VALUTAZIONE IMDb
3,2/10
6233
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaThis second sequel to Creepshow (1982) features five new tales of horror: "Alice", "The Radio", "Call Girl", "The Professor's Wife", and "Haunted Dog".This second sequel to Creepshow (1982) features five new tales of horror: "Alice", "The Radio", "Call Girl", "The Professor's Wife", and "Haunted Dog".This second sequel to Creepshow (1982) features five new tales of horror: "Alice", "The Radio", "Call Girl", "The Professor's Wife", and "Haunted Dog".
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
Bunny Klein Gibson
- Alice Family #1: Grandmother
- (as Bunny Gibson)
- …
Derek Schachter
- Neighbor Kid (segment "Alice")
- (as Derek Schacter)
Recensioni in evidenza
I rarely write comments on IMDb, but it is 3 o'clock in the morning, and I have to comment on the terrible film I just watched--Creepshow 3. When I first heard that a new Creepshow was being made, I thought that might be cool, but then I heard the original players were not involved. Then, I saw the trailer, which was terrible. Yet, I decided to give it a chance.
I will admit that it was not unenjoyable--just not good. The special effects were fun, and the production values of the filming were not bad. Yet, the animation at the beginning and ending of the film are terrible and amateurish. They should not have used that opening segment with animation. The movie has no relation to Creepshow except that it is an anthology. There was nothing scary, and there were almost no night scenes--everything was lit. The stories made no sense most of the time and seemed absurd (the first story with the remote--why was the remote changing realities? Was it only that family? Why did the girl turn hideous? The doctor said it looked like her insides, but what had she done to deserve this "punishment" since her family was more obnoxious? What was the purpose of the rabbit? Then, I questioned if the remote could change things, why didn't the doctor use the remote on his wife's corpse?) That was just the first story. Even though the stories connected, the chronology did not work. For example, Alice was eating the wedding cake before she turned into a rabbit, but the doctor picked up the cake after Alice was turned into a rabbit. Those logical holes were all over the place. Absurdity is a part of horror, but these had no connections that made any sense. They often led into weak endings. Also, why did no one question what was happening to them? Oh well, it was mindless, and I won't watch it again, but they should not have attached the Creepshow name to the film. The tone was completely off--too jokey. It needed terror. One of the actors said this was the best of the three--did he see the others?
I will admit that it was not unenjoyable--just not good. The special effects were fun, and the production values of the filming were not bad. Yet, the animation at the beginning and ending of the film are terrible and amateurish. They should not have used that opening segment with animation. The movie has no relation to Creepshow except that it is an anthology. There was nothing scary, and there were almost no night scenes--everything was lit. The stories made no sense most of the time and seemed absurd (the first story with the remote--why was the remote changing realities? Was it only that family? Why did the girl turn hideous? The doctor said it looked like her insides, but what had she done to deserve this "punishment" since her family was more obnoxious? What was the purpose of the rabbit? Then, I questioned if the remote could change things, why didn't the doctor use the remote on his wife's corpse?) That was just the first story. Even though the stories connected, the chronology did not work. For example, Alice was eating the wedding cake before she turned into a rabbit, but the doctor picked up the cake after Alice was turned into a rabbit. Those logical holes were all over the place. Absurdity is a part of horror, but these had no connections that made any sense. They often led into weak endings. Also, why did no one question what was happening to them? Oh well, it was mindless, and I won't watch it again, but they should not have attached the Creepshow name to the film. The tone was completely off--too jokey. It needed terror. One of the actors said this was the best of the three--did he see the others?
I will just start by saying that I have always enjoyed the "Creepshow" anthologies, especially as I watched parts 1 and 2 while growing up, and remembering that there were some pretty good segments in those two first anthologies.
"Creepshow 3" was nowhere near the first "Creepshow" movie anthology, little less like the second.
The stories in this third installment were not really all that interesting, and had only vague hints of horror to them. However, it was really nice the way they were interwoven with one another though.
The acting in the different segments was good though and that at least did help to lift up the overall enjoyment of the anthology.
