91. Ghoulies 2 (1987)

Reading through the comments on IMDB my favourite quote was “twice as good as the first one. 2 out of 10.” Unfortunately I haven’t seen the original, but it doesn’t seem to matter. It was also amusing to watch the trailers on this old ex-rental, and seeing one for another movie lower down the bottom 100 – The Garbage Pail Kids Movie. Looking forward to that one. Speaking of trailers, I must have seen the one for Ghoulies 2 dozens of times from other 80s straight to video films. So it was fun to finally see it.

Ghoulies 2 seems to follow on directly from the first film as a priest runs around a deserted gas station with a small bag containing some kind of animal. As with all abandoned gas stations in America there is a big steel drum of liquid marked ‘extremely toxic’ and ‘solvent’, frothing up at the top with a light mist. In goes the bag and with the help of a Ghoulie, so does the priest. What is going on? I’ve no idea. There was a Ghoulie in the bag, which survives the toxic stuff - plus a few more loitering out back.



The Ghoulies look rather dated rubbery creatures - green and slimy, each about a foot tall. It would be fair to say there are influences from the characterisations of the Gremlins and Critters. The Ghoulies are also mischievous, sadistic, and incomprehensible. Some have distinctive features - one can even fly. Although the original Ghoulies film is said to have been the first of these ‘little monster’ films to go into production, with special effects man Stan ‘Predator Aliens Terminator’ Winston briefly attached. But that’s a different story. This sequel certainly looks to be drawing on the more successful aspects of its contemporaries.

Back to the story… The central human characters are three men running a spook house called Satan’s Den, as part of a travelling carnival. The carnival is in financial trouble and it’s owners, an accountancy firm, are checking the figures and axing the least profitable acts. When the Satan’s Den truck stops for fuel, it happens to be aforementioned gas station. The Ghoulies are attracted to the pictures on the side of the truck of freaky looking monsters, much like themselves, and stow away. I’ll leave you to figure out the rest out.



Two actors stand out more than most. Firstly Royal Dano, as Ned the drunken spook house owner. He’s a good character actor and suits this kind of hammy material with a well judged slightly over-the-top performance. The other is Phil Fondacaro as spook house maintenance man Sir Nigel Pennyweight. Once again consolidating the idea that dwarfs/little people can only be actors or work in carnivals and circuses. Here they do both by having him quote lots of random Shakespeare in an attempt to add a little depth and quirkiness. Surprisingly he succeeds in raising the weak material just above boring; a greater achievement than it sounds, and something the rest of the cast failed to do.

The real stars of the show are still the Ghoulies though, putting the special effects to the fore. Through a combination of animatronics, puppetry, and a little stop motion the Ghoulies are presented effectively enough to suspend your disbelief. Naturally there are a number of deaths and a climatic finale including some great man-in-a-suit moments. Whilst nothing is especially spectacular, and the gore is toned down somewhat to obtain a PG-13 rating, it all fits together nicely.



Now it’s time to scalp producer/director Albert Band, who took a bad script and did nothing with it. Things start quickly enough and the story got my attention, but the camerawork is drab and uninspiring, with the pacing in the middle section slow enough for some people to turn off. Considering this is the man who directed the wonderfully titled ‘Dracula’s Dog’, I think his biggest gift to cinema was probably that of his son, Charles Band. A notorious B-movie maker, from the 80s up to the present day, who gets an executive producer credit here.

I won’t discuss it in too much detail, but the ending is absolutely bizarre. Coming totally out of left field. It’s as if it was the ending to a different film and somehow the script pages got mixed up. I can only guess that it was written as a hasty tongue in cheek idea. Plus there’s another hilarious directorial boo-boo. When all hell breaks loose at the carnival Albert Band directs his many extras to run around screaming in every conceivable direction for 15 minutes, without ever leaving the carnival grounds! I say chop up all these moronic fairground goers, and then get to work on the film crew.



