- Welcome to Badmovies.org Forum.
Recent posts
#1
Off Topic Discussion / Re: Random Statements About So...
Last post by Alex - Today at 03:31:43 PMSome of the Iranian propaganda mocking trump is quite interesting or funny. Just watched one that was pretty much a Lego video.
#2
Good Movies / Re: Recent Viewings, Part 2
Last post by lester1/2jr - Today at 03:16:07 PM"Why, oh Christ, must we commit so many crimes to defend your name and extend your reign?" nice
Chupacabra vs La Llorona (2025) - I honestly don't know where to begin. The reviews for this one are VERY mixed. Some of them say this guy is a horror legend in the making, others that it's the silliest thing they've ever seen. Scores range from 5 stars to 1/2 star, with a few in between.
It is definitely different, that's for sure. Initial impression is of an extremely cheap, weird, and minimal Spanish soap opera. The first 20 minutes in particular, absolutely nothing happens. It's just people in a house nervously hiding from something. There is clearly no budget whatsoever. Even the occasional camera effects, mainly slow motion, are so cheap looking that I almost turned it off. It's only 60 minutes long, so that's fully a third of the movie that looks like a bottom the barrel tubi experience a la The Amazing Bulk.
The title indicates a south of the border SYFY adventure but it's nothing of the kind. At some point, a Japanese horror element, albeit an unbelievably cheap looking one, is in injected into the mix and that's when this thing takes off. This aspect is featured heavily in the trailer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoDvcRWpnUQ .
Refreshingly unusual, more than a little ridiculous, and the girls are cute too (I'll go 9, 6, and 5 respectively) This one will definitely stay with me. Some truly scary moments and just as many "What the Hell am I watching?" ones.
5/5 I clicked on it because I thought the Chupacbra was some sort of evil Mexican bunny.
edit: review from one of the few youtube comments "He visto cosas malas pero esto es muy 💩💩💩🤐🤐🤐"
( I've seen bad things but this is really...)
Chupacabra vs La Llorona (2025) - I honestly don't know where to begin. The reviews for this one are VERY mixed. Some of them say this guy is a horror legend in the making, others that it's the silliest thing they've ever seen. Scores range from 5 stars to 1/2 star, with a few in between.
It is definitely different, that's for sure. Initial impression is of an extremely cheap, weird, and minimal Spanish soap opera. The first 20 minutes in particular, absolutely nothing happens. It's just people in a house nervously hiding from something. There is clearly no budget whatsoever. Even the occasional camera effects, mainly slow motion, are so cheap looking that I almost turned it off. It's only 60 minutes long, so that's fully a third of the movie that looks like a bottom the barrel tubi experience a la The Amazing Bulk.
The title indicates a south of the border SYFY adventure but it's nothing of the kind. At some point, a Japanese horror element, albeit an unbelievably cheap looking one, is in injected into the mix and that's when this thing takes off. This aspect is featured heavily in the trailer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoDvcRWpnUQ .
Refreshingly unusual, more than a little ridiculous, and the girls are cute too (I'll go 9, 6, and 5 respectively) This one will definitely stay with me. Some truly scary moments and just as many "What the Hell am I watching?" ones.
5/5 I clicked on it because I thought the Chupacbra was some sort of evil Mexican bunny.
edit: review from one of the few youtube comments "He visto cosas malas pero esto es muy 💩💩💩🤐🤐🤐"
( I've seen bad things but this is really...)
#3
Bad Movies / Re: Scary movie backstories
Last post by zombie no.one - Today at 12:11:46 PMyes, ROAR is like a fairly standard movie except all the actors are getting constantly mauled and roughed up by lions throughout, for real. while delivering their lines.
edit, Michael Bay should adopt this approach
edit, Michael Bay should adopt this approach
#4
Games / Re: Movie Title Chains
Last post by Rev. Powell - Today at 12:05:16 PMThe Red Menace (1949)
#5
What Was That Film? / Re: Strange movie poster on Pi...
Last post by Trevor - Today at 11:51:07 AMThank you Rev, problem solved.
Not a real movie but a 60s inspired movie poster of ALIEN COVENANT.
😊😊🐢
Not a real movie but a 60s inspired movie poster of ALIEN COVENANT.
😊😊🐢
#6
Games / Re: Answer the question with a...
Last post by Rev. Powell - Today at 11:36:24 AMI need to remember not to ask questions that could have a "yes/no" answer or the response will always be "Nope."
How can I turn back the clock?
#7
Bad Movies / Re: Scary movie backstories
Last post by M.10rda - Today at 11:35:50 AMYeah, I reviewed ROAR last year, I think - it's a real $#!tshow. Melanie Griffith (who was legitimately very pretty as a teenager) was clawed badly in the face and required reconstructive surgery... she still returned to production months later. I know this isn't very nice to express but I never thought Griffith was all that hot-looking as an adult nor a terribly expressive actress... well, maybe we can chalk that up to the emergency plastic surgery. 
Her mom Tippi Hedren was also injured on-set... she eventually divorced her husband (the director/star) though only several years after. He lost most of his fortune making ROAR (he had co-produced THE EXORCIST) as well as their Hollywood home. And, of course, a lot of the cats that he ostensibly cared about/for got hurt or killed. 
All that said - if you can forget about all that stuff, somehow - I think the film itself is a uniquely thrilling horror movie experience. (