The Wickeds (Video 2005) Poster

(2005 Video)

User Reviews

Review this title
29 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
2/10
What have i done to deserve this?
cold_lazarou21 October 2010
Now, let me begin by saying that i love cheap horror movies. Can't get enough of 'em. I adore "Plan 9 from Outer Space". I loved "Chopping Mall" and "I Dismember Mama". But this... abomination...

Shot on camcorder in a local graveyard and what seems to be someone's garden shed standing in for the requisite "Evil Dead" shack, this stars (and i use the word advisedly) porno legend Ron Jeremy and the local amateur dramatics society. When the Hedgehog of Sex puts in a movie's best performance, things ain't looking good.

Anyhow, the plot - such as it is - involves two cretinous gravediggers stealing an amulet from the body of a magician / vampire, who promptly rises from the grave to retrieve his filched property, and conjures a horde of zombies from the surrounding graves to help him besiege a shed full of dozy students in which said gravedigging thieves have taken refuge. Leaving aside the question of how a vampire summons zombies, what follows is some of the most inept stuff committed to film. The girl who is spuriously "possessed", gaining spooky eyes DRAWN ONTO HER EYELIDS had me paralysed with laughter rather than fear.

Worth viewing only for the hot brunette chick (Kelly Roth) and the awe-inspiring stunt sequence where a guy hangs and drops a whole 3 feet onto some straw. They even play it in slow motion for maximum devastating effect. This film may well be toxic: do not approach.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Really bad "Night of the Living Dead" rip-off.
HumanoidOfFlesh21 January 2006
Seven young people have decided to spend Halloween night in an old,run down house supposed by the local community to be haunted.However during the night a couple of grave robbers-one of whom is played by porn legend Ron Jeremy-drop by,terrified beyond belief.They are on the run from an army of bloodthirsty zombies,which will not rest until it has killed off everyone in the group."The Wickeds" by John Poague is a laughably bad zombie flick filled with lame acting,absurd situations and tons of cheesy splatter.The script is incredibly poor and rips-off "Night of the Living Dead" and "Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things".Still Ron Jeremy's character and plenty of zombie mayhem are obvious highlights of this crappy flick.3 out of 10.Not recommended.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Not even a good joke
drsnidely29 December 2005
Okay, maybe it was obviously supposed to be a joke. But it's a really bad one. Shaun of the Dead and House of 1000 Corpses are send-ups of cheesy horror movies. This movie is an irredeemable piece of crap. It looks like some film-school dropout borrowed his dad's camcorder, provided some free beer for his friends, and drove out to an abandoned farmhouse to try to make a movie. The acting is horrific, the plot is non-existent, and the special effects look like something out of a Saturday Night Live sketch. They couldn't even get the makeup right. The zombies don't even look like zombies. They look like college kids dressed as zombies. I suspect when Ron Jeremy looks back on his career, he'll consider this film to be among his lowest moments. I appreciate bad horror films as much as anyone, but this monstrosity should be avoided at all costs.
7 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
One of the Worst Movies EVER!
darkness19981 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Just to let you know I can usually find something interesting or noteworthy about every movie I see. This is the first time I have ever given a 1* (COMPLETELY Awful!) rating to a movie. Many times when you get a b-rated movie there is at least a somewhat interesting plot (or at least watchable), maybe some funny lines, or special effects, or lots of sex & nudity. This movie had nothing at all. Actually the only reason I even finished watching the movie was so I could comment on it here. The plot had so many cheesy overtones from several other movies (mainly Night of the Living Dead & a bad vampire movie) that it seemed like the writers got confused if they were making a zombie movie or a vampire movie. The only line in the movie that made me break a smile was when the zombies are attacking the house and one of these hack actors said, "What would Bruce Campbell do?" As far as nudity/sex is concerned where do I begin? First of all the only nudity in the whole film is a female zombie. Which I was thinking could be a good thing since most of the zombies were better looking than the lead actresses in the film. The one somewhat "hot" girl in the movie is kissing and dry humping her boyfriend for the first 20 min of the film but it is extremely boring. The acting is the worst I have ever seen. I didn't expect much acting talent from Ron Jeremy but many times you get to see some decent actors or over actors in these types of films. I wouldn't have cast these actors in a grade school play. As someone else said the only reason I rented this movie was because the box looked cool. I would recommend avoiding this movie at all costs.
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
How did this survive editing?
RaiderKat233 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
My only thought is "they didn't have editors for this movie". Despite the horribly bad... well, everything, there were things that were just unnecessarily bad.

