Reviews

Alexia Anders arrives at the BnB where she reserved a room for a three-day weekend. The host, Chuck, welcomes her and shows her around the house which includes a private bathroom with a shower and tub, and his "best red blanket" on the bed. Alexia is delighted with the facilities, but when she finds out that she misunderstood the single-night rate as the cost for three nights, she asks if they can make a deal. Chuck is reluctant to deal, but accedes when Alexia explains that her only alternative is a hostel.

Because Chuck is such a nice guy, Alexia offers to express her gratitude with "a little bean cap," which confuses Chuck and the audience. She explains further, "maybe a little rock the mike," further confusing everyone. When she tried again with "yawning the worm," she demonstrated what she means by sticking her tongue in her cheek and waving her hand suggestively in front of her face. This time Chuck and the audience are left with little room for misunderstanding. With many exclamations of "Oh, my goodness," Chuck explains that he was not expecting this. (He's the only one who was not expecting it, and he's not very convincing.)

When Alexia unlimbers Chuck, she demonstrated that Linda Lovelace is not the only one with no gag reflex. This is one of Alexia's earliest movies, if not her first, and she is already adept at this activity. (She is 22 years old. One can only speculate about her personal life.) From her knees, she does her best to thank Chuck for his kindness. The camera angles are well done and Alexia looks gorgeous as she Lovelaces Chuck. Chuck, on the other hand, acts as if this is an everyday occurrence. He seems to endure Alexia's gratitude rather than enjoy it.

After many minutes of gratitude expression, Chuck asks if he might lie down while she continues her activities. It's not clear whether he's tired or bored, but he's not enthusiastic. In a further effort to get his attention, Alexia offers to remove her clothes in an alluring fashion. Politely but still without little fervor, Chuck thanks her for her offer.

As Alexia removes her clothes, Chuck tries to express some delight at the assets she reveals, but his feigned passion is unconvincing to everybody. When Alexia exposes her 34C glands, Chuck handles then like he's n a supermarket checking produce. He tries some quips but they are no more convincing than his acting, which is a shame because Alexia is gorgeous and her glands deserve to be admired and fondled. When she drops her panties, Chuck is no more enthusiastic in admiring that which deserves admiration.

Alexia sits on the bed, spreads her hind legs and displays all of her assets. She is gorgeous, but Chuck seems to have seen it all before and is only mildly interested. Alexia strokes herself and moans and wiggles, she squeezes and pokes, all in an attempt to get Chuck interested but to no avail. Finally Chuck gets with the program and does a little manual probing and some mild admiring while Alexia continues to try to get his attention by moaning, squealing and gasping. Even this early in her career she knows that she is the star of the show and does her best to keep the audience's interest aroused.

At this point, the editing could be smoother. From lying on her back with her limbs in the air and Chuck's fingers probing her gynecologically, Alexia is suddenly on her knees again staring at Chuck's flagging interest. He asks that she do her Lovelace impression again to prepare him for his next effort. Alexia, as always, is willing to accommodate him. After thirty seconds or stimulation, Chuck is ready for his next job. Alexia returns to the bed, spreads her legs and does her best to express her appreciation. With his feet planted firmly on the floor, Chuck, who is doing a great job working the camera, rises to the occasion and tells her, without words, she is welcome.

Alexia does a fine job of displaying her features while Chuck is filming her gratitude. She is a sight to behold and does a creditable job convincing the audience she is enjoying herself. Chuck keeps the audience interested by changing camera angles and getting as much action in the shot as he can. However, after many minutes of pistoning, the audience can be forgiven for being concerned about the lubrication situation. Alexia, ever the trouper, doesn't miss a jiggles Chuck welcomes her to California. Alexia does her best to keep the audience interested by repeatedly glancing at the camera. She never fails to keep the viewer interested.

Another bad editing cut has Alexia servicing Chuck orally while he lies on the bed, fondling one of her glands with on hand while working the camera with the other. Chuck's camera work is good enough to allow for his less than wholehearted acting.

When Chuck is ready again, Alexia demonstrates her equine interests by mounting Chuck like a Colorado cowgirl. She and Chuck do a good job of displaying her in the best way possible, leaving nothing to the imagination. After riding him long enough to round up a sizable herd, Chuck needs to be orally stimulated again to prepare him for her next ride. She mounts him Dudley Do-Right-style, facing his feet, giving Chuck and the audience a great view of her final asset. For some reason Chuck thinks this asset needs further probing. It's distracting because Alexia keeps trying to get him to stop.

