Godmonster of Indian Flats (1973) Review

GODMONSTER OF INDIAN FLATS (1973)
Director: Fredric Hobbs

Writer: Fredric Hobbs

Producers: Robert Bremson, Fredric Hobbs, E. Prentice Welles, and Stephen Williams

Editor: Richard Brummer

Cinematography: William Heick

Music: Henri Price

Starring: Christopher Brooks, Stuart Lancaster, E. Kerrigan Prescott, Peggy Browne, Richard Marion, and Karen Ingenthron

Runtime: 1 hour 29 minutes

Rating: Not Rated (Comparable to PG)

Genre: Western, Horror

Release Date: 1973 (no date given)

Intro: I've recently gotten into Reddit. One of the subreddits I follow is r/badmovies (upon finding it, I exclaimed, "my people!"). I found Godmonster of Indian Flats because somebody posted a link to the full movie and the comments all said it was hilariously bad. So, I decided to give this one a shot. I... just don't really know what to make of it. Godmonster of Indian Flats misfires just about everywhere and has a completely incomprehensible storyline that culminates in a nonsensical, yet unbelievable ending and a hilarious monster, a giant mutant sheep.

Plot: The plot is so complicated and nonsensical. I'm going to try my best to highlight it. In an old west mining town and tourist trap in Nevada, an African American businessman from the east named Barnstable (Brooks) comes to the town hoping to buy the mines and get them up and running again, but meets a lot of opposition from the locals. Meanwhile, a local sheep farmer wakes up from hallucinations to find a mutant sheep embryo that suddenly appears next to him. He takes it to a laboratory to be experimented on it as it grows into a hellbeast.

Things People May Find “Objectionable”: There's some very mild swearing and a little bit of blood, but nothing too bad. I mean, it was made for TV in the 70s, so they couldn't show much.

What wasn't Horrible:

     -Humor: None to speak of in the way of intentional humor. Unintentional humor comes from the ridiculousness of the monster and laughing at just how poorly done everything is. I mean, this movie even fails to tell its story. That's saying something.

     -Script: The script wasn't horrible, but it was pretty bland. I really can't say too much about it one way or another.

     -Directing/Cinematography: The shots were all fairly static and boring. Also, there were hardly any close-ups at all. It made things rather boring to look at. 

Yes, that's the monster in the background.

     -Acting: I'm currently drinking a glass of water. That glass of water, when I put it down, sits on a wooden table. Why am I telling you this? Because I think that table is less wooden than most of the actors' performances. The guy who plays the main character (can we call him that with all the storylines?) Barnstable is actually not bad, but the supporting cast really isn't great.

     -Originality: Godmonster of Indian Flats was extremely original. However, in this case, this was not a good thing. There's a reason nobody makes movies about a killer mutant sheep. It's because it's a stupid idea!!!!

What was Bad:

     -Story: There is one main problem with the story: IT MAKES NO GODDAMN SENSE!!!!!!! I ended up yelling the word "what?" at my TV so many times during this thing. Is it that hard to tell a cohesive story, guys?! For as stupid as the story as Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter had, at least they told it in a way that makes sense. This thing could've used way more plot exposition. Nothing is really explained and it's all sort of a guessing game at times as to what is happening. I've made it through Memento, Inception, and Primer, so believe me when I say this is far and away the most confusing movie I have ever seen. If you can understand this movie, you are a freaking genius.

     -The Ending: I really don't have the slightest idea what happened at the end of the movie. There's just this unbelievable and seemingly random sequence of events that seems like it would only make sense if you were on a lot of LSD. It kind of needs to be seen to be believed. It'll leave you shocked, astonished, and scratching your head. It is as astonishing as it is incomprehensible.

     -Characters/Emotional Involvement: I really didn't care about any of the characters, and in the end, it didn't matter for the most part who they were and what their relationships with one another were. The filmmakers just wasted a lot of time developing a lot of the characters. This technique is also called padding.

Think of this sign as being at the North Pole and
Godmonster of Indian Flats as the rest of the world, where
all the signs are pointing.