Yes, the gore was crap, and there was only two, very short, gory scenes despite this being a movie that you would expect gore from.

But what really made me laugh was how many mistakes there were. There was at least six times when thing would be one way, then they would change to a different scene, and they would have forgotten to make the changes from the previous scene. Bites and wounds would have magically disappeared, etc.

And yes, I want to know how they could have possibly blown a million dollars on this. That doesn't seem possible, even if they had to buy the land and build the house. Explanation please?
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Horrible
TXequestrian1312 July 2005
The cover was false advertising. I actually was excited to rent it and every time I went to Blockbuster they were out of it.. so I'm guessing a lot of other people were fooled by their cover. Although they were pretty smart to get people to see it (which really, is the main goal) by the misleading cover and synopsis, there was nothing even remotely close to what the cover was like. I spent my time laughing at the bad acting, shadows of the camera guy, cheesy special effects, lame plot, Ron Jeremy?, well why waste my time even talking about it.. the movie just plain sucked.

Don't see it.
12 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This movie was so...mmph...(chuckle)...ha,ha...HA HA HA!
Concord00715 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
OK, I expected bad when I rented it. But my wife and I like bad horror movies on a Saturday night. We like to do the MST 3000 thing and make wisecracks and boy, does this movie ever give you the opportunity!

SPOILER WARNING!

The director (or whoever was responsible) was obviously confused as to what the monsters were. At times they were zombies but after Ron Jeremy's partner transformed he had vampire teeth and started biting Ron's neck! Guess they had the teeth and wanted to use them. Later they had the African-American girl confront a ghost which also just seemed to be carelessly tossed into the script - it had nothing to do with the "plot" as developed this far.

Grape or raspberry jam was the main gore effect and I'm sure the people employed to walk in front of the camera (didn't want to mislead you and call them actors) had to shower the stuff off a lot. Zombies either walked slowly or (in the case of the first teenager offed) could react as nimbly as a living person could depending on...what? No logical reason.

The early sex scene was where I initially made my "here's the gratuitous nudity scene" only as another reviewer noted it was a long boring dry-hump, the length of which was way out of proportion to the rest of the film.

Got a kick out of seeing names on the gravestones obviously blurred out. Added to the overall cheapness of the movie. Too many pseudo-boo moments early on, they added nothing. Ron Jeremy was a porn star? Was he in better shape than this or was there a market for plump male porn actors? I did appreciate the reasonable use of profanity, get tired of movies that use the f-word or similar every third word.

If you're looking for a laugh, rent this. Otherwise stay away.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Good DVD artwork, awful, awful movie
thatgayguymatt21 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I'm a huge fan of low budget horror, so when I saw this movie at my video store I had to rent it. I was so disappointed. Bad acting, awful editing, no scares, nothing new, nothing worth recommending, except one or two cool looking zombies. I don't want to make anyone involved with this movie mad, but it is just plain awful.

Not even the pretty actresses can save this movie.

All the action takes place during daytime in a house where these dumb teenagers and Ron Jeremy (who gives the best performance) can't figure out a way to get out, but have no problems arguing among themselves.

Avoid it at all cost.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Holy ****!
terrible222 September 2006
Sometimes, we are simply out-smarted by distribution companies. I was wandering through the video store looking for some new horror to rent. I came across this little "**** nugget" and the cover screamed "Rent me!"... Now, I've seen a lot of bad horror films in my life, but this one is just wrong on SO many levels... It is completely mind boggling that some film production company payed actual money to have this thing made... There is nothing salvageable here, bad cinematography (if you could call it that), horrible acting, despicable script and the editing... You can actually see the cameraman in several scenes!

