|
I would agree that he did a good job. This is a very low budget soft
core horror film, and it is too dark but those are the only negative
comments you will hear from me on this film. We have four women in
this film (Christina Baby, Ananda Saint James, Kennedy Johnston and
Cecelia Simon), and they all have several things in common. They are
all naked constantly, they all show everything including gyno-cam
shots, none of them have any previous credits at IMDB, none of them
appear to be surgically enhanced, and all of them deliver lines
convincingly.
The
story concerns a woman (Kennedy Johnston) who has inherited a haunted house
from her aunt, her boyfriend, another couple (Cecelia Simon and her
boyfriend), and another guy, all of whom have come to the house to fix it up
to sell. Johnston's boyfriend has promised everyone a party. At this
point, I smelled predictability, and was mistaken. Yes, the ghosts
do create the horror, and not everyone survives, but people don't
die immediately after having sex, no woman screams, trips, then
dies, and it takes a while before we realize who is real, who is
good and bad, etc. Ananda Saint James and Christina Baby both play
sexy ghosts.
|
|
It is the rare soft-core that is serious at all about plot, and most
of them have way to much footage of boring simulated sex, complete
with fancy fades and weird lighting. In this case, though the sex
scenes occupied most of the 96 minute running time, they never
became boring. There was enough character development among the main
characters that I became involved with their struggle. I applaud
director Quinn for making what is in my top ten list of soft-core
films.
|
The
Critics Vote
|
The People
Vote ...
|
| The meaning of the IMDb
score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of
excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars
from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm
watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars
from the critics. The fives are generally not
worthwhile unless they are really your kind of
material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics,
or a C- from our system.
Films rated below five are generally awful even if you
like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one
and a half stars from the critics or a D on our scale. (Possibly even less,
depending on just how far below five the rating
is. My own
guideline: A means the movie is so good it
will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not
good enough to win you over if you hate the
genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an
open mind about this type of film. C means it will only
appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover
appeal. (C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but
will be considered excellent by genre fans, while
C- indicates that it we found it to
be a poor movie although genre addicts find it watchable). D means you'll hate it even if you
like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if
you love the genre. F means that the film is not only
unappealing across-the-board, but technically
inept as well. Any film rated C- or better is recommended for
fans of that type of film. Any film rated B- or better is
recommended for just about anyone. We don't score films below C-
that often, because we like movies and we think that most of
them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know
that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below
C-.
This is a C+: one hell of a genre effort,
especially given the time and budget constraints. The physical
locations were good, the plot was better than many soft-core
efforts, all of the players could deliver lines, the special
effects were not terrible and the sex scenes sizzled. For God
sake, somebody give this man a real budget and realistic
schedule, and let's see what he can do with it.
|
|
