How bad are they? In my opinion, they are the worst films ever made.
Should you see them? No. They have no redeeming values (which isn't a recommendation).
Andy Milligan directed a number of soft-core porn films which were competently made and watchable (I've seen two). He also made a dozen gore films, usually for a couple of thousand dollars and completed in a couple of weeks; these are unwatchable. There are a few Milligan apologists, who point out that with his budget limitations, it's amazing he could make a film at all. The films are period pieces, done in costumes that are reused from film to film and which are supposed to give a timeless feel; a lot of shots are of wooded areas (on Staten Island) which keep anachronisms low. The films are extremely heavy in dialogue, which is cheaper to film than action shots. The gore effects are cheap (of course). The acting is wooden to nonexistent. The plots are minimal and similar from film to film.
"The Rats Are Coming! The Werewolves Are Here!" gets special mention, as I've already reviewed a number of films where the director changed his mind about what kind of film he was making. Milligan was making a Werewolf film, but "Willard" was a hit and "Ben was in the making, so movies about rats were hot and he decided to capitalize on that. There's one effective scene of a rat getting hit by a hammer, though one feels for the animal, making it pathetic. In all of Milligan's horror films (I've seen 6), there is but one cheap laugh; in "The Ghastly Ones," a severed leg is so obviously rubber that it actually bounces. The rest is tedium.
Added 2/10/2015
People were saying that "Blood" (1974) was the Milligan film to see, so I watched it. After discovering that I was actually seeing it for a second time and forgot it, I found that it is probably THE Milligan film to see, if you must see one. There's a vampire and a werewolf (with very laughable makeup) and it drags less than usual.
No comments:
Post a Comment