Turkish Star Wars [Dünyayi Kurtaran Adam] (1982) Review

Dünyayi Kurtaran Adam AKA Turkish Star Wars (1982)
Director: Çetin Inanç

Writer: Cüneyt Arkin

Producer: Mehmet Karahafiz

Editor: Necdet Tok

Cinematography: Çetin Gürtop

Music: No Original Music

Starring: Cüneyt Arkin, Aytekin Akkaya, Füsun Uçar, Hüseyin Peyda, and Necla Fide

Best Credit: All the composers they ripped off. Just scroll to "Music Department"

Runtime: 1 hour 31 minutes

Rating: None (Comparable to PG)

Genre: Sci-Fi, Space Opera, Action/Adventure

Release Date: 1982 (no date)

Intro:  One morning, I was searching b-movie clips on Youtube and I came across a video that had what it considered the worst scenes of all time. In the comments, somebody put that a movie called Turkish Star Wars was worse than all of them put together. This, of course, piqued my interest, and I was able to find a version of the movie on Youtube and decided to give it a watch. Well, this was one of the most interesting decisions I have made in a while. Turkish Star Wars was something else. It was across the board awful, but at the same time entertaining and hilarious because of this. It is a blatant ripoff of Star Wars, recycling its shots and music, and it has hilariously bad special effects and action sequences. This one was a special b-movie that kind of left me with my mouth open wondering if I really just saw what I saw, but in a good way.

Plot: To be truly honest, I'm not exactly sure what the plot was.  It's kinda all like the weirdest dream you've ever had. You don't know why and how stuff is happening, but dammit, stuff is happening and you have to go along with it. From IMDb: "Two space cadets crash-land on a desert planet, where an evil wizard seeks the ultimate power to take over the world." Also, "The earth divides in to meteors after a nuclear war. Now Cuneyt Arkin and his friend Aytekin Akkaya has to fight against unknown enemy who is looking for human brains, which he will use to destroy the human kind." I'm surprised people got a plot out of this thing.

Things people may find “objectionable”: There are a lot of fight scenes, but they are so badly choreographed that none of them are brutal at all. There is a little bit of blood, but very little. I'd say it's comparable to the movie it rips off, Star Wars, as far as content is concerned.

What was Good: Nothing

What Could Have Been Better:

     -Directing/Cinematography: Bad. It's clear the director is not very good at his job. Several times throughout the movie, there's shot sequences that make absolutely no sense because they're moving to fast or badly edited. Since the director is the main one in charge of the production, I'm blaming all the terribleness of this movie on him.

     -Special Effects: Absolutely awful. Holy crap. First of all, the director steals shots from Star Wars every time he needs an space scene. There's a space battle within the first few minutes of the movie and the bad guys are supposed to be attacking the earth. The entire sequence is just a bad montage of random Star Wars clips of ships flying in and around the Death Star. Then there's the props. Late in the movie, a magical sword plays into the plot. When shown, it is more than clear how fake-looking it is. It looks like it's a fake sword made out of wood or something, probably because it was. And finally, there's the monsters. It's clear that it's just a bunch of people wearing stupid-looking costumes, and it comes off as hilariously bad. I think I've seen better costumes from an amateur theater production.

     -Script: Well, I'm not exactly sure since I don't speak Turkish. I'm just going to assume it was bad. I used Youtube subtitles, which was an interesting experience because they were cool and a nice feature to Youtube but sometimes they didn't provide the most accurate translations. See picture to the left for an example.

     -Music/Score: Well, it was actually a bright spot in the movie, because for the most part, the music was good. The only problem is that this good music was shamelessly stolen from Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark. You'll just be sitting there watching a fight scene when all of a sudden, they start playing the Indiana Jones theme. It's so hilarious out of context. There was also a little bit of original music, but it was everything you'd expect out of a low-budget 1980s Turkish space opera in that it was incredibly cheesy.

     -Acting: Not horrible, but definitely not what I'd call good. This wasn't really an emphasis of the movie, and for the most part the movie can be understood just as well without any of the dialogue (a lot of people watched it without subtitles). It was just one of those things that didn't stick out as being particularly average or bad.

     -Story: Since I picked up little of the plot and it's evident from the IMDb reviews that a lot of others didn't either, I think it's safe to say it wasn't written or told exceptionally well. Also, as I mentioned earlier
     -Originality: Well, I'll admit I've never seen anything quite like Turkish Star Wars, and I'm pretty sure that isn't a good thing. I can't say it's original since it rips off so much crap from Lucasfilm, whether it be the soundtrack from Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark or all the space scenes from Star Wars. Hell, half the movie is just ripping off Lucasfilm. The story is also your typical space opera plot where this average guy gets this powerful weapon and defeats the guy trying to take over the galaxy.

