motivated killer that has clear intentions and who like their heroes smarter than the average "kids in danger" around them.
Both are streaming on Amazon Prime, currently.
"Spaceship Terror" on IMDB http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1965108/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
"Dead of Knight" on IMDB http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1367177/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
Don't have Prime?
Never fear. "Dead of Knight" is available on YouTube with ad supported viewing. "Dead of Knight" on YouTube.
Title: Pussy Kills
Director: Gabriel Black
Where to see it: Amazon Prime
This is another movie that is "Free" if you subscribe to Amazon Prime. Expect to see a lot more of these, as Prime has become either a "dumping ground" or major destination (depending on your point of view) for independent genre movies every since they initiated Amazon Video Direct.
Some movies, like my own "Lumber vs Jack" or "Alien Vengeance II: Rogue Element" are even properly FREE if you're willing to sit through some ads. (Those two are free until Dec 24, 2017 and then revert to Prime)
Anyway, back to the movie at hand, "Pussy Kills".
Let me start with a WARNING: This is a "rape revenge" movie, so it does feature a rape scene that may be especially disturbing for some viewers. That said, the scene is done "well", in the sense that it is disturbing. It does make you hate the bad guys. It makes you believe the motivation of the heroine and it does not attempt to use the scene as means of titillating the viewer. So, it's as "right" as a scene like this can be, which means it's going to be disturbing.
Lina Mayaplays Susie and her alter ego, Pussy. The basic plot is that her parents were killed, the cops don't seem to be doing much about it and when she tries to investigate the criminals herself, things go horribly wrong, sending her on vengeance fueled rampage.
Actually, here, just give the trailer a view:
As you can see from the trailer, the acting is pretty solid, if not totally even throughout the entire cast. The cinematography was impressive for an indie. There were no audio issues to speak of and most of the F/X were pretty effective. On a technical level, this movie rates pretty high for what was obviously a low budget endeavor. There was a snow or ash filter that seemed to be used for no apparent reason. I found it more distracting than useful, but I'm sure the editor or director had some reason for using it. Also, at one point some muzzle flashes are overused, but otherwise the gunplay was pretty good for an indie movie of this type.
The revenge scenes with Pussy tracking down her prey were a bit random, but overall the kills were pretty creative. The story was easy to follow and the action sequences were well done.
If you like revenge movies, exploitation movies or even horror movies (this is more of an action flick, but some of the kills will appeal to horror fans), then this is definitely worth giving a watch, especially if you already have Amazon Prime.
If a sequel is made, I'd watch that too.
And keep an eye out for Lina Maya. I have a feeling we'll be seeing more of her.