I’ve seen dozens of these late 80s cheesy, not very scary, killer monster fests. It’s familiar territory and Ghoulies 2 doesn’t really stand out from the crowd. All the staples are there; unusual deaths, dancing girls, some cheap shots at yuppies. With the emphasis more on humour and action than suspense or gore, it ends up being stupider than other films of the era, but still passable for a few cheap laughs. However, seeing as most of the jokes fall flat or are too predictable, you’ll be more likely laughing at it, not with it. Chuck in the obligatory metal song from W.A.S.P. and were about done. What a load of pants.

Series:
Ghoulies (1985)
Ghoulies II (1987)
Ghoulies III: Ghoulies Go To College (1990)
Ghoulies IV (1994)

As of 8th May 2007 Ghoulies 2 scored a total of 2.5 out of 10, from 807 votes. Putting it at number 91 on the IMDB bottom 100. All the other Ghoulies films are perilously close to entering the bottom 100. A possible contender for worst received series of films ever?



So far:
Best film – Ator the Invincible (1984)
Worst film – The King and I (1999)

92. Santa Claus Conquers the Martians (1964)

This is the first public domain film to appear on the list. As a result, it’s fair game and so I don’t have a box cover to show you. Instead I whipped up this mini homage with my coloured pencils. Just a bit of fun. It’s also the first film from the new list. As of 8th May 2007 it had received a respectable 3,314 votes on the IMDB bottom 100. With an average score of 2.5 out of 10, leaving it at number 92.

Should I be ashamed when I say this actually made me laugh along with some of the jokes? It’s certainly no finely crafted Bill Murray comedy, or even up to the mediocre standard of a mid series Police Academy film, but it’s not completely without merit. Although for most, it will take a very special frame of mind to avoid drowning yourself in eggnog by the final reel.

The story begins with the leader of the Martians, Kimar. He is worried about the children of Mars - especially his own. They seem unhappy, can’t sleep, suffer a loss of appetite, and watch too much Earth television. Including a special interview in the North Pole with Santa Claus. After ten minutes deliberation and consulting a magical 800 year old wise man in a rock garden, he comes to the conclusion that Mars is no fun. Obvious solution: misappropriate Earth’s yearly Christmas festival for the Martians. Most inconsiderately they don’t try to approach Santa off peak and set up a convenient mid-July Christmas on Mars. They instead decide to kidnap him just before the big day.



Their ingenious plan consists of travelling to Earth, asking a couple of kids (Billy and Betty) where Santa is, kidnap them, send a giant robot named Torg to kidnap Santa, then back home in time to make toys for the whole planet. To make it a little more challenging they decide to bring along a Martian named Voldar, who has explicitly stated he hates the plan and will most likely try to sabotage the mission. As the title suggests, it doesn’t all go to plan, and a variety of shenanigans are crammed into the short running time.

The quality of the production matches that of the story. The Martians wear odd looking skin-tight uniform like pyjamas, with murky greenish face paint and wires on their heads. There is a certain awareness of this though. When the Martians meet Betty for the first time she asks what are the things on their heads? They reply “antennae”. She responds, “Are you a television set?” It’s absurd enough to be funny. As was a confused Santa thinking one of his reindeers was called Nixon.



The acting calibre is more reminiscent of a high school play. It’s wooden at times, hammy slapstick at others, but still manages to fit in with the overall highly silly tone. Bad guy Voldar is a traditional moustache twirling villain. Once he’s killed Santa he’ll probably move on to emptying his grandmother’s pension just to keep him in Brylcreem. At the other end of the spectrum we have light relief from Dropo; the Martian equivalent of Lee Evans. Not as frenetic, but they’d both be given a run in the IQ stakes by a glass of water. (Of course I’m talking about Lee Evans in character. I’m not that nasty.)

The chap playing Santa is everything you’d expect and more. Incessantly merry, and very accommodating considering he’s being violently attacked and harassed throughout the film. I wondered if he had a small keg of liquor stashed in his suit. Most of the cast actually make an impression whether for better or worse, particularly the newsreader faced with the daunting announcement, “Martians have kidnapped Santa Claus!!!”

As with all of the most embarrassing movies ever made, it has a specially written song. Sung by a rowdy group of kids in unison, here’s an excerpt.

