xghs
Joined Jan 2007
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews2
xghs's rating
Judging from its title alone, Easter Bunny, Kill!, Kill! would appear to be little more than a parody of seasonally themed slasher flicks. Miraculously, perhaps, Chad Ferrin's film is the rare gore-fest that can actually stand on its own merits as a prime cut of blood-drenched grind-house horror. Nicholas is a 16-year-old boy with the mental capacity of a 6-year-old. More than anything else, he believes that the Easter Bunny not only is real, but someday will rescue him from a life of poverty and abuse by the men in his mother's life.
Her latest boyfriend is a sadistic grease ball, who, when mom's back is turned, torments the harmless child. If that weren't enough, in return for cocaine he'll use to lure hookers to his home, the jerk allows a truly perverted friend to "party" with the boy. Just describing that scenario makes my skin crawl. Never fear, though. Before the creep can get his grimy hands on Nicholas, the boy's Guardian Bunny arrives to save him from harm. That much could have been expected, I think. What follows is less predictable than one might expect.
Although most people wouldn't be able to get past the title credits, fans of the genre should find something besides the gory killings to admire. We're not talking Psycho or The Shining here, though. Easter Bunny was made on a budget estimated to be in the neighborhood of $95,000 and it looks it. As for the marketing budget, I'm pretty sure the title on the DVD cover will sell itself. – Gary Dretzka
Her latest boyfriend is a sadistic grease ball, who, when mom's back is turned, torments the harmless child. If that weren't enough, in return for cocaine he'll use to lure hookers to his home, the jerk allows a truly perverted friend to "party" with the boy. Just describing that scenario makes my skin crawl. Never fear, though. Before the creep can get his grimy hands on Nicholas, the boy's Guardian Bunny arrives to save him from harm. That much could have been expected, I think. What follows is less predictable than one might expect.
Although most people wouldn't be able to get past the title credits, fans of the genre should find something besides the gory killings to admire. We're not talking Psycho or The Shining here, though. Easter Bunny was made on a budget estimated to be in the neighborhood of $95,000 and it looks it. As for the marketing budget, I'm pretty sure the title on the DVD cover will sell itself. – Gary Dretzka
For those of you who thought that Captivity would be the movie to officially end the torture-porn trend, you were probably right, but just to seal the deal, here's Gag. Gag is an atrocious horror flick which feels more like a gay S&M porno gone wrong than a horror movie. Three men are forced to swallow various objects when they're not gagged or getting f-ed with spears. To me that sounds like the description of a bad gay porno, not to mention the porn-sounding title. Anyway, before I head into this review, I would like to say that I'm very tired from a long days work so this review probably won't be as thorough as I'd like it to be.
Gag tells the story of two professional thieves who break into a seemingly empty house, only to find a man brutally beaten and tied to a bed. Blah, blah, blah, Saw-like twist, blah, blah, blah, torture, blah, blah, incest, blah, blah, you get the idea. Gag is a no-budget Saw rip-off and it's even a shame to call it a Saw rip-off as these guys obviously didn't get what the first Saw movie was all about. It wasn't about torture, it wasn't about S&M, it was about the psychological horror (something which has gone lost in the Saw sequels) - a quality that Gag doesn't have.
Gag may want to be disturbing but it's not, and the "inventive" torture scenes are either ridiculous or down right impossible. A mouse would never crawl down a tube and then eat away at someone's mouth. And sure, getting burnt with boiled pennies may hurt, but to me it just seems like some extreme kind of hazing, not necessarily torture (plus it was very silly to look at). Then we have the fact that the movie both looks and feels homemade. The director obviously doesn't have a clue about what he's doing behind the camera, and the "actors" are even less secure about what they're doing. Hell, it doesn't even seem like these people wanted to be in the movie. Were they really THAT desperate for a pay check? Or perhaps they thought that this would be the next Saw. If so, they can't have been very smart.
It's not the worst movie of the year though and it is watchable if you're into this kind of thing. To me, this is more porn than anything. Remove the gore and add some nudity and you've got yourself a hardcore porn flick (unfortunately not a very good one at that). I won't recommend it but I'm sure there are some people out there who enjoy this kind of thing. I'm just more into movies that actually have a story. In the end, Gag is like an extreme version of Saw, only with a lower budget and with less of a story.
Gag tells the story of two professional thieves who break into a seemingly empty house, only to find a man brutally beaten and tied to a bed. Blah, blah, blah, Saw-like twist, blah, blah, blah, torture, blah, blah, incest, blah, blah, you get the idea. Gag is a no-budget Saw rip-off and it's even a shame to call it a Saw rip-off as these guys obviously didn't get what the first Saw movie was all about. It wasn't about torture, it wasn't about S&M, it was about the psychological horror (something which has gone lost in the Saw sequels) - a quality that Gag doesn't have.
Gag may want to be disturbing but it's not, and the "inventive" torture scenes are either ridiculous or down right impossible. A mouse would never crawl down a tube and then eat away at someone's mouth. And sure, getting burnt with boiled pennies may hurt, but to me it just seems like some extreme kind of hazing, not necessarily torture (plus it was very silly to look at). Then we have the fact that the movie both looks and feels homemade. The director obviously doesn't have a clue about what he's doing behind the camera, and the "actors" are even less secure about what they're doing. Hell, it doesn't even seem like these people wanted to be in the movie. Were they really THAT desperate for a pay check? Or perhaps they thought that this would be the next Saw. If so, they can't have been very smart.
It's not the worst movie of the year though and it is watchable if you're into this kind of thing. To me, this is more porn than anything. Remove the gore and add some nudity and you've got yourself a hardcore porn flick (unfortunately not a very good one at that). I won't recommend it but I'm sure there are some people out there who enjoy this kind of thing. I'm just more into movies that actually have a story. In the end, Gag is like an extreme version of Saw, only with a lower budget and with less of a story.