     -Sound: Pretty freaking bad. It's one of those things that you don't notice unless it's done badly. Well, I noticed it. The sheep sound effects were especially bad. They literally had like 3 different sound effects of a sheep and played them over and over again in every sheep scene. Also, there's one scene where a character fires a gun and I swear they use the worst gun sound effect ever. It literally sounds like someone hit a table lightly with their fist.

     -Action/Suspense: The movie is pretty boring for a while until the monster shows up. You just kind of have to get through the first hour of the movie to get to the worthwhile part, which is the last half hour or so.

     -Special Effects: With only a budget of $135,000, you can only guess the quality. Other than the monster, which was spectacularly bad and hilarious, there wasn't much. The monster. Oh man, was it unique or what? I mean, it's a giant mutant sheep that is blatantly a guy in a suit. It even stands on two legs. What sheep, even a mutant hellbest version of one, does that?!? The monster was probably the most entertaining part of the movie.

The Verdict: Godmonster of Indian Flats is a complete and utter mess. Just about everything misfires and it leaves the viewer scratching his or her head just trying to understand what is going on.  I've never taken LSD or any other hallucinogen, but I have a feeling that watching this movie gives you a pretty good idea as to what they are like. This one is just so unbelievably bad and will leave your head full of questions that really can't be answered. This movie just kind of has to be seen to be believed just because of its across the board failure and astonishing ending. If you're a b-movie fan, give this one a shot. It takes some patience, but then ending makes up for it and you really won't believe your eyes.

Liking my reviews? Like my Facebook page.

The Lone Ranger (2013) Review

THE LONE RANGER (2013) REVIEW
Director: Gore Verbinski

Writers: Justin Haythe, Ted Elliott, and Terry Rossio

Producers: Jerry Bruckheimer, Johnny Depp, Gore Verbinski, Ted Elliot, Eric McLeod, Chad Oman, Eric Ellenbogen, Terry Rossio, and Mike Stenson

Editors: James Haygood and Craig Wood

Cinematography: Bojan Bazelli

Music: Hans Zimmer

Starring: Armie Hamer, Johnny Depp, William Fichtner, Tom Wilkinson, Ruth Wilson, and Bryant Prince

Best Credit: Margaret Bowman as "Fat Lady"

Runtime: 2 hours 29 minutes

Rating: PG-13 (intense action and violence, some suggestive material)

Genre: Action/Adventure, Western

Release Date: July 3, 2013

Intro: Well, I went into this one with an open mind. This wasn't a movie I was going to go out of my way to see, but a couple friends were going, so I was like, why not? I could be in for seeing a western version of Pirates of the Caribbean, since that's what it seemed like it was. The Lone Ranger is far from flawless and its writing and lack of originality really drag it down, but it's still fairly entertaining thanks to the visuals, humor, and sometimes the action.

Plot: When district attorney John Reid (Hammer)'s train out west is attacked in order to free an outlaw on death row, Reid gets involved and with the help of an Indian slated for execution named Tonto (Depp), he manages to save the rest of the passengers on the train. Afterwards, they go their separate ways. Reid joins his brother, who makes him a Texas Ranger and takes him out to help find the refugee outlaw, Butch Cavendish (Fichtner). After things go badly for the rangers, Reid is reunited with Tonto, and they decide to pursue Cavendish together. Soon, they get mixed up in the ongoing conflicts with the provoking Indians, the railroad empire, and Butch Cavendish's gang of outlaws, and it's up to them to save the town and Reid's family.

Things people may find “objectionable”: There is a lot of violence and people getting shot and bleeding and so forth. This is surprising coming from a Disney movie, since the company is famous for family movies. Anyway, there isn't much of any objectionable stuff outside of the violence and blood, it's just there's a lot of it.

What was Good:

     -Acting: This was a bright spot for the movie. I really like Johnny Depp as an actor, as he can just disappear into roles, and I feel that he does so with Tonto. Armie Hammer is good as the title character and everyone else does a pretty good job, but Johnny Depp steals the show.

     -Music/Score: Pretty good score. As I've mentioned before, I don't think it's possible for Hans Zimmer to write a bad score and he is one of my favorite film composers. While this isn't his best work, it's better than your average movie score.