But the anthology just didn't come off as being all that impressive, and as such it was a less than mediocre movie experience.
"Creepshow 3" was nowhere near the first "Creepshow" movie anthology, little less like the second.
The stories in this third installment were not really all that interesting, and had only vague hints of horror to them. However, it was really nice the way they were interwoven with one another though.
The acting in the different segments was good though and that at least did help to lift up the overall enjoyment of the anthology.
But the anthology just didn't come off as being all that impressive, and as such it was a less than mediocre movie experience.
I've seen some really turkeys, but this one may be the worst I've seen. Horrible acting, direction, story, everything. The co-directors should be beaten with a stick. I thought Creepshow 2 wasn't so great, but at least it had one kind of cool story, ("The Raft/Lake" ). This installment doesn't have a single even mediocre story. Its bad by even direct to video standards. They are all downright bad, silly and a total waste of time. It was funny that they even had a behind the scenes , under extra material for this DVD. To see the directors and actors praise each other was too funny. The bonus materials should have consisted of profuse apologies from everyone involved. Seriously, i hope these writers and directors never get work again.
Jim Dudelson and Anna Clavel, are pure film-making morons. They have trashed some fine franchises, (Day of the Dead, and Creepshow) Jim doesn't care, Anna is deluded and thinks she is a genius. They slapped the film together in less than 20 days with no name talent and put the Creepshow Name on it, expecting fans to just eat it. Truly, it is just a quick money grab for Jim. Since the original Creepshow and Day of the Dead are owned by Jim's family, he really must hate his family, cause those franchises are worth a lot less now... Don't buy Creepshow III, don't rent it. If you do and watch it, you'll hate yourself. Creepshow III was made by filmmakers who hate horror films and just want your money.
Stay away from this DVD as if it were the black sludge in Creepshow 2. I'm an avid fan of the first film, and I have a soft-spot in my heart for the second one (I watched these movies repetitively as a teen). The first two movies even prompted me to read the EC horror comics they were modeled after: Haunt of Fear, Tales From the Crypt, and The Vault of Horror.
The charms of 1 & 2 were their great stories and comic-book-style format (pages turning between stories, comic panels transforming to live-action, etc.). Creepshow III has NONE of these elements. WARNING: This is a Creepshow release by TITLE ONLY. The film truly resembled the quality one would expect form a YouTube indie film produced by a high school student: Horrid acting, a total of TWO shooting locations (a cluster of houses and an apartment building), and stories that either made no sense or went nowhere.
It was a real shame, as I looked forward to the release of this film. You've been warned!
The charms of 1 & 2 were their great stories and comic-book-style format (pages turning between stories, comic panels transforming to live-action, etc.). Creepshow III has NONE of these elements. WARNING: This is a Creepshow release by TITLE ONLY. The film truly resembled the quality one would expect form a YouTube indie film produced by a high school student: Horrid acting, a total of TWO shooting locations (a cluster of houses and an apartment building), and stories that either made no sense or went nowhere.
It was a real shame, as I looked forward to the release of this film. You've been warned!
Lo sapevi?
- QuizCreepshow III, unlike Creepshow (1982) & Creepshow 2 (1987), has no involvement from either Stephen King or George A. Romero - the series creators.
- BlooperWhen the possessed radio unexpectedly starts playing a song when Jerry is in the shower, the sound of running water stops and the bathroom door opens immediately. Jerry could not have possibly turned off the water, stepped out of the shower, and opened the door in this tiny amount of time.
- Citazioni
Dr. Farwell: [to a patient] What you need is a three-week prescription of legal marijuana. There 'ya go.
- Curiosità sui creditiAt the end of the credits, you can see the following "disclaimer": No bunnies were harmed in the making of this movie.
- ConnessioniFeatured in Obscurus Lupa Presents: Creepshow 3: Part 1 (2014)
- Colonne sonoreTheme from 'Creepshow'
Composed by John Harrison
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- Is this an official "Creepshow" sequel?
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Lingue
- Celebre anche come
- Creepshow III
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 44 minuti
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti