Terror Tract (2000) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

Any film that stars John Ritter and wrestler Marcus Bagwell is OK by me.
This is one of those horror anthologies, with a basic narrative overlay which stitches together three unrelated stories. The shell story features Ritter as a real estate agent trying to sell a house to a newlywed couple. They are beautiful houses, way above expectations, and the couple can't believe such magnificence is affordable on their start-up budget, so they want to know the "catch". Because of the full disclosure laws, when the young people ask what happened to the prior owners, Ritter must reveal the gruesome stories that took place in the homes.


Kathryn Erbe was seen naked from the rear in the bathroom, clearly lit.

In addition, her breasts were seen in a dark sex scene.

The stories themselves are also kind of tongue-in-cheek, basically the same type of macabre material that you'd see in "Tales from the Crypt". The middle tale, about an dad who goes to great lengths to get rid of a monkey that his daughter wants to adopt, is the funniest story. The first tale, about a husband who ends up dying when he tries to kill his cheatin' wife, is the scariest. Let's just say that death really doesn't slow him down that much.

Can you believe it? this thing has its own web site. (www.terrortract.com)

You guys aren't going to go out and rent this, so here's the funny finale:

No DVD or tape currently available from Amazon.

The young people don't want a home with a past, so they won't make an offer, but Ritter needs this sale to make some quota. It appears that his boss will kill his wife and son if he doesn't make the sale. Excellent incentive program. The couple is sour on the whole neighborhood because of all the stories they have heard. When the young man refuses to make an offer, Ritter stabs him repeatedly. The wife drives away in Ritter's car, and as she drives through the neighborhood she notices that all the houses have some grotesque activity in public sight - severed limbs, mutilated pets, etc.

The Critics Vote

  • no reviews. Somehow "The New Yorker" missed this.

The People Vote ...

  • With their votes ... IMDB summary: IMDb voters score it 7.0, but that's based on a whopping five votes, and I guess it will drift back down somewhere in the 4's or 5's.
  • With their dollars ... I'm assuming this was intended as a pilot for a cable series. No theatrical release.
IMDb guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence, about like three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, about like two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, about like two stars from the critics. Films under five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film, equivalent to about one and a half stars from the critics or 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. 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.

Based on this description, this film is a C-. So-so flick in the genre of horror/comedy anthology,

Return to the Movie House home page