     -Directing/Cinematography: Not as visually striking as, say, a Star Trek: Into Darkness, but it definitely had decent visuals and some cool shots. The movie definitely looked good if nothing else. Gore Verbinski definitely knows how to direct.

Why we all love Johnny Depp

     -Action/Suspense: Well, you can't say there wasn't action in The Lone Ranger. It's even debatable that there was too much and that they should've spent more time on character development and the plot. Still, the action sequences were, for the most part, exciting. They probably could even have cut out a couple and shortened the movie slightly. In short, the action was good, but there was too much of an emphasis on it.

     -Humor: This was definitely a bright spot in the movie, and it mostly came from Johnny Depp. There were some very funny moments here and there, but not throughout the whole movie. The movie probably could have benefited from even more humor, as that's one thing it had going for it. 

     -Special Effects: Good special effects. Normally a western doesn't require many special effects, but this one was pretty heavy on them. Everything looked pretty realistic, and the visuals in general were a strong part of the movie.

What Could Have Been Better:
     -Characters/Emotional Involvement: Not the best. I feel like the characters were pretty flat. The filmmakers focused only on the action and in the process, forgot to develop the characters as much as they should have.

     -Story: Pretty cliché-ridden. It seemed to just follow a formulaic Western/Action plot with the typical conflicting natives and the greedy railroad bosses and the outlaws and so on. There really wasn't anything special here. There are also some mystical native american elements that fit in awkwardly and seem to be just thrown in there for the hell of it. The narrative they used also seemed unnecessary.

     -Script: The lines all seemed very cliché and cheesy. Tonto's lines especially seemed really cheesy and generic. It seems like the screenwriters just watched every movie with Native Americans in it and cut and pasted all the most stereotypical lines together. I don't know. It was just really unoriginal more than anything else. I feel I've heard most of the lines or variations of them before.

     -Originality: Sadly, there was very little. Everything was pretty formulaic and cliché. I wouldn't go see this movie and expect any innovation whatsoever. It seems like just another action-filled western.

     -Intelligence: This one's a no-brainer in that brain power isn't at all required. This is a movie that a brain-dead person could enjoy. This doesn't detract from the movie a whole lot, but don't go see it expecting to have your mind blown.

Final Score: I wouldn't say that The Lone Ranger is a great film in any way, shape or form. Having said  that, it is fairly entertaining. My advice is save your money and wait and watch it when it comes to Netflix, Redbox, and TV. It's entertaining and if you want a brainless action flick, fairly worth your time, but I wouldn't go out of your way to see it in theaters.

Enjoying my reviews? Like my Facebook Page .

Django Unchained (2012) Review

DJANGO UNCHAINED (2012)

Director: Quentin Tarantino

Writer: Quentin Tarantino

Producers: Shannon McIntosh, Michael Shamberg, James Skotchdopole, Bob Weinstein, and Harvey Weinstein

Editor: Fred Raskin

Cinematography: Robert Richardson

Music: Various artists

Starring: Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio, Kerry Washington, and Samuel L. Jackson

Runtime: 2 hours 45 minutes

Rating: R (violence, language, some nudity)

Genre: Western, Action, Drama

Release Date: December 25, 2012

Before Watching the Movie: Watch this trailer for the blaxploitation/grindhouse flick from the 70s called Boss N*****. Tarantino has explicitly stated that this is one of the movies he based Django Unchained on, and there are some obvious similarities.

Intro: I have never seen a Tarantino movie before, but I have heard a lot about them. I have also heard how violent they are. I first heard about this movie when I looked on IMDb to see what Leonardo DiCaprio was doing next (I am a fan of his). I was intrigued. Then when it came out and it started getting rave reviews, I decided to go see it with a friend. Django Unchained, as I guess is expected from Tarantino, is incredibly and over-the-top violent, but very well done otherwise with stylized directing, great acting, good writing, great music, and lots of intense action.

Plot: A former dentist turned bounty hunter named Dr. King Schultz (Waltz) finds a couple of slave owners looking for a slave named Django (Foxx), hoping he can help him find his previous owners, who Schultz is hunting. Schultz teaches Django to be a successful bounty hunter. After a while, the two get caught up in finding and freeing Django's wife named Broomhilda (Washington), who was sold off at the same time Django was. The search leads them to a Mississippi plantation called Candieland owned by the ruthless Calvin Candie (DiCaprio). Django and Schultz must try and free Broomhilda and escape Candieland unscathed.

Things people may find “objectionable”: Be warned before watching the movie that it is incredibly violent. If you are at all uncomfortable with blood, violence, and people being shot, this is not the movie for you. Aside from that, there is a ton of swearing, a lot of which is racial (it's period-accurate though) and there are a couple quick nudity shots (not in a sexual context), but the main thing is the massive and over-the-top amount of violence.

Ratings:

     -Directing/Cinematography: 10/10. This is the first Quentin Tarantino movie I have seen and I now know why people like him so much as a director (and a writer). The directing is really good and it's full of interesting shots. I definitely want to see more of his movies now.

     -Acting: 10/10. The acting was fantastic. Everyone was great in their respective roles. Jamie Foxx was great as Django and I'm guessing he'll probably be nominated for Best Actor (but won't win because of Daniel Day Lewis in Lincoln). Leonardo DiCaprio also plays a great evil character. I've always seen him as a protagonist, but he is just so evil as Calvin Candie in the movie. Samuel L. Jackson is also great as always.

     -Writing: 9.5/10.

          -Story: 9/10. Very good story. It was both original and interesting, though it did not have any plot twists. My only complaint is that I think it went on a bit too long. The ending was good and satisfying, but I saw several different and earlier points at which I thought it could've ended.

          -Script: 10/10. Tarantino can write! I have a feeling this is a strength for him considering how quoted his other movies seem to be. I liked the script a lot, in a nutshell.

     -Special Effects: 9/10. Not a huge part of the movie, aside from all the gunshots and blood and stuff from that, but what there was of it was good. 

One of the main movies Django Unchained was based
on, just with a more appropriate Spanish title. See the
trailer link up in the "Before the Movie" section.

     -Music/Score: 10/10. I loved the musical  choices. Tarantino picked great songs to accompany the movie and in some cases it helps ratchet up the tension.

     -Power/Emotion: 8/10. The most powerful emotion the movie evokes is the horrors of slavery. It shows the ugly side of racism and slavery and makes the audience feel bad for anyone in that situation. As for the characters, more of the feeling comes out in the adrenaline than it does for care for the characters. There are no real heroes in the movie. While Schultz and Django are technically "good guys," they are anti-heroes, and this makes them harder to feel compassionate for than other characters, though you do feel bad for Django, since his life has been torn apart by slavery and racism and you can understand his hatred of white men.

     -Adrenaline: 10/10. The movie gets extremely intense at times, especially in the last 45 minutes or so. Though the most intense parts are supposed to be the action scenes, I think the tension is highest in the talking scenes in Candieland.

     -Intelligence: 6/10. You could probably understand and get as much out of this movie if you were an MIT phd grad or a high school dropout. This isn't a bad thing, it just isn't that much of a thinking man's movie. It seemed to be relatively historically-accurate, though I really wasn't paying attention to that stuff. As long as you understand how horrible slavery was and the kinds of things that happened to slaves, you should be able to fully comprehend the movie.

     -Humor: 6/10. Though a lot of the movie is serious and intense, there are some truly hilarious moments. The scene with the KKK meeting killed me. It's absolutely hilarious. Aside from that, there are several witty lines throughout the movie.

     -Best Credit: Amber Tamblyn as "Daughter of a Son of a Gunfighter"

     -Final Score: Though on the surface, Django Unchained may just look like 2 and a half hours of senseless violence, the movie is extremely well-made and enjoyable if you don't mind blood and people being shot (I'd be willing to bet the body count is higher than Macbeth and Hamlet combined). I'd recommend Django Unchained to anyone who is a fan of Tarantino, who likes grindhouse or blaxploitation flicks from the 70s or someone who wants to see a very well-made movie and doesn't mind blood and violence.

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.