“You spell it S-A-N-T-A! C-L-A-U-S!
Hooray for Santy Claus!
Yeah yeah for Santy Claus
He's fat and round, but jumpin' jiminy!
He can climb down any chim-in-y!”

Now why they would spell it ‘S-A-N-T-A’, then sing it ‘Santy’, is just another of many baffling oddities.



To say Santa Claus Conquers the Martians is ridiculous would be an understatement. To say it has a good production is to be both blind and deaf. However, looking at it in the context of a mid 60s film aimed at 6 year olds, it really is just a harmless bit of fun. In some ways it resembles a live action Hanna-Barbera cartoon, on a shoestring budget. There’s no subtlety, a complete disregard for reality, the jokes are clearly played for the camera. There’s so much in the plot that doesn’t make sense it’d be futile to list it all. I doubt it was taken any more seriously then than it is now.

If you’re feeling brave, give it a go. Surely anything beats spending another hour and a half with Dudley Moore.

Despite a relatively favourable review, it still can’t beat Ator’s bizarre antics in the Italian countryside for raw entertainment value.

So far:
Best film – Ator the Invincible (1984)
Worst film – The King and I (1999)

93. Underclassman (2005)

It’s a bad sign when the first scene in a film about a wise-cracking black undercover cop is a very poorly directed rip off of the first scene in Beverly Hills Cop. This film wants to be Beverly Hill Cop so badly it’s quite painful to see them fail. The director even goes on record to say they were trying to emulate that style in the ‘making of’ DVD extra. ‘Trying’ is most definitely the word.

When a student at an elite private high school is killed, our bike cop hero, Tre (Nick Cannon), is sent in undercover to catch the killer. There’s the obligatory preppie gags as Tre tries to fit in. A nerdy water boy who’s cool really but nobody notices, who is also the white kid trying to talk ‘black’ and making a fool of himself. A caricature authoritarian headmaster. Some montage sports scenes of Basketball (that Tre naturally excels at) and Rugby. A sexy Spanish teacher (Roselyn Sanchez), who takes a liking to Tre’s roguish charm. Rich jocks as prime suspects. Couple all that with police Captain Delgado (Cheech Marin) doing the whole tough on the outside boss routine, a pedestrian car chase, and a highly predictable plot. This is so heavily packed with clichés it more closely resembles an old arcade game than a serious attempt at writing for the cinema.



The writing comes from the authors of The Girl Next Door and Van Wilder with a ‘story by’ credit going to Nick Cannon. While this feels like a Cannon vehicle, considering the script-writers better previous work and Cannon’s lacklustre performance, I think it’s Cannon that is dragging his own vehicle down. In it’s favour the humour is gentler than many other films. You won’t find any big gross outs here, and that’s refreshing. The main problem I found was that the jokes simply aren’t that funny, and Cannon lacks any of the charm required to make you want to laugh. I’d quite happily have seen him shot in the second act.



When the film stops trying to be funny it only manages to deliver functional dialogue and recycled ideas. Gems like, “Sometimes hunches are how cases are solved” are delivered with embarrassing sincerity. Despite being incredibly formulaic it still manages to chuck in a slightly confusing plot hole during the finale. Director Marcos Siega, who has mostly worked in television, does a standard job with the material. He could easily be replaced by a legion of other decent directors without anyone noticing. In all fairness to him, the script is so bereft of potential he’s done well not to make it as boring as it must look on paper.

Performance wise Nick Cannon is annoying. He clearly wants to be funny, with his big arm gestures and over the top delivery. It’s very much a case of style over substance, and it’s unlikely he’ll ever be a major star. Cheech Marin (of Cheech and Chong fame) and Kelly Hu (X-Men 2) are the only other notable actors due to their previous work. Both are on autopilot, and capable of more given the right material.



I’ve come down pretty hard on this quite frankly because it’s easy to. There’s nothing terribly offensive about this movie. Its major crimes are the unoriginality and a lot of very poor jokes. When the peak of intelligence is the ham-fisted painting metaphors with a paintball game it really is time to call it a day. No surprises it made number 93 on the IMDB bottom 100 with a score of 2.6 out of a possible 10, from 1,526 votes (as of 1st Feb 2007). Ultimately it has already left the bottom 100 because it was competently made, tells a story, and had one funny joke in it. Despite all its flaws it is at least a watchable time waster.