Again, I will take full blame for not reading the back cover. Had I done so, the name "Ron Jeremy" would have jumped out at me, and I would have looked around for creepy guys in trench-coats, thinking I was at the wrong video store...

This thing deserves no rating.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
No More "HEAD" For Ron Jeremy!!!
SpeedyFromTheBerks13 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
No, that is not in reference to Mr. Jeremy's (a.k.a. "The Hedgehog") porn career. In this movie, he gets his head ripped off by a bunch of zombies, hence the no more "head" for Ron Jeremy in the summary. Not funny? Oh well.

Anyway, where do I begin with this movie? Plot? Well, 7 bratty teenagers decide to go to an old farmhouse that is being used as the set for a low budget horror movie. On the way to the farmhouse, the teenager driving the vehicle they are all in (Richard-and I only remember his name cause, well, cause that's my name) decides to play chicken with an oncoming pick-up truck. They head toward each other and the truck swerves and pulls into a cemetery. Inside this truck are 2 grave robber's, one being played by the for-mentioned Ron Jeremy. He is there digging up a grave and looking for an amulet that his worth more than you could imagine. Only thing is, when he does get the amulet, the dead start coming back to life. Soon, Ron and his grave robbing buddy head toward the farmhouse and the zombies give chase. Well, if you want to say "chase". How the grave-robbers and the teenagers seem to have trouble out running the zombies is beyond me. So, needless to say, blood is shed and nearly everyone is killed besides...well, watch it if you want to know. Though I don't advise you to watch it. Not even sure why I did.

The acting? The only plus for more was actually the acting of Ron Jeremy. I don't think his performance here was on par as the one he gave in 'HOUSEWIFE FROM HELL' but, being he's a porn star, what more could I expect? Some okay stuff was done with the budget they had. I liked the ghost effect of the ghost coming down the stairs and I liked it when one of the zombie girls got her head smashed in with a shovel but that's about it.

One more thing. Whoever edited this movie needs to find a career doing something else cause your editing was complete crap. MAIN EXAMPLE: Guy and girl are about to have sex in bedroom. Guy has pants on. Switch to shot of the girl from the front and the guy is sitting behind her with his legs to her side, clearly he is not wearing pants. Cut to other things going on in and around the house. Cut back to sex scene. Guy has pants back on, than off, than on. PATHETIC!!!
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Sooooooooo bad
cutiemilf2129 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Worst film ever!! Worst film ever!!! Warning: ''The Wickeds'', by John Poague and written by David Zagorski, was the worst film I've ever seen. I'm a big fan of well done independent films, and this was not one of them. The filmmakers clearly had problems in ever department.

Sound- lots of camera noise and horrible special-sound- effects.

Camera- Direction was not good, & Cinematography was awful, '' hurts-your-eyes'' it's so bad.

Script- Continuity was the biggest issue here- the story wasn't too bad, it was just made by bad filmmakers and very bad actors.

Lights- In almost every scene, the lights are casting shadows on the walls, and twice I actually saw the boom pole.

Ron Jeremy, the infamous porn star plays the protagonist in this film, and even he could not make this film worthy of the 4 dollars I wasted on it...this film should not be at Blockbuster, but rather at a store especially for failed films...I pray to God I never make something as atrocious as this... That's 87 minutes of my life I'll never get back!!
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A Wicked Horror Film
jlthornb516 June 2015
Director John Poague brings Dave Zagorski wonderfully horrifying script to the screen with imagination and vision. The atmosphere is creepy and frightening, the set design astonishingly terror inducing, and the special effects nothing less than amazing. With a minimum of gore, Poague relies on the story itself to elicit the shocks and that it does with great intensity. The scares are unrelenting as a superb cast bring to life a group of flesh and blood characters who we can identify with and feel their vulnerability. Few films succeed in being both intelligent and horrifying at the same time but this one does it supremely well. One must see it to believe the horror, terror, and gripping suspense that is The Wickeds.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Learn to take a joke!
tkelly702925 September 2005
Of course this movie was cheesy. It was supposed to be cheesy! Jeez. Learn to take a joke. The whole point of the movie was obviously to make fun of all the stupid, cheesy, B-movies out there. Reading all the other reviews, I can't believe you guys actually took this seriously. A horror movie with porn legend Ron Jeremy? Wasn't that your first clue that this wasn't a horror movie at all? And of course the sex was dry humping. How many of your local mass market video stores stock movies with actually x-rated sex scenes? How many horror movies (think Friday the 13th) have you seen with ACTUAL SEX? You were expecting Marilyn Chambers to jump out of a closet and start blowing a zombie maybe? Get a grip. This movie was so obviously meant to be a send up of the worst of the worst horror movies and, judging by the responses of the other people writing about it here, it went over their heads.
6 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Truly awful
CaterpillarEffect3 July 2009
I don't even see a point in writing a good review for something this bad, so I will just rant...

