Bitch Ass

I went into this movie with an open mind to a lower budget movie with a unique story and an intriguing new lead killer entering into the horror slasher genre, and went out of it confused how it dropped the ball. I wasn't expecting powerful acting or writing, but I also wasn't expecting seemingly rushed performances and cliche after cliche that fell flat and felt like it was written by people with nothing in common with the characters. The best actor was surprisingly A-F-R-O, who looked like a veteran amongst rookies, and has a bright future as an actor, while the rest of the ensemble seemed inexperienced and out of place. The gang initiation premise seemed forced and out of place as there are plenty of ways to place 4 friends in the house. Bitch Ass himself had promise, but the voice, the mask and outfit were all a miss as he wasn't scary or creepy, just awkward and nerdy. The games weren't compelling or exciting, and I didn't need the edge of my seat at any point. I was also confused by the flashback scenes as there was nothing but costume changes involved with them, nothing was added to them to create a mood or feelings. This movie is right on the border of being really bad and cult classic bad.

This is a very low budget horror film. A riff on movies like Saw.

With an introduction by Tony Todd who name checks Candyman.

Q (Teon Kelley) is a disfigured man with a mask who like to play games. Such as Battleship and Jenga.

When some hoods break into his grandmother's house. Q cuts them some slack. They can leave if they can beat him. Only Q is too good for them.

There is a backstory how Q, a shy nervous young student was lured to be cut up by some nasty school bully.

The film presents Q as a sadistic anti hero. He takes his medicine when he loses a game.

You actually sympathise with him more than the others who have done bad things.

The movie has good production values despite the low budget. It also attempts to kickstart a black horror character.

This film manages to carve out a niche for itself with a story that showcases some inventive ideas despite its limited budget. While it's commendable how the film attempts to make the most of its resources, there are several areas where it falls short, leaving it more of a mixed bag than a standout feature.

One of the film's strengths is its approach to storytelling. The premise is intriguing, and it's clear that the filmmakers put thought into crafting a narrative that stands apart from more conventional fare. The story, while not without its merits, does offer a refreshing change of pace and keeps you engaged with its unique plot twists. It's evident that the filmmakers tried to make the best out of what they had, and for that, they deserve some credit.

However, the positives are overshadowed by several notable shortcomings. The performances, unfortunately, leave much to be desired. While the cast tries to bring their characters to life, the acting often feels wooden and unconvincing, detracting from the film's overall impact. This lack of strong performances means that emotional moments fall flat, and it becomes difficult to fully invest in the characters or their fates.

The cinematography is another area where the film struggles. The film suffers from inconsistent visual quality, with some scenes poorly lit or awkwardly framed. This uneven cinematography takes away from the immersion and can make the viewing experience feel jarring at times. Instead of enhancing the atmosphere, it often feels like a missed opportunity to elevate the film's impact.

Moreover, the plot contains a number of implausibilities that can be hard to overlook. The story takes several leaps in logic that stretch credibility, making it difficult to stay fully engaged. These implausibilities, combined with some clumsy storytelling choices, result in a narrative that, while ambitious, ultimately feels strained and unconvincing.

In conclusion, this is a film that showcases some creativity and makes an admirable effort with its limited budget. However, its shortcomings in performance, cinematography, and plausibility hinder its overall effectiveness. It's a mixed bag that might appeal to those who appreciate unique stories despite their execution flaws, but for many, it might be a case of good intentions falling short of a fully realized execution.

A lot of negative reviews but I thought it was much better than a lot of low budget movies of this type that still spawned sequels- Sleepaway Camp ring a bell anyone? I also recall one of the best classics ever originally being panned by critical when it first came out, the original Evil Dead. While this is far from being in that category it still has its moments and may be a classic in the making, who knows? I'm impressed that it was as good as it was being the extremely low budget it was under, especially having a known celebrity as Tony Todd as part of the cast. I've come across so many horror movies on the streaming services where I couldn't watch any more than a half hours worth before turning them off, especially with the horrible acting involved, which was not the case here. All actors involved did seem to be much better than what you'd expect, that's for sure! But you can make your own decision.

The movie looks cheap but I still had a good time watching it. The kills were surprisingly gory. Liked the board death games.

Pretty decent cast I thought. Some wooden acting due to awkward writing, but also good moments.

Some parts like the grandma showing up near the end couldve been thought out better. The opening credits are a nice idea but the font used looks cheap and rushed.

Editing was choppy at parts and pretty noticeable.

I do think this movie deserved a better title IMO. The title holds back how serious the movie gets at times.

Killer was a little cringey but not too crazy. I guess the accent just threw me off at times.

But I liked the movie for the kills, tone and some good performances.