So far:
Best film – Ator the Invincible (1984)
Worst film – The King and I (1999)

IMDB Bottom 100 Update and Reflections

Well, I’ve been plugging away at the bottom100 list for a couple of months now and quite feebly only made it to number 94 – although I’ll be posting up the next review of Underclassman soon. It’s time for a much need update of the list as, if you click the image to the left, you’ll see a lot of changes. This is the list from May 8th 2007. You can see there is a general downward trend of films leaving the bottom 100 over time. Possibly because as films receive more votes it gets harder to maintain such a low score. There are also a number of new entries that have just received the necessary 650 votes, and newly released films which get a very bad kneejerk reaction at first, then claw their way out soon after. None of my reviewed films are there anymore, although some do pop in from time to time if you check regularly.

Looking back on the films so far I can conclude that bad films know no limitations in genre, age, budget, or the talent of cast and crew. The 50s and 60s films Beginning of the End, Monster A Go-Go and Eegah were cheap, nasty, and thoroughly silly films. In fact, so were the Ator the Invincible (80s) and Werewolf (90s). In all cases they were laughable enough to be watchable and to some extent enjoyable. These films all touched on that rare filmic status of 'so bad they’re good’. Perhaps they only fell short by making too much sense, or having at least one good actor.

Then we have the more modern films. The King and I (1999), which I can imagine has been largely voted for by adults, parents, babysitters, and the like. I doubt that all the votes are from computer savvy 7 year olds who this film is aimed at. Nevertheless, it was a largely painful experience to watch and remains the worst I’ve seen yet. I wasn’t even expecting to see an animation on this list let alone hate it so much.

If Rollerball (2002) had been an ultra low budget film I think it may have been hilariously. Unfortunately it had enough of a budget only to homogenise it and bore me to death. Not to mention having a stupid, stupid, ending. Finally Underclassman (2005) – I don’t want to spoil my next review but this deservedly left the bottom 100 since February. It’s bad, but certainly no Werewolf.

I suppose what I’m also concluding is that, so far, the cheaper and older films provide the most fun in terms of unintentional laughs and sillyness. The inflated budgets of later films give a feeling of failure due to lack of effort and poor judgement, resulting in annoyance and boredom. Whilst watching some locusts filmed close up being chucked into a puddle of water is somewhat endearing in its attempts to entertain. Considering this is only 8 films in though we’ll see if this pattern maintains. After all, I still think that Con Air (1997) fits in the so stupid it’s funny category, and that has an enormous budget by comparison. So it can be done.

At this point a special mention to Mystery Science Theater 3000 (MST3K) has to be made. An old TV show that found its fame through mocking bad movies. Read the Wiki entry here for more info. So far five of the eight films (Beginning of the End, Monster A Go-Go, Eegah, Ator the Invincible, Werewolf) have featured on their show, and I know more are to come. It’s no surprise that those films are from the episodes released on DVD. They’ve done more to highlight awful movies than anyone else I can think of, and in doing so had a profound effect on this list.

That’s enough from me.
Jaune

94. Eegah (1962)

Things have been a little slow on here. A lot of ideas being knocked around and not enough work getting done. Rest assured a new story is on the way in a few days. But that’s not what I came to talk about. I came here to discuss the vast joys of the motion picture called Eegah! …

… Now I’ve done that I’ll get down to business.

“The crazed love of a prehistoric giant for a ravishing teen-age girl!”

With a tagline like that, who needs a film? And besides, what they made really doesn’t live up to the hype. I'd imagined something that should probably be banned. This is more like a really rich man’s warped home movie with one struggling actor thrown in for fun. More on that later.

