Monster Mash

Seriously.. if you didn't/don't enjoy this movie, it's because you take life way too seriously. Yeah, the movie is campy as hell. It's not meant to be a big budget, hollywood horror fest. It's a cheesy, campy, low budget, b-movie good time. It's comical. It's fun. It's entertaining. If you are looking for serious... try the news networks. You'll get plenty of horror there.

My one and only complaint is the same complaint that I have for most every single movie made post-2000... BUY A LIGHT BULB! And I don't want to hear that this is supposed to be "back in the day" before they had electric lights. First, movies set in this era have been made for decades and they were lit perfectly fine, thank you very much! Secondly, there are literally electric lights in Dr. Frankenstein's laboratory. Most of the movie is so dark, you might as well close your eyes and you'd still get the same effect.

Other than that, if you are just looking for a good movie night flick, you could do much worse!

So this is presented as by the Asylum, but I believe it's actually done by another firm (Acme Holdings, or something, it's not clear to me who actually made the film.) But no matter, this is something Hollywood should be doing: Making movies fun again.

Cheesy? Mountains of it.

Low budget? Only the lowest.

Amateur acting? Sort of, it's not top notice but you could tell it was a labour of love and Ramses especially was having a great deal of fun with his part. They all did really, Dracula being reserved and mysterious, the Invisible Man drawing heavy inspiration from his counterpart in the Doom Squad. The Wolfman didn't have as much screen time as I would have liked to see, but he did well with what little he had. Indeed the only naff acting was from Dr. Frankenstein, the actor playing him was kind of going through the motions, which is kind of a shame as I am given to understand he has done much better in the past.

No matter, the plot is straightforward and there is little in the way of twists and turns, but all...err...mashed together, and you a fun little film that the big production houses could learn a thing or two from.

Definitely one for the group watch.

Is this a joke?

I was honestly waiting for the punchline.

Waiting for the scene that would indicate this was meant as a comedy or parody of vintage Horror films.

But it never came.

The movie contains every frickin' monster Universal could imagine jammed into one film, and not comfortably.

Poor acting, poor lighting, painfully long dialogue and...Micahel Madsen.

Oh how far you've fallen from Reservoir Dogs.

This film should be dropped into a reservoir.

Listen, I think classic Universal is some of the best celluloid ever produced.

And I understood the homage paid to the classic era of monsters.

Even the scary warnings theaters used to show before a cheesy bad monster flick.

Before...before!!...not three quarters of the way into the movie!!

This was a joke right? ...right?

First the movie. Possibly one of the worst I have seen, and that includes my 2000+ reviews here. The lighting is so dark from scene to scene you might actually think the screen on your device has failed. The writing and acting and overall effect -- or lack of same -- will make you wish the film had originally been done in any language other than English. That way, at least, you could dismiss the end result as bad dubbing. Or bad subtitling. But none of that is "the" extraordinary thing about this film. The extraordinary thing about this release is that the marketer decided to throw all the lemons into the metaphorical blender and make lemonade. The press kit for MONSTER MASH actually touts the fact that it was shot in only 5 days -- like that is a plus! Feels more like 5 hours. Worse, some reviewers actually fell for this hustle, and praised the end result as "campy" ... and "fun". The only fun thing about this movie is pressing the STOP button and taking your trade elsewhere. Except for the marketing. The marketing is brilliant. And campy. And fun. ((Designated "IMDb Top Reviewer." Please check out my list "167+ Nearly-Perfect Movies (with the occasional Anime or TV miniseries) you can/should see again and again (1932 to the present))

I saw the title and art and that was it.

I started off and I understood it was low budget. That's not my problem with it. I actually like Draculas delivery and there were some scenes I think were shot well. The Invisible Man also stood out.

Issues were its consitency. The story flow was bad. The points to move the plot forward flopped. I wish I had more characters to describe how irrational upset I was at this movie. This had a great premise and it failed to give anyone developmenm. Without spoilers I just feel they could have done a lot more for The Mummy, who I felt was just a tag along the whole way. Same with the Werewolf. This was Draculas movie and the Invisible Man helped him get there.

I honestly would have loved this movie if it sat in the camp, but it pulls away so often and takes itself seriously. Its attempts in parts to be an homage to classics didn't work out. The part with CGI was bad, but it reminded me of old 40s stop motion, so that gets no bad marks from me.

Wasted potential. Funny bits. I MST3Kd it with a friend, which took it from a 2 to a 5 for me. Cleaning up the story, embracing the camp, giving more of the characters things to do would have sent me over the moon.

I want to see more from Ethan Daniel Corbett.

Could have been an Are you Afraid of the Dark episode. Thats what this movie was.