I thought you said you liked bad movies that weren’t intended to be bad? This movie doesn’t look like it tried and failed, it looks like it didn’t try in the first place.
Well, I suppose it was also intended to be funny and it failed at that, so there’s something at least.
I was supposed to give this a real review when it first came out on whether it was good or bad. Needless to say I told the guy I couldn’t do the review, I think you did the best job any reviewer could have said it. It’s good, but it’s bad. It’s really bad. But you wont forget it.
Just from the review, I can already tell this movie is glorious and I love it. Everything about it. I can’t believe it exists, and I’m glad it does. I’m need to find out where I can watch this.
Oh and there were only so many proper responses to say about the entire thing, that you didn’t come off as a broken record at all…..well maybe one response would’ve made the review better: “That policewoman crushed by the car became a policewoman sandwich!”
Man, brava Lupa. This is truly a perfect bad movie. I also know about a green screen fiasco, but it is no where near as genius bad as this. This is an obvious must see.
This movie makes “Metal Man” seem like a high budget Hollywood masterpiece! I wanted to punch that Bruce Banner wanna-be so many times when he made his wussy face. I really liked your green screen effects! Perhaps you could make a Wonder Woman movie? Can’t be worse than this film. 😀
Do you know WHY it can’t be reviewed? Do you know WHY this is the only thing you’re right about? Well, I’ll tell you anyhow so I guess these questions are pretty silly, rhetorical or not. So… I’ll begin by admitting I don’t get your series, at all. You review Z-movies, ok, fine, by all means do. But why, for the love of god Lupa, WHY do you think its a good idea to simply point out why they’re bad and make fun of them for that? Because the thing with Z-movies is, that ANYBODY who understands at least a bit about how and why movies work, gets why a Z-movie is bad. And I assume that this is your target audience even, because if someone doesn’t get why a Z-movie is bad he/she won’t get your reviews. Then, within your, assumed, target audiende, there are 2 kinds of people: people who can see the humor in Z-movies (who don’t need you pointing out what’s funny about it) and people who don’t see the humor in Z-movies (who wouldn’t get your reviews anyway.) Do you see where I’m going with this? The weird thing is however, that you seem to be aware of this on some level. By saying stuff like ‘this movie can’t be reviewed’, ‘I can’t even properly critique this’ and ‘I can only point like a braindamaged monkey and go ‘Look! Look at this!” you HAVE to be aware of how obviously bad everything about this movie is that every utterence of critique on it is completely redundant and feels like someone is explaining a joke you already got over and over again. What makes it worse in my opinion is that you only scrape the surface here. Your ‘monkey’ line actually isn’t that far from the truth. Why not see if you can contact someone who worked on it and shine a light on how such a bad story was ever made into a movie, why the execution of that process was even worse and whether the creator[s] knew it was awful or not. Heck, you could even delve into some of that stuff quite easily without talking to someone who worked on it, it just takes a little critical analysis. And I guess that’s what I find most lacking in this review, and your other reviews I saw. Where’s the analysis? I mean, having watched this review and the trailer for this movie I got a pretty good feeling for what the creator[s] was/were going for. Sure, it failed horribly on probably every possible level, but there was a core concept to this that could have worked. Never heard you say anything about that, and, well, that’s a shame. Acknowledging that there was some sort of effort here and showing us what ideas/plotlines could have worked, would have automatically shed a light on why the execution failed so badly. How that happened will probably remain a mystery forever but at least you would have given us a bit of explanation on why it’s so bad on so many levels, which is imo something you should do as a reviewer. You can’t point at the CGI and tell us its just as bad as we already see it is. You can’t go like ‘omg this guy’s acting is so bad’ eventhough that’s obvious to anybody who has eyes OR ears (let alone both). You need to dig a little deeper and try to make sense out of something that probably doesn’t make sense to a lot of people. That’s what reviewers do, they use their expertise on something to give an audience their take on the work. And taking a look at your colleagues on this site there are so many ways to do that. You don’t seem to use (or perhaps even have) any expertise here, you don’t seem to have an own take on the movie. Your reaction is how most people who can enjoy bad movies would react. Tell us something that isn’t completely obvious Lupa…
Oh and there’s this one thing you said twice in this review that really bugged me because its simply not true. References on themselves CAN BE, and sometimes ARE, funny. A reference CAN be a joke you know. Did you perhaps ever take the time to watch one of Phelous’ reviews? He kinda, sorta, uses this type of joke all the time. Sure, not always with success, but it CAN work, well even. So, wtf? Just because a reference as a joke doesn’t work in what’s already a production where obviously NOTHING works, references as jokes as a whole simply never work? This ‘logic’ is a highschool example of a fallacy.
P.S.
Comparing this, or Birdemic for that matter, to The Room really comes across as if you have no idea of what you’re talking about. I’ll gladly explain why if you’re interested, just let me know.
P.P.S.
I tried to make this post as constructive as I possibly could without trying to insult you. If this post however would come across as insulting to you I apologize. I feel very strongly about the matter and I sincerely hope you read the entire thing and at least think about it. It was not, at any point, meant to insult.
Well, that was a uselessly long post, well, both useless and long, seeing how Lupa has explained why before, and the whole post can be shortened to “derp”.
Pointless post and obnoxiously long, which could be summed up as
“I do not like your reviews. You just point out the flaws and react like anyone would and I do not like that. Look at Phelous. References are SO funny arf arf arf!”
P.P.P.P.P.S.: Lupa compared this movie to Birdemic and The Room because they are both renowned to be very bad movies which are also extremely funny to watch.
P.P.P.P.P.P.F.T.Y.U.S.C.G.H.U.S: OLP is not meant to be Siskel and Ebert. Lupa simply “presents” bad movies to us. That’s the name of the game.
Still, for all the awfulness, I think it was NOT laziness. I think it was done on purpose. The director of the movie has worked as an editor for Tales of the Crypt and Mystic Pizza… so I doubt he was even remotely serious when he made this.
I think this is something meant to be cheesy and cheap.
I have a feeling this project was just one big laugh. IMBD even lists it as a “Video” and not even a film.
Actually I really would like to know the story behind this movie… must be a laugh!
23 Comments Comments RSS
good review lupa im surprised your I.Q is still intact after reviewing this.
Search Tender Loving Care on this site and watch Allison go slowly insane.
Is this movie really exist? Is that true? Well, I need to watch it before I could say that I’ve seen everything in my life.
I love how you ripped the Cinema Snob a new one. Keep it up.
hey i didnt know jerrid foiles was in this 😛
I thought the exact same thing when I saw him!
I LOL’d so hard when Lupa was doing a fake run way more convincingly than the actual “actors” in this stupid movie. Great review!
ITS THE INFRAGGABLE KRUNK!
I thought you said you liked bad movies that weren’t intended to be bad? This movie doesn’t look like it tried and failed, it looks like it didn’t try in the first place.
Well, I suppose it was also intended to be funny and it failed at that, so there’s something at least.
I was supposed to give this a real review when it first came out on whether it was good or bad. Needless to say I told the guy I couldn’t do the review, I think you did the best job any reviewer could have said it. It’s good, but it’s bad. It’s really bad. But you wont forget it.
It’s like Beyond the Mind’s Eye f**ked an FMV game & they had a baby, or if Peasent’s Quest the Movie had been filmed in the 1st season of ReBoot.
What? Comic Sans is the only font I use for anything.
I like how they couldn’t be assed to add shadows to anything, so everything looks like it’s floating. Oh, no wait…They did give that boulder a shadow.
Noooo! Nooooo! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
That Bulk kinda almost looks like a troll from the Lord of the Rings trilogy, if it was animated by a cat and made of bubblegum.
It’s glorious.
Just from the review, I can already tell this movie is glorious and I love it. Everything about it. I can’t believe it exists, and I’m glad it does. I’m need to find out where I can watch this.
Oh and there were only so many proper responses to say about the entire thing, that you didn’t come off as a broken record at all…..well maybe one response would’ve made the review better: “That policewoman crushed by the car became a policewoman sandwich!”
I love how the alley criminal’s gun changes from a semi automatic to a revolver when he makes the 3D shot.
Man, brava Lupa. This is truly a perfect bad movie. I also know about a green screen fiasco, but it is no where near as genius bad as this. This is an obvious must see.
Holy shit, I have to find and bring this to our next horrid movie night, guys are gonna laugh their asses off at this.
This movie makes “Metal Man” seem like a high budget Hollywood masterpiece! I wanted to punch that Bruce Banner wanna-be so many times when he made his wussy face. I really liked your green screen effects! Perhaps you could make a Wonder Woman movie? Can’t be worse than this film. 😀
This can’t be reviewed.