Having not read the back of the box before watching this I was surprised to find it set in modern day (1960s) California. It wastes no time getting into the action, as our teenage girl, Roxy Miller, is driving late at night and nearly runs over a tall guy in rags with a big plastic club. Now I’m not the tallest chap in the world, but describing someone whose 7ft 2 as a giant is a little generous. He is obviously very tall, but it’s not filmed in a way which looks that impressive. Nevertheless, she sets about convincing her boyfriend and father.

A humorous piece of justification comes when the father, Robert Miller, cites the bible with, “There were giants in the earth, in those days”. Then her boyfriend Tom quickly stakes his Elvis LP on the existence of this giant. Naturally they visit the scene of the incident at the edge of the desert. Once they find a largish looking footprint in the sand, everyone is convinced. Robert even wants to write a book about it. This leads to a trip into the desert and lots of predictable giant fun.

This film is wrong in so many ways I’m not sure where to start. Eegah was made about the time of Cliff’s Summer Holiday and Elvis doing the hula. The influences are obvious as it jumbles up the genres to present us with a fantasy, horror, musical, love film. I might say it was innovative if it wasn’t such an obvious drive-in cash in. Amusingly the director Arch Hall Senior said, “It was always sort of a subject of laughter that the darned thing did so well”. Funnier still that he’s referring to the film just breaking even.

This film had no budget and it shows. Filming in the California desert, with a cast made up of the director’s son, Arch Hall Junior as Tom, the director’s secretary, Marilyn Manning as Roxy, and the director Arch Hall Senior playing the father. That just leaves Eegah the prehistoric oddity played by Richard Kiel. Who went on to play one of the 007 films most recognisable villains – Jaws. Often referred to as ‘the big guy with the metal teeth’. Kiel comes off with the best performance since he doesn’t have to do much other than growl, chuck stuff, and act primitive. Everyone else is dire. Worse still are the incongruous musical interruptions from Arch Hall Junior, as he sings songs about girls (and never his girlfriend – how insensitive).

I did find myself laughing a fair few times at some of the bizarre things going on. For instance Robert Miller trying to pimp his daughter to Eegah so that they can escape from his cave. Then there’s the very fact that Eegah and his prehistoric species have survived in a cave near L.A. for thousands of years and never been noticed till now. And when Roxy asks to see Eegah’s cave etchings I was rolling in hysterics.



The production values are as bad as the acting and story. Eegah sports a very big and very fake beard, whilst still maintaining a nice short, back and sides haircut. A lot of dialogue has been recorded and dubbed in later. Characters speak even though their lips are not moving. Some voices sound like they are coming from the sky. Scenes are overly long and bland. The overall pace of the movie is too slow with a rather abrupt ending.

It’s no surprise then that Eegah only scored 2.6 out of a possible 10 on the IMDB, from 2,107 votes, putting it at number 94 on the all time bottom 100 (as of Feb 1st 2007). It’s also no wonder that Arch Hall Junior never acted in a film that wasn’t either written or directed by his father. View at your own risk.

If you don’t think you can stomach a viewing of Eegah: The Movie, why not try out Eegah: The Website at www.eegah.com It's got some funky artwork, sound clips, photos, lyric sheets, and loads of info. All in an aptly mocking tone. Great fun.


So far:
Best Film: Ator the Invincible (1984)
Worst Film: The King and I (1999)

95. The King And I (1999)

Released the same year as the more successful Anna and the King, this is another attempt from director Richard Rich and Warner Brothers to copy the Disney format, after bringing us the Swan Princess trilogy. And boy, should they have quit while they were behind. On February 1st 2007 The King and I stood at number 95 on the IMDB bottom 100 with an average score of 2.6 out of 10, from 829 votes.

Adapted from the Rodgers and Hammerstein classic of the same name. What’s that I hear turning? The King and I is one of the most famous musicals ever made. Performed on Broadway and around the world thousands of times over the last 55 years. Fans of the original will watch this sugar coated mess aghast at the butchering of a classic. Those who have never seen the story before, will most likely be bored by the string of unimaginative and unfunny clichés trotted out complete with numerous cutesy animal sidekicks for good measure.

The basic story revolves around Anna, a schoolteacher, and the King of Siam. Set in 19th century Siam, Anna has been hired to teach the King’s children English. It explores their cultural differences whilst also telling the subplot of a love story between Prince Chulalongkorn and a slave girl Tuptim. Meanwhile the king’s brother, The Kralahome, is using his evil magical powers to kill the King and Prince so that he can become King. There are substantial differences from the original stories plot and not all of the original songs are used, and those that are don’t feature in exactly the same order. Not to mention the addition of some action sequences.

On it’s own merits The King and I is a weak film. The animation is a mixed bag; at times just fine at others, for want of a better word, clumsy. There is a Saturday morning feeling that doesn’t deserve to make it to the big screen. It certainly doesn’t match up to the standard of other films of its time, such as Mulan or Toy Story 2. The story itself feels like an Aladdin wannabe. It uses all the stock elements of the genre, dastardly magical villain, cute animals, idiot sidekicks, slapstick, and uses them in a paint by numbers style. Thinking about it, maybe the animation was paint by numbers too; would explain the low quality.

No time is spent building up the characters. They remain as two dimensional as the paper they were drawn on. None of the vocal actors performances are memorable, although Martin Vidnovic stands out as a lacklustre imitation of Yul Brynner (the original actor who played the King). There aren’t any bad performances as such, it’s just a bad script. One curious new character is The Kralahome’s stupid henchmen, Master Little, whose running gag involves having all his teeth knocked out. It’s not funny. Neither are the less slapstick gags. All it does is make me want to kick all the other characters teeth out.

Some of the dialogue feels rather incongruous, for instance when Master Little wants revenge on a mischievous monkey he says, “Your time will come monkey, I know torture’. It’s delivered as a light aside, but seems inappropriately weird. Or the odd juxtaposition of the Prince singing a love song whilst practicing his martial arts. For whatever reasons these moments don’t work and it all seems a bit silly. The character scenes are just loosely strung together to accelerate the plot. Once a song ends they have sudden and dramatic shifts in mood, because the story requires it, although they haven’t taken the time to develop it plausibly.

I just need to get this off my chest. Why does every central character need to have a floppy animal wander around behind them, falling over a lot? The English kid has a monkey. Tuptim has a baby elephant. The King has a panther. I was half expecting The Kralahome to have a wisecracking aardvark jump out of a plant pot and perform ‘If My Friends Could See Me Now’.

The songs are one of the stronger points by virtue of having been written by someone more talented. Unfortunately, they feel shoehorned into the shortened running time between character scenes. They also have less charm. A perfect example being the first song, ‘I Whistle a Happy Tune’, which is sung whilst being attacked by sea monsters conjured by The Kralahome. The scene is neither tense nor sweet, and isn’t even drawn very well. It creates a pretty bad impression right from the start.

I know I'm an adult but I should be able to at least sit through this film without the need of narcotics. The first half hour really breaks the viewer, even though it does settle down more through the mid-section, before it's mundane, if not ludicrous, finale. With so many other films of its type available, and better versions of the same story, it quickly sinks to the bottom of the list.

Here’s a little trivia I gleaned from the Wikipedia:
“The possession of anything related to Anna and the King of Siam or The King and I is illegal in Thailand, because of what the Thai government said were historical inaccuracies about the King of Siam.”
I’d have no problem with this particular version being made illegal worldwide, for it’s crimes against taste and entertainment.


So far:
Best film – Ator the Invincible (1984)
Worst film – The King & I (1999)

96. Ator the Invincible (1984)

Sorry for the long break - but I had a VCR breakdown that held up getting screengrabs of this classic, which is yet to make it to DVD. Hopefully the wait was worth it. Now to Ator...

Writer/director Joe D’Amato is notorious for directing a multitude of gore, hard and softcore sex films, and various combinations of all three with lashings of sleaze thrown on top. He has worked on more films than many have watched, and gone by more pseudonyms than you could probably name members of your own family. Joe D’Amato being one of them; his birth name was Aristide Massaccesi. As his real name suggests, his films are Italian productions, but often working in English, with English speaking actors.