Another bad cut and Chuck is riding her in the canine fashion while continuing to try to probe her last asset with a finger. In short order, Chuck anoints Alexia's asset with his essence. They both seem pleased with their deal.

Some movies can be saved by the judicious display of naked female breasts. This movie isn't one of them. This was an interesting idea poorly executed.

There are so many errors it's hard to know where to start, so I'll start at the beginning. The first person we see is a soldier sleeping in the woods. When he wakes we notice he's an unarmed combat engineer. He has a major's gold leaf on his collar. When he meets another soldier, he is addressed as "Private."

I understand no one's perfect, but why make such an idiotic mistake so early in the movie?

This major/private who seems to be afraid of his own shadow, has jump wings. Not all paratroopers are brainless brutes, but few of them are so wet-behind-the-ears they run from the enemy without taking their weapons.

This movie would have to improve significantly to compete with anything by Ed Wood.

The music was reasonably well done.

This would have received 1 star but Angel Tompkins' bare breasts are worth at least one star by themselves. If there had been more bare breasts, I would have added more stars.

The Teacher is a morality tale. Societies should beware of single women. They'll seduce our innocent sons and drive our already insane vets into homicidal rages.

Though this movie was made in the 1970s, its temporal setting is the 1950s. Not only is Diane, the teacher, single, but she's divorced. One of her friends hints at how sexually frustrated Diane must be with her husband gone. Clearly there's nothing a woman can do to relieve her sexual frustrations without a man.

Diane is so oblivious that her breasts are responsible for the deaths of three people. First one of her two infatuated students dies while looking at her bare breasts in the harbor. (I've spent a lot of time on and around the water and I've never seen a bare breast.) Then his friend is killed by the insane brother of his dead friend who happens to be a veteran. Then she kills the friend's insane veteran brother as he's raping her. (I guess that one she knows what's going on.)

The sex scenes are bizarre. When Diane takes Sean's virginity, he has his pants on. The scene is the least tender sex scene I've seen. She isn't "making love" with him. She's raping him. It's written all over her face. He seems to enjoy it. (What 18 year old boy wouldn't?) When she asks him if he wants to do it again, he tells her, "Once is enough." (Okay, so one 18 year old boy wouldn't.)

They leave their pants on when they swap bodily fluids on her boat. She and Ralph both have pants on when Ralph rapes her.

I guess the moral should be, "Don't trust divorced women. They'll seduce our sons and teach them how to dry hump."

If this movie was better known, it would challenge Ed Wood's "Plan 9" for the Golden Turkey.

Feast had great potential, but the whole thing was so dark it was like looking at a black screen too much of the time.

**** Spoiler follows **** I liked the freeze frames to introduce the characters. That was clever. It was especially clever that the filmmakers weren't entirely candid with those intros. They added a nice touch to the story.

The story was great. The acting was up to par. I could have stood more (any) bare breasts. The FX were fine, but it was impossible to see most of the movie because it was so dark. That's why the middlin' rating.

I was disappointed.

This is the first movie I've seen that I would rate X. Even bare breasts couldn't save this movie.

I don't expect reality in my horror movies, but I expect to be able to stretch my disbelief to accommodate the unreality of the setting. The characters were so far out that no one could believe them.

There was no story line. I know, the sheriff was supposed to be going insane from grief for his brother, but that was not apparent enough.

No law enforcement agency would allow the brother of a slain officer to be involved in hunting the brother's killers. The Flying Spaghetti Monster knows I have no love for Texas, but the Texas Rangers have a reputation approaching the RCMP. They would never allow the sheriff to get involved in the hunt.

I could go on about the interstate nature of the killings, the weapons, etc. but I won't.

This wasn't a horror movie so much as a gross out festival. "Let's see how much we can gross out our viewers" I wasn't grossed out so much as I was annoyed by anyone expecting me to buy the reality of the story.

I don't buy it. It was fun taking a hammer to the DVD. Made me feel as if I hadn't waster the whole 90 minutes.

I liked the undead creatures. The people more or less acted reasonably, as much as anyone does in an undead movie. My problem was the groups.