Do you know WHY it can’t be reviewed? Do you know WHY this is the only thing you’re right about? Well, I’ll tell you anyhow so I guess these questions are pretty silly, rhetorical or not. So… I’ll begin by admitting I don’t get your series, at all. You review Z-movies, ok, fine, by all means do. But why, for the love of god Lupa, WHY do you think its a good idea to simply point out why they’re bad and make fun of them for that? Because the thing with Z-movies is, that ANYBODY who understands at least a bit about how and why movies work, gets why a Z-movie is bad. And I assume that this is your target audience even, because if someone doesn’t get why a Z-movie is bad he/she won’t get your reviews. Then, within your, assumed, target audiende, there are 2 kinds of people: people who can see the humor in Z-movies (who don’t need you pointing out what’s funny about it) and people who don’t see the humor in Z-movies (who wouldn’t get your reviews anyway.) Do you see where I’m going with this? The weird thing is however, that you seem to be aware of this on some level. By saying stuff like ‘this movie can’t be reviewed’, ‘I can’t even properly critique this’ and ‘I can only point like a braindamaged monkey and go ‘Look! Look at this!” you HAVE to be aware of how obviously bad everything about this movie is that every utterence of critique on it is completely redundant and feels like someone is explaining a joke you already got over and over again. What makes it worse in my opinion is that you only scrape the surface here. Your ‘monkey’ line actually isn’t that far from the truth. Why not see if you can contact someone who worked on it and shine a light on how such a bad story was ever made into a movie, why the execution of that process was even worse and whether the creator[s] knew it was awful or not. Heck, you could even delve into some of that stuff quite easily without talking to someone who worked on it, it just takes a little critical analysis. And I guess that’s what I find most lacking in this review, and your other reviews I saw. Where’s the analysis? I mean, having watched this review and the trailer for this movie I got a pretty good feeling for what the creator[s] was/were going for. Sure, it failed horribly on probably every possible level, but there was a core concept to this that could have worked. Never heard you say anything about that, and, well, that’s a shame. Acknowledging that there was some sort of effort here and showing us what ideas/plotlines could have worked, would have automatically shed a light on why the execution failed so badly. How that happened will probably remain a mystery forever but at least you would have given us a bit of explanation on why it’s so bad on so many levels, which is imo something you should do as a reviewer. You can’t point at the CGI and tell us its just as bad as we already see it is. You can’t go like ‘omg this guy’s acting is so bad’ eventhough that’s obvious to anybody who has eyes OR ears (let alone both). You need to dig a little deeper and try to make sense out of something that probably doesn’t make sense to a lot of people. That’s what reviewers do, they use their expertise on something to give an audience their take on the work. And taking a look at your colleagues on this site there are so many ways to do that. You don’t seem to use (or perhaps even have) any expertise here, you don’t seem to have an own take on the movie. Your reaction is how most people who can enjoy bad movies would react. Tell us something that isn’t completely obvious Lupa…
Oh and there’s this one thing you said twice in this review that really bugged me because its simply not true. References on themselves CAN BE, and sometimes ARE, funny. A reference CAN be a joke you know. Did you perhaps ever take the time to watch one of Phelous’ reviews? He kinda, sorta, uses this type of joke all the time. Sure, not always with success, but it CAN work, well even. So, wtf? Just because a reference as a joke doesn’t work in what’s already a production where obviously NOTHING works, references as jokes as a whole simply never work? This ‘logic’ is a highschool example of a fallacy.
P.S.
Comparing this, or Birdemic for that matter, to The Room really comes across as if you have no idea of what you’re talking about. I’ll gladly explain why if you’re interested, just let me know.
P.P.S.
I tried to make this post as constructive as I possibly could without trying to insult you. If this post however would come across as insulting to you I apologize. I feel very strongly about the matter and I sincerely hope you read the entire thing and at least think about it. It was not, at any point, meant to insult.
Well, that was a uselessly long post, well, both useless and long, seeing how Lupa has explained why before, and the whole post can be shortened to “derp”.
Pointless post and obnoxiously long, which could be summed up as
“I do not like your reviews. You just point out the flaws and react like anyone would and I do not like that. Look at Phelous. References are SO funny arf arf arf!”
P.P.P.P.P.S.: Lupa compared this movie to Birdemic and The Room because they are both renowned to be very bad movies which are also extremely funny to watch.
P.P.P.P.P.P.F.T.Y.U.S.C.G.H.U.S: OLP is not meant to be Siskel and Ebert. Lupa simply “presents” bad movies to us. That’s the name of the game.
X.Y.Z.: See a doctor for your logorrhea.
BEST MOVIE EVER!!!!!!!!!
Ok this movie is bad… but so much fun!
Still, for all the awfulness, I think it was NOT laziness. I think it was done on purpose. The director of the movie has worked as an editor for Tales of the Crypt and Mystic Pizza… so I doubt he was even remotely serious when he made this.
I think this is something meant to be cheesy and cheap.
I have a feeling this project was just one big laugh. IMBD even lists it as a “Video” and not even a film.
Actually I really would like to know the story behind this movie… must be a laugh!
I’m unable to find a copy of this movie. Just clips. Excellent, excellent clips.
Oh… Found it. The keyword was adding “watch” to the movie’s title in a Google search. Wow, I really failed there.