The Sore Losers

Jack Oblivian. Mike Maker. Guitar wolf for god's sake. I'll tell you this much, the blood of angels is Schlitz. You think about that.

This movie is not for everyone, in fact there's a good chance you'll overlook it and move along. But slow down for pete's sake, else you're gonna miss a great sci-fi action exploitation film with heart. Production issues aside, The Sore Loser's is a great, if somewhat convoluted, comic book movie with an amazing soundtrack. The music alone is well worth the viewing. I ordered a copy of this video, Jesus Christ, ten years ago (how did that happen?), and it contained a number music videos by the "Oblivians". If you haven't heard them, well you better make a to do list and get your act together. Anyway, I'm not sure if they are still included with the film (hell i don't even know if you can still get a copy of the movie at all anymore actually)

I'll tell you this much America, if you find yourself finding fault with the cinematography and sound editing, then your missing the point, but again, it's not gonna be for everyone. However, if you're someone who likes old John Waters movies like "Female Trouble" and "Pink Flamingos", then get a copy of this film.

Did I tell you about the angel's blood being Schlitz. I wasn't kidding about that.

Anyone with a half a brain can tell this was made by a group of amateurs with a budget that couldn't be more than a couple thousand dollars. I liked the film's use of lighting, as well as the costume design, but other than that there's nothing good I can say. The story's an incoherent mess. It's one of those confusing story lines that goes in many different directions and is hard to follow, yet at the same time it's not worth following. Besides the lighting and costume design, the film is a stylistic mess. It's like one of those student films where the director is simply trying to show the professor all the different things he can do with visuals, but totally ignores the concept of making a "good film." The sound is terrible. There's one scene where we're watching two characters get out of a car, from a distance, and it sounds as if the characters are right in front of the camera (an obvious use of ADR). Some of the camera-work is shoddy as well. In one scene, two of the characters are in an amusement park, and it's shot on a cheesy home video camera. And no, it wasn't a stylistic choice. I guess the filmmakers weren't able to sneak a film camera into an amusement park, so instead they used a mini-camcorder. That's the kind of stuff you can only get away with in film school. And like in many bad films, there's a good deal of nudity. Some of the girls have pretty nice bodies, but the use of nudity is simply a ploy to distract us from the fact that this movie really sucks and doesn't make a lick of sense. Some viewers may be able to interpret something from this micro-budget flick, but I was lost. Then again, I'm not a fan of movies that jump back and forth, nonchalantly, from one reality to another, and there's no surefire way of telling what's real and what's fake ("The Matrix" being a big-budget example). I'm sorry, but I actually like to understand a movie. Is that too much to ask? There are some complicated films that are worth uncovering the mystery in subsequent viewings, but this is not one of those cases. Besides, why should I take any film seriously that's made by a director who doesn't even bother to put any effort into hiring good actors or using good cinematography?

The other person who commented on this movie is absolutely correct. This is a low, LOW budget production that manages to be entertaining despite its economic handicaps. I've watched it three times (I got that same deal with the three other movies because a former friend of mine was in one of the "Witchcraft" atrocities) and I'm still not sure what it's all about. It is difficult to watch if you are hypnotized by the gloss of big budget Hollywood nonsense. If you can appreciate some kids going out with a few thousand dollars and a lot of crazy ideas, I suggest this as a nice alternative to the crap at the local movie theater.

A very low budget film, i'm guessing not even breaking into the five-digit range. The sound is sloppy, as is the editing, with the format bouncing back and forth from S-VHS to 16mm to 8mm and back again.

But for all it's technical flaws, The Sore Losers is really a fun movie with a greaser-punk feel to it. Awesome soundtrack, featuring the Drags and Bantam Rooster, among others, and hey! Mike Maker can act! I'm surprised I haven't seen him in more films.

I really wish there were more films like The Sore Losers. We need more quirky low-budget films that are actually good. Guys, make some more movies!

I picked this DVD up with several other low budget flicks at a store going out of business. It was the best $3.00 I've spent in a long time! The Sore Losers is about aliens sent to kill 12 hippies each. The only problem is, if you don't kill enough, or you kill too many, you are screwed. This movie has plenty of what most low budget sci-fi and horror fans look for, ie lots of nudity and a surreal story line that borders on nonsense.The thing that really got me is that the actress D'Lana looks an awful lot like Melissa from the reality show "Joe Millionare." I've tried to search and see if it was her, but can't really tell. If you are looking for a good way to kill an hour or so, and you like the low(est) budget stuff you can find, this film is worth it.