     -Characters/Emotional Involvement: I did not care about any of the characters. I barely even felt like I knew any of them. The characters were about as two-dimensional as you can get.

     -Action/Suspense: Other than the use of Star Wars footage and music, it was the most entertaining part of the movie, just because of how ridiculous it was. The fight scenes were badly choreographed and looked totally faked. Sometimes they even used the old technique of speeding up the camera to make things look like they happened faster, which sometimes works, but not in this case and it just ends up looking really lame. To get a taste of the action sequences and the whole movie, check out the video to the right. -------------------------------------------------->

     -Editing: Simply terrible, especially when they inserted the stolen Star Wars shots. The shots were recycled, which is always a no-no in filmmaking, and they were edited in a way that made no sense. If there are any aspiring editors out there reading this, watch the movie to learn what not to do.

Final Score: One phrase sums up my reaction to Turkish Star Wars fairly well: What the hell did I just watch? This thing is so ridiculous, it really needs to be seen to be believed. It is truly one of the most shockingly bad movies I have ever seen. If you're a die-hard b-movie fan like myself, this one should be on your watch list. If you aren't, steer clear or just watch some clips of its best moments on Youtube.

Enjoying my reviews? Like my Facebook Page.

Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter (1966) Review

The movie was released as a double feature
with Billy the Kid vs. Dracula. It makes
sense because the movies have the same
director, producer, writer, cinematographer,
and orchestrator.

JESSE JAMES MEETS FRANKENSTEIN'S DAUGHTER (1966)
Director: William Beaudine*

Writer: Carl Hittleman*

Producer: Carroll Case*

Editor: Hahahahaha!!! There's no editor listed!! This should tell you something about this fine film!

Cinematography: Lothrop Worth*

Music: Raoul Kraushaar*

Starring: John Lupton, Narda Onyx, Cal Bolder, Estelita Rodriguez, Jim Davis, and Steven Geray

Runtime: 1 hour 28 minutes

Rating: None (Comparable to PG)

Genre: Western, Horror, Sci-Fi

Release Date: April 10, 1966

*= held the same position for Billy the Kid vs. Dracula

Things people may find “objectionable”: There is one gunfight scene that isn't that bad. There is also a little blood, but barely any. In no way is it dripping or gushing out. It's just a wound or two. Finally, there are a couple scenes involving strangling, but it isn't that violent compared with the kind of stuff you see in movies today. Though it isn't rated, I'd say it's comparable to PG.

Intro: This October was great for bad movies. The sad truth is, I only DVR-ed two, this and Billy the Kid vs. Dracula, but these two were totally worth it. As promised in my review of Billy the Kid vs. Dracula, here is the review of its companion piece Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter. The two movies were released as a double feature and the crew is almost identical for both. You would then assume the two movies would be similar in terms of badness and enjoyability, but this isn't the case. Though both movies are quite bad, Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter is the worse, and yet more enjoyable, of he two just because of how bad it is. The writing, acting, and special effects are crap and it's ridden with historical inaccuracies and stupidity,  which serve as proof that the filmmakers just didn't give a crap. And this makes it enjoyable if you're a bad movie fan like me.

Plot: After a failed stagecoach robbery, Jesse James (Lupton) and his partner Hank Tracy (Bolder) are on the run for the law. Tracy is badly injured by a bullet wound and he needs to get to a doctor, but the two have nowhere to go, since they will be arrested if they go near any town. They soon meet a local named Juanita (Rodriguez) who leads them to a doctor in a castle a few miles out of town. This doctor is Maria Frankenstein (Onyx), the famous Frankenstein's granddaughter (the title is a misnomer) who relocated from Europe to practice more freely. With one experimental brain from her grandfather left, Maria needs new test subjects other than some local boys she has used and killed in the process. When Jesse and Hank come by, Maria sees an opportunity in Hank to help her get power. Jesse must try and save Hank and Juanita from Maria before it's too late and she begins to gain power.

Ratings:

     -Directing/Cinematography: 5/10. Not horrible, but not exceptional. I feel pretty much any guy with a camera and a tripod could've done just as good of a job. It wasn't special in the least.

     -Acting: 3/10. It's kind of interesting since I saw this movie only a few days after seeing Lincoln. The acting in Lincoln was phenomenal and worthy of all kinds of Oscars. Then you get to Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter. The acting was crap. The actors could all read their lines ok, but most of them weren't great at conveying emotions. It became funny sometimes watching the actors try and fail epically at conveying emotion. The best and funniest part about the acting was the actors trying to speak spanish and totally sounding like a bunch of ignorant white guys who didn't even know what they were saying. And that's probably how it was too.

     -Writing: 3/10.

          -Story: 3/10. "Hmm... We want to make a western, but I also kinda want to make a horror film." "I got it! Let's combine them! We'll have Jesse James meet Frankenstein's daughter! That's brilliant!" I have a feeling this is how they writers came up with the idea for the story.

          -Script: 3/10. Extremely uninspiring script. It was written by the same guy who wrote Billy the Kid vs. Dracula, so you can imagine how good it is. 

     -Special Effects: 2/10. Terrible. It's fun to laugh at just how bad some of the sets are. In some shots, it's clear that there's a town for a good 40-50 feet and the rest is pretty obviously a painting. The best moment is when they zoom in on the painting to look at the castle, showing you even more clearly that it's a painting.

     -Music/Score: 3/10. Nothing at all special about the score. It didn't stick out at all. It was just kinda there.

     -Power/Emotion: 1/10. They try to make you care about the characters by putting love stories and emotional backgrounds to the characters, but it really doesn't work. I can't say I really cared that deeply about any of the characters. I think I could care more about the used kleenex I have in my pocket (which I threw out while writing this sentence) than a majority of these characters.

     -Adrenaline: 2/10. Not really exciting at all, but at least after the first 30 minutes the plot actually goes somewhere unlike Billy the Kid vs. Dracula's.

     -Intelligence: 1/10. The movie was created for cheap entertainment and a quick profit, and that's really all it's good for. See stupidity section below.

     -Stupidity: 9/10. Oh this factors in quite a bit. First of all, the name is stupid and the idea is stupid. The point of this and Billy the Kid vs. Dracula was to make a quick profit off the name alone, and their goal was achieved. Also, holy crap, the historical inaccuracies! Here's a list of just a couple below, plus a really stupid shot.
          -Historical Inaccuracies: Part of the stupidity section, but needed another section to cover them all. For this, let's assume the movie takes place in the 1870s or early 1880s, since Jesse James died in 1882. Yes, I really did take the time to look this up and find these shots.

Licking an envelope

               -Licking an envelope: The glued envelopes you lick, or "gummed envelopes" were invented around the 1890s. The invention of envelopes you lick came at least 5 years after the movie is supposed to take place.

Plastic Helmet

Backwards desk. Notice the drawers

      -Plastic Helmets: It's pretty clear that the mind-helmet thing Maria uses to kickstart Igor/Hank has at least some plastic in it. The plastic we know today wasn't invented until 1907, at least 25 years after the movie is supposed to take place.
          -This Shot--------->: Notice how Maria Frankenstein is sitting at a desk. Also notice how all the drawers and place where she puts her chair are facing the audience. In other words, she's sitting on the wrong side of the desk. Yes, the desk is backwards, Ladies and Gentlemen.

     -Humor: Intentional: 1/10; Unintentional: 5/10. Laughing at the stupidity and historical inaccuracies was fun. The acting was also hilariously bad at times. Definitely an entertaining bad movie when you pay attention to some of the details. Much funnier than its counterpart, Billy the Kid vs. Dracula.

     -Best Credit: None. They had a pretty minuscule cast and crew.

     -Final Score: Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter was both worse and better than Billy the Kid vs. Dracula. While it was a worse movie, this made it watchable and entertaining, unlike its counterpart. If you're looking for a stupid movie and/or cheap entertainment, watch Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter instead of Billy the Kid vs. Dracula. If nothing else, make sure you count the historical inaccuracies. And you think I trashed it? This article argues that it's the worst Western ever made.

Liking my reviews? Like my Facebook page.

I Eat Your Skin (1964) Review

I EAT YOUR SKIN (1964)

I Eat Your Skin was originally named Voodoo Blood Bath,
but the name was changed so it could be released as a double
feature with the grindhouse movie I Drink Your Blood. The
movie has nothing to do with cannibalism. Here's the trailer.
Notice how there are no scenes shown from I Eat Your Skin.

Director: Del Tenney

Writer(s): Del Tenney

Producer(s): Del Tenney, Jesse Hartman, and Dan Stapleton

Editor(s): Larry Keating

Music: Lon E. Norman

Starring: William Joyce, Heather Hewitt, Betty Hyatt Linton, Dan Stapleton, Walter Coy, and Robert Stanton

Runtime: 1 hour 20 minutes

Rating: Not Rated (Comprable to PG)

Genre: Horror

Release Date: October 29, 1971 (made in 1964)

Intro: Well it turns out this movie is a bit of a misnomer (which I explain with the caption on the poster) because well, there's absolutely no cannibalism in the entire movie. When I decided to watch it, I really didn't care. I was at a used CD and DVD store the afternoon before and I came across a DVD with a double feature of this little masterpiece and a Bela Lugosi movie called Scared to Death. It was $3 and I really couldn't resist, and thus this movie became that evening's entertainment. I Eat Your Skin was terrible in pretty much every way possible, yet its badness provided enough entertainment to make itself worth the $3 I spent on it (and I haven't even seen Scared to Death yet!).

Plot: A playboy/author named Tom Harris (Joyce) is out of ideas for his novels, so his boss, Duncan Fairchild (Stapleton) sends him on a vacation to this island where voodoo is being practiced so he can get ideas. Harris, his boss, and his boss's wife Coral (Linton) all fly a private plane to the island and make it there just before it runs out of fuel. The group soon meets up with Dr. Biladeau (Stanton) and Charles Bentley (Coy) who are doing cancer research on the island. Harris soon meets the obvious love interest in Dr. Biladeau's daughter (Hewitt). Meanwhile, natives are also doing their voodoo sacrifice thing and the group is soon attacked by horrifying(-ly bad) zombies that are supposedly created by injecting the dead with snake venom. As his love, and everyone else, falls into danger, Harris must try and save everyone from the natives and their zombies as he tries to uncover a connection.

Things people may find “objectionable”: The movie can get sexist and a little racist at times, but put in the context of the early 1960s, when the movie was made, it can be seen that these were the common views of the time, even if they are objectionable nowadays. The only really gruesome moment is when a zombie hacks off someone's head with a machete. There is absolutely no blood and the scene is done so poorly it becomes laughable, so it really isn't that bad.

Ratings:

     -Directing/Cinematography: 2/10. This movie really was the full vision of its director Del Tenney, who also co-wrote and co-produced it. Sadly, this full vision is stupid and the directing is not very good.

     -Acting: 1/10. Terrible acting. The best actors in this movie are mediocre at acting at very best. The worst performance by far (maybe in the history of mankind) is Betty Hyatt Linton as Coral Fairchild. She plays a spoiled, egotistical wife of the businessman Tom works for. Every time she opened her mouth, I wanted to go Van Gogh on myself and cut off my ears to stop the pain. I was cheering for her character to die the whole movie because I would cringe at every line she said. It's no wonder why her acting career never took off. Also, one of the main villains has a curious resemblance to Al Capone. Observe:

 Al Capone, as played by Robert De Niro in The
Untouchables. 

            A main bad guy in I Eat Your Skin.              

     -Writing: 1.5/10.

          -Story: 2/10. Stupid story with some gaping plot holes.

          -Script: 1/10. Crap. Complete and utter crap. The lines are almost all stupid. The worst lines are the ones they wrote for some of the characters to speak in spanish. They are extremely stupid and simple lines like, "No puedo hacer más!" That is about the most complex line in spanish you will get. It was so bad that I, with my three years of high school spanish, was able to point out mistakes in the spanish. 

     -Special Effects: 1/10. The movie is 48 years old, I get that and the fact that special effects back then were nowhere near as good as they are today. Having said that, the special effects are bad, even for the mid-1960s. The zombies look like they are made by simply putting a papier maché mask on the actors, and the explosions and other effects are laughably awful.

     -Music/Score: 2/10. Incredibly cheesy music throughout.

     -Power/Emotion: 2/10. I really didn't care at all about any of the characters. In fact, I was rooting for all the bad actors and actresses to die throughout just so I didn't have to endure any more of their acting.

     -Adrenaline: 2/10. Not really exciting at all. They try to make it exciting, but they fail pretty badly.

     -Stupidity: 9/10. Stupid is the movie's middle name. I think the producers picked up on that when the movie was first made, since they refused to release it for 7 years until someone needed a filler movie for a double feature. This magnificent shot contributes to the movie's overall stupidity:

Just in case you're confused, the box the zombie is holding is EXPLOSIVE.

     -Humor: Intentional: n/a, Unintentional: 5/10. The movie is not intended to be that funny. However, it ends up being funny just because of how bad the acting and the special effects are.

     -Final Score: I Eat Your Skin was truly awful in pretty much every way imaginable. Its badness both ruins and saves the movie at the same time. While its badness makes the movie bad, the badness is funny enough that it makes the movie watchable and worth my precious $3.