Why link to Fenniss' reivew of Creepshow 3 instead of doing my own? Because I just can't stomach watching the thing more than once. ADHD kicks in and I'm wondering why I'm watching it if it's not interesting and I'm not scared.
The first two Creepshow's were directly attached to the work of Stephen King. Not so with Creepshow 3. This seems strange to me, since there are so many short stories by King that have not yet been touched. The Creepshow medium is a fun one already dedicated to King, so I don't understand the change.
Finniss writes, "The problem is that the stories themselves are rather, well, stupid. The characters don't really give you a whole lot to latch on to and the stories themselves aren't really all that creepy or unnerving. The result is a movie that frequently leaves the viewer checking the clock to see how much time is left." SEE! I'm so glad Finnis fell on the sword for the rest of us.
Notice how the trailer spends half its time reviewing Creepshow 1-2. Then the scenes they do show -- aren't scary.
Does Finniss recommend this bit of theatrical terror? "There is very little here that is worthwhile," Finniss concludes. In fact, he doesn't even think it's worth renting! And, really -- who rents these days? The guy at my local video store sits alone watching the extra features on the Back to the Future disk.
The full review is at: www.examiner.com also check out: www.imdb.com
I bought this when it was first released and I returned it and traded it in for store credit the day after I watched it. It's horrendous!
ReplyDeleteI have seen that movie. (I even reviewed it once, myself.) And let me tell you: it is dreadful in a way that you cannot prepare for, or contend with. This Examiner review is practically glowing compared to the review I gave it.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if it's THE worst movie to be based -- and I use the word "based" loosely -- on a Stephen King property, though. That prize might still go to "The Mangler Reborn."