Bitch Ass

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.

I liked this one quite a bit. It has "Boyz in da Hood/People Under the Stairs" vibes mixed with one of those movies where people are forced to play death games. It's low budget but nice looking, and the director played around with changing aspect ratios and split screen shots to add to the mood. Some funny stuff like score cards flashing on the screen and text popping up that only the audience can see. Some might not like those gimmicks but I do.

The games themselves were all based on beloved childhood games, except with a lot of blades, nooses and electric shocks. The gore was nice and explicit, if not a little cartoony. I like cartoons so whatever.

It really explained the killer's backstory, which I enjoyed, but it had a little bit too much of that backstory than necessary. They could have added in another death game and cut out some of that stuff.

The acting was hit and miss, but what do you expect from these kind of movies?

Can't remember much about the score, which means it wasn't bad but it wasn't great. I loved the track on the end credits though.

Here's what you get with this movie. Just a fun throwback to the times when everything wasn't ghosts popping up making boo faces and loud pitch-shifter noises. If you yearn for those times, you might enjoy this one.

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 year is 1999, it is 666 Night (whatever that is?), a gang of teenagers break into a house in their Los Angeles neighbourhood (or should I say "Hood"?). Bad news for them, a hulking masked killer called (insert the title of the movie, ironically if I were to type it myself my review would probably be rejected) lives there, he likes to plays games - deadly games! The maniac's childhood name is Seesaw, it doesn't take a genius to figure that this film borrows from the "Saw" movies. One by one he plays gory games with the gang, the first one is "Operation", only instead of playing with the regular board game an actual human body is used. I thought this was a clever idea but sadly, like much of the film, it is poorly executed. Another game played is Connect 4, hooked up to a guillotine. This film stars an all black cast and it sort of boasts of featuring the first black killer to don a face mask. I'm fine with this, I love to watch all horror movies, but needless to say it will not appeal to everyone. The quality of acting is a mixed bunch, overall it is pretty amateur though horror legend Tony Todd has a small but welcome part as a horror TV host. There are a few flashback scenes set in 1980, modern vehicles can be seen driving past characters who look fashion-wise at least 1990's. There are a few gory bits but nothing to get excited about. Looking at some of the reviews on here a number have obviously been written by people connected with the making of this turkey, take the high scoring ones with a large pinch of salt! Given that this movie was made on a tiny budget I will give the makers some credit, initially I thought that it was going to be worse than what it turned out to be. However a turd is still a turd no matter how much you polish it, know what I'm saying?

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.