This movie is so bad I only watched 15 minutes of the whole thing. Or even less, seeing as I did fast forward through the whole film.

It is awful. The acting was awful The script was awful. As were the editing, the camera operator, and so on. Even the sex scene was out of order. Until now I didn't think that was even possible. Possibly one or two of the zombies had good make-up. That's it when it comes to the good stuff.

I didn't expect a lot from it, but it didn't cross my mind that it could be this bad. That anything could be this bad. I can't believe someone actually made this. I feel mentally scarred for life now, it was so awful.

I would give this a minus rating if I could, but seeing that 1 is the lowest rating, I will have to settle for that...

Don't even think of watching this. Never, ever.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The problem (among many) of this film.
TOMNEL1 November 2006
With Ron Jeremy.

One good thing about a lot of really bad horror films is they are unintentionally funny. This film was funny at the beginning because of how bad it was, but after that it just got boring. The movie has everything wrong in it. The gore effects were really fake looking, and ultra plentiful. The acting was really, really bad!!! Some things in it were funny though. In the cemetery it seems as though the director couldn't actually get access to all of it, so many of the tombstones names in the film are blurred out. There's a scene where a creature is biting a character's neck, and you can clearly see that they aren't even near him. The zombies aren't at all scary. It's an idiotic film, that you might enjoy as a comedy, but most likely won't.

Rated R for some sex, violence and language. 82 mins,
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Holy Crap
Chocolategurl17 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Whoever said "Holy crap" had obviously seen this film. It looked like a movie I'd film in my backyard, except much crappier. (I know that's not a word, but it fits so well.) The script was a mess of horror movie references that made no logical sense. The only good actor was Ron Jeremy, so you know that's bad. When you read the back of the packaging, it sounds good, and the cover is a graphic artists' dream, but the execution is enough to make someone suicidal. I've sat through 'Scary Movie' when I was 15 and with my Dad, but I turned off The Wickeds about half way through. It has the distinction of being the first movie I ever stopped watching because it was SOOO god awful. Congrats.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Whats to spoil?
Verona16 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I love bad horror movies, but I actually turned this one off because it got to be really boring. It was a mix of Amityville Horror, Return of the Living Dead, Night of the Living Dead, and a piece of lint I guess. It was more movie loaf, real movie pieces chunked in form.

I have some comments: 1.) Decide what you're going to be! Are you a zombie flick? A ghost/haunted house flick? Possession? Vampire? 2.) Most zombie movies are pretty good about this, but if we are supposed to assume that most of the zombies are coming out of their graves, not just fresh & turned kills, why would they be buried in jeans? A wedding dress? Completely nude? Did a prom bus turn over near the cemetery? 3.) The zombie caught instantly on fire.

4.) The actors- yeah they were pretty bad. And the blonde chick had the worst hair, it was like Christina Crawford from Mommie Dearest! 5.) Ron Jeremy, in here for novelty, sounded like he trained with Howard Cosell. But of course, hes not really known for his voice...

6.) Ah yes the Ancient Curse from the 1970's...Yeah the "Vampire King" or whatever- German Primse- looked like Captain Spaulding & Clint Howard had a baby.

7.) Could the beginning have been any more directly ripped from the Return of the Living Dead movies? Those were so campy and ahead of their time, but c'mon! 8.) I was laughing so hard during the "slow mo" action scenes. yes he jumps from a second story porch onto a huge pile of hay! Action! It was the Walker Texas Ranger Lever.

9.) So...there are members of the Sex Pistols and deBarge buried there? At least try people! 10.) As a woman I appreciate making out and foreplay, etc., but that was the longest "sex" scene I have ever witnessed! And sex didn't even occur! 11.) Okay wasn't the Vampire guy already IN the house? Then why was he outside again trying to get back in? I don't know what to say...it was like a poor-poor mans Troma. All that I can forgive- if its at least entertaining, interesting. This was really boring.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Dumb Dumb DUMB horror *SPOILERS*
Finewine583 July 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I've seen a lot of really dumb horror movies in my day, but this has got to be one of the worst EVER. Let me start by saying that I'm not going to harp on the acting or quality...it's what you would expect from a very low budget horror movie. The cast does a good enough job and the zombies look pretty good. My only problem with it (which ruins the whole movie for me) is the incredible idiocy of the movie. Let's go down the list:

1) Zombies are popping up out of their graves, yet some are dressed in tie-dye and one even in little league uniform. I don't know about you, but last time I saw someone get buried, they wore real clothing, not baseball uniforms. 2) All those zombies and not a single hole in front of a grave? Whats up with that?? 3) The grave diggers decide to run away from the zombies instead of getting in their truck and driving off? HUH? 4) Speaking of trucks, how is it easier to run to the cemetery after a truck that you don't have keys for, when you have you OWN vehicle parked 10 feet in front of the house? All you have to do is find the kid with the keys! Once again, HUH? 5) One second its a zombie movie, the next there's ghosts? Make up your mind! 6) The zombie in the attic in the coffin...come on, did that magically appear or what?

OK, I'm done ranting now. I just watched this movie and couldn't wait for it to end cause it was so bad. Despite the hot chicks in it and good looking zombies, the movie is lame city.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ron Jeremy steals the film -- and he can keep it!
moviemanic0710 January 2006
A group of kids decide to spend Halloween at a house in the countryside being used as a set for a low budget horror film next to a large cemetery where two gravediggers bring the dead back to life by stealing a piece of jewelry from a corpse. Okay, time for the pros and cons. The pros: Ron Jeremy. The (former?) porn star was the best thing in this film. He was the only actor who seemed comfortable in front of the camera, and he seemed to be the only one who didn't take everything too seriously. As a result, he managed to give the film it's only enjoyable moments. The cons: Ron Jeremy is the best thing in the film. That should tell you everything you need to know about the rest of the indistinguishable actors and actresses who spend the entire movie screaming or yelling at each other. It became a bit of a headache, which was made even more infuriating because there is not a bit of common sense in the film, i.e., why did Jeremy and his friend run to the house rather than going to their own truck. Why everyone just doesn't get the other car going. Plus, does there have to be a ghost too? If you can't get the zombie thing down, don't even thing about doing ghosts. Geez, Louise. Enough already!

Truth be known, I sought this film out. I saw a trailer for it before "The Revolting Dead." I hated "The Revolting Dead," which had the same plot about grave robbers being tormented by the returning dead, but I thought this film had to be better. Oddly enough, this film was better than "The Revolting Dead" thanks mainly to Ron Jeremy. (One final note, without meaning to, I have just seen Ron Jeremy in three out of the last four horror movies I saw. I guess there must be a law requiring him to appear in every horror movie under a certain budget. This performance was the best of the three.)
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
So many things wrong with this movie
maeve_autumn_rain21 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
OK...I don't even know where to begin. I was recommended to see this and was so disappointed. The scene in the car sucks...total B movie from the beginning. I let that slide. Then the grave robbing. Lame! The vampire in the grave had the worst makeup I've ever seen! I could do better. And hello!!!It's daytime. Why is he rising during daylight? And then the kids having sex..oh wait, they never got that far. Right. And like the zombie/vampire would have replaced the bf! Oh my fave is the gf with no shirt on when the vamp/zombie shows up, suddenly has her bar back on as she's hysterically running down the stairs??!! No way. It would have been more real if she came down with her shirt or hands just covering her up. Like I'd pause from running away from a creature to put on my bra. I think modesty would take a backseat to staying alive....DUH! What else? What's with the single ghost? Is this a ghost story, or a zombie flick, or a vampire movie? They couldn't decide? It's fine to have them all in a movie, but at least make it believable (if one exists, why not the other)...but please! And the cast was horrid! Not to mention the blood spraying from the middle of the screen, nowhere near the actual injuries.