Ator the Invincible – also known as Ator 2, Ator L’invincible 2, Ator: The Blade Master, Cave Dwellers, The Blade Master, The Return… where was I? … oh yes. Ator the Invincible is the sequel to Ator; The Fighting Eagle – also known as Ator, Ator: L'aquila Battante, and of course Ator the Invincible. Oh dear.

The Ator films are a departure from D’Amato’s usual material, being more family friendly fantasy adventure films. Most likely made to cash in on the Conan films of 1982 and 1984 – the exact same years that the first two Ator films were released. I’m guessing they don’t make all that much cash anymore. On February 1st 2007 Ator the Invincible received an average score of 2.6 of 10, from 1,336 votes, placing it at No.96 on the Internet Movie DataBase’s bottom 100 films.
-

The film starts with a quick, and unnecessary, recap of the events of the previous film. I’m not sure if it’s there to pad out the running time or show that Ator is really tough. Either way, he fights off some zombies, a shadow monster, and a giant spider God. So it gives you a flavour of what’s to come. The story revolves around an object of infinite power – the geometric nucleus. No more explanation is given, but an evil and powerful man named Zovv attacks the castle where the nucleus is kept. A wise man named Akronas has hidden the nucleus somewhere in the castle and Zovv must be stopped from finding it or he could… do something bad.

Akronas has also sent his daughter Mila out to find Ator and ask for his help to stop Zovv. Telling her to ride to “what seems like the end of the earth”, she actually just takes a quick jog through a field and some woodlands where she finds Ator in a cave. Strangely the journey back will take them a couple of days; just one of many plot holes and continuity errors. Ator joins her with his curiously named Japanese warrior friend ‘Thong’. Their epic journey begins.

Perhaps I’ve watched too many ‘bad’ films, but despite being very lazily made from start to finish, it’s actually quite amusing. Ator spends most of his time striding around in big pants and furry boots, proudly showing off his nipples, thwarting things. Whilst occasionally proving his exceptional scientific knowledge. And it’s surprising just how much he can fit into those pants, as he suddenly produces numerous homemade bombs, and at one point a hang-glider out of nowhere! Perhaps it came in his Kinder Egg. The standard of foes is similar to the previous film, including invisible monsters (a sure sign of the budget) and a big rubber snake.



There seems to be some confusion about when this film is set. We have a narration that talks of the fires of creation and man’s growing ascendancy - heavily implying prehistoric times through the clothing. Next we have well groomed men of science and language, along with medieval castles, gunpowder bombs, and mass-produced handrails on castle staircases. Not to mention the feudal samurai warriors, and the hang-glider. It’s all rather confusing.

The plot never goes anywhere logical. Despite knowing Ator is on his way, Zovv spends most of his time exchanging polite insults with Akronas and stroking his fake moustache. Despite knowing the fate of the world rests on attaining the geometric nucleus before Zovv, Ator decides to take a long excursion to sort out some petty disagreements between impoverished villagers. I would say things come to a predictable conclusion but the film is so loosely put together you can never be quite sure what will turn up next.

Acting wise there is very little talent on show. Lisa Foster is probably the most consistent and convincing of a bad lot as the smart, tough and sexy Mila. Miles O’Keefe, of Tarzan fame, gives an acceptable performance as Ator. Although his part calls for little more than killing things followed by a couple of moral speeches. Chen Wong (Thong) is lucky that he is not required to speak. It makes him appear a better actor by virtue of not being given the chance to make a fool of himself. Everyone else is atrocious.



It was a laugh, but it was also a great big mess, hammed up to the max. Whilst the direction is barely competent, pretty much everything else fails. They couldn’t even get the final narration right as a couple of words were accidentally edited out, rendering the sentence nonsensical. It’s quite astounding that this was followed by two further sequels. I wouldn’t recommend Ator the Invincible to anyone as serious entertainment. Conan fans might be able to derive some cheap laughs from it.


Sequels:
Iron Warrior (1987) - starring Miles O’Keefe, but not directed by D’Amato.
Quest for the Mighty Sword (1990) - no Miles O’Keefe but D’Amato returns to direct it.


So far:
Best film – Ator the Invincible (1984)
Worst film – Rollerball (2002)