.

.

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Project Terrible: Creepshow III!

Buddha Man! Gonna need you to take this one!



Done. Can't say I'm happy about it, though.





This blog's good buddy Maynard Morrissey from Maynard Morrissey's Horror Movie Diary sent this one to us - and knowing it was LGOOH's only entry in round eight of Project Terrible - he really went for blood.




Creepshow III  (Taurus Entertainment Company, 2006)  I saw Creepshow in the theater in 1982. I saw Creepshow 2 in the theater in 1987. I saw something that said it was Creepshow III in my home in 2012. Let's start off by noting the change in numeric style - already a bad sign. If it's Creepshow 2 then it should be Creepshow 3. If instead you call it Creepshow III you weren't paying attention. Do you get a sense where this is going? Well, then, I won't take up too much of your time. We start off with some weird Flash-style computer animation which does not work well compared to the cel animation used in the first two movies. Then there are five stories in this anthology. They have a good moment or two dotted in among them. None of them are anywhere near as good as the weakest story in the previous two movies, which in my opinion is Old Chief Wood'nhead from Part 2. The movie is very low budget, the acting ranges from tolerable to bad, and the effects go from fairly good practical stuff (for the money) to chintzy CGI. Had they called this movie Tales from the Limbic Region or Five Stories to Die For it would have been a meh movie and we'd be done talking.

I like this makeup. I hate the movie.


But no. Somehow, these clowns got ahold of the Creepshow franchise title and had the incredibly bad idea of putting the Creepshow name on this thing. There's no Creep, there's no comic book framing devices, there's no Tom Savini cameo. Because they force the issue, this movie is then held to the Creepshow yardstick - and it fails. Epic fails. They should be ashamed - trying to ride the coattails of the franchise to success. This is as misbegotten an in-name-only sequel as The Hidden II.



Wow. Glad you watched that one for me, buddy. Until next post, you Can Poke Me With A Fork, Cause I Am Outta Here!

11 comments:

  1. Saw the cover and figured I would pass. It wasn't in the spirit of King and Romero as far as I could tell so I refused to watch. Glad I did. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Boy howdy - are you ever! Best pass of your life! You should be quarterbacking pro football with passing skills like that!

      Delete
    2. Been telling that to the Bears front office for decades LOL But somehow, they just don't listen. ;)

      Delete
  2. Not only one of the worst "sequels" ever made, but also one of the worst horror movies I've evre seen. A stupid piece of shit.
    Thanks for watching, hope you had a good time! :-p

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was the first movie I was assigned for Project Terrible that was really, truly, no-question-about-it - TERRIBLE. And I only gave you Legend of Boggy Creek this round! What was I thinking? ;)

      Delete
    2. 'Creepshow III' is truly dreadful. Even the wrap-around tale was shit.

      Oh and as far as it being one of the worst sequels ever made, it has strong competition in another film made by the same two folks: 'Day of the Dead 2: Contagium.' Seriously, that's also a thing- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0411269/

      It also doesn't appear that Maynard has reviewed it yet. Hm...

      Delete
    3. I am well aware of Day of the Dead 2: Contagium - same asshats who got the Creepshow title - they also got the Day of the Dead title. Worse yet - I own it - picked up for $1 or $2 - I can't pass up a bargain, no matter how much I know the picture bites...

      Delete
  3. actually, that make-up was the only scary thing about this "entry". Least this show got me eating hotdogs for a while...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree on the makeup - and...mmmm...hotdogs....

      Delete
  4. The first one was brilliant, but I can't imagine what happened by the third. That mask might be scary if it were only shown for second.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seemed to be on and off screen quickly - it worked. Yeah - the second is a step down in quality from the first for sure - but you can't even see those two movies from where III is under the quality ladder...

      Delete