Were there two groups or three or two groups and the pair of men? How did the soldiers fit in?

The "surprise ending" was certainly a surprise. The authors didn't play fair. For such a surprise to work, the author has to set it up. The audience should say, "A ha!" when surprised, not, "What the...?"

On another note, I am a U.S. Army infantry vet. I thought the infantry was bad with their inarticulate use of the work "f*ck" every time they open their mouths. It seems that British civilians are even worse. Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster it's a one syllable work. Think how much longer the movie would have been if every line had the phrase "silly little goose."

"Kill the silly little goosing thing, Tom." "Silly little goose you!" "Why don't you silly little goose yourself?"

Hell, I'd STILL be watching the movie.

Seriously, is anyone impressed by people using "f*ck" or some form of it in every speech? Does it add anything for anyone?

I had a math teacher in high school who said, "'Kay?" at the end of every sentence. It went like this: "This is a linear equation, 'kay? You use it to graph a line, 'kay? Here's our graph, 'kay? This is the x axis, 'kay? Put your first point here, 'kay?"

It nearly drove my classmates and me out of our silly little goosing minds, Then we started counting the "Kay?"'s and high-five-ing every tenth time. Someone finally told him what we were doing and we nearly got expelled, but he finally stopped.

I don't care about the socially problematic nature of the word, but it makes the dialog that much harder to follow.

I know this is some kind of Indie film, but the sound quality was also not up to snuff. My sixteen year old son and I both had a hard time hearing and understanding the dialog, making an already confusing plot even harder to follow.

The first couple minutes is not bad, though unconvincing. After that the movie sinks to cliché. Who would have thought a taxi with a super charger? Who would have thought of a mouthy taxi driver? Who would have thought of an inept police officer? Who could believe a police officer so inept that he could not drive a car out of a parking space without hitting both the car in front and behind him? What a surprise it was when the airbags, that deploy instantly in the event of a crash, deployed several seconds after the crash! No one ever thought of that before. I do not know why there is a minimum of ten lines required for this review. I ran out of things to say several lines ago and now I am just typing to fill the required minimum. Am I there yet? Not yet. I am only on my ninth line. When I finish this line I will stop typing. I do not know if I have to fin=ll the entire tenth line or not. I am going to take a chance that I only have to get to the tenth line, not fill it. WAIT! WAIT A MINUTE! II filled it! Hazzah!

I am a zombie fan. I have seen dozens of zombie movies, maybe more. This one is nicely self- consistent. Decent story. Not-bad acting. FX aren't bad.

Only two significant comments. It's too dark. the movie takes place in a prison. I used to be a police officer. Every prison I ever saw was brightly lit. the guards want to be able to see what the prisoners are doing. the darkness of this movie destroyed its verisimilitude and made it much less pleasurable to watch.

The other serious incongruity is the woman whose large, bare breasts pop on and off the screen. Who is she and why is she hanging around the prison with no shirt on? I like bare breasts as much as the next guy, assuming the next guy isn't Ted Haggard, but they seem out of place in a prison movie, a zombie movie or in this case, a prison-zombie movie.

I have always been a good movie fan. I have recently become a zombie movie fan. I have watched 20+ zombie or zombie-like movies in the past year. This one is below the bottom of the industrial waste barrel.

The characters are caricatures: the pretty girl who doesn't know she's pretty, the pretty girl who knows she's pretty, the pretty girl who's an athlete, the jock ex-boyfriend, the computer geek who (surprise! is good looking and black! Zounds!) the put-upon hero, and lastly the geeky/ annoying/genius younger brother who will save the day.

I don't expect too many movies to be as good as Romero's originals, but this one doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same orifice. Romero's comes breathlessly from the lips of the terrified protagonist. Mention of this one comes from the nether regions, with an aroma to match.

Ii thought the acting was fine. I rented it primarily because I like William H. Macy. I was disappointed as the plot started to unfold. It was completely predictable. The only thing I didn't see coming was the wife not being pregnant.

I could have done without the violence. I expected a little violence, but there was way more violence that I expected, and more than I thought necessary.

There wasn't as much humor as I hoped, either. There was a lot more sex than I anticipated. That's always a plus.

Overall the predictability of the plot so overshadowed everything else I consider my 6 rating a salute to Macy more than my real enjoyment of the movie.