And the zombies didn't seem very much of a threat...their freaking car was parked like 5 feet away? I know, their dead friend had the keys...but it still bothers me. They could have gone out and got them in the beginning....OK, that's not that unbelievable. But what's with the glowing eyes of the bf at the end? I would have liked it better if those two got away. Already seen that in Resident Evil 2! And I could have done a better job of kicking the lame zombies asses in this movie!!! All in all, a waste of $3...
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Even worse than expected
grantss10 December 2022
Seven teens travel to a derelict house for Halloween. Here they are attacked by a horde of zombies.

I had very low expectations for this film. On paper it seems like your average zombie horror film, where the general standard is incredibly low to begin with.

Turns out it's even worse than that and manages to be far worse than your average zombie thriller. The plot is incredibly unoriginal and close to non-existent. Production values are very poor.

The acting is atrocious: some performances are so bad I don't know they got the role or why they're in that career. The only noteworthy thing is the appearance of Ron Jeremy, the porn star. Even compared to his usual films he would have found the plot, direction, production and performances lacking...
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
All about the Amulet
mrd12920 July 2005
Well, the only thing that kept this movie from being rated a total flop, was one thing. That solitary thing being Mr. Ron Jeremy. Now, the movie itself was Atrocious, we just need to get that out of the way. From the poor camera work, and terrible music.....to the porno-esquire script, and terrible acting. Amidst all of this, Ron Jeremy thrives in true Gutman form. He and his slack-jawed sidekick, set off a world of zombie trouble over an absolutely ridiculous prop referred to as "The Amulet". To Make a long story short, watch this movie, but for nothing more than comedic value and if you have a free rental coupon (like I did). It's definitely not worth the price of admission. From special effects to soundtrack......this movie is garbage.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
So bad it's good
josephwilliambrown27 December 2018
This movie is so bad terrible acting terrible dialogue zero scares pointless nudity but it's so bad it's good I laughed from beginning to end this movie was hilarious this is not one of those bad movies where your sitting there wondering omg when is this movie gonna end your wondering omg what are they gonna do next and it's nice to see Ron Jeremy get a main lead in a movie well deserved but I swear to God it's written in his contract he has to die in every regular movie he's in anyway I highly recommend this movie it's bad but it's a blast
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Damn Yes!
stephengordon5624 September 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Words really can't describe the excitement I felt nor the wonderful surprise I had when I came across the opening scene. Right after the opening credits we were thrown into the world of next to no budget sound quality and an insanely shaky camera from driving down a dirt road without a shock dampener on the camera. Almost instantly, I was ecstatic. I almost couldn't stand it. The plot opens up and extends out into a multi dimensional saga in which the porn legend Ron Jeremy robs a grave of some undead vampire demon zombie that can levitate. Next we are thrown into the world of college kids dry humping for uncomfortable periods of time and a very frustrating side-boob shot that would have given this review a 9/10. Honestly, it's one of the 10 commandments of making a horror film, there has to be a few boobs to make a great one. Still a must see.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Sadly, this movie is unwatchable.
swlit200122 July 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I wanted to like this film but. . .

Positive: It is for the most part well-lit. Some nice camera work. Some of the CG is slick, especially for a no-budget mini-DV zombie film.

Negative: Terrible script! Adequate to poor acting, bad art direction, inconsistent audio.

*SPOILER* The Wickeds is incredibly boring but also just dumb. I turned it off when the vampire (the first corpse that wakes up is a vampire, right?) magically appears in the house for the sole purpose of performing oral sex on a young woman wearing panties. Maybe they did things differently back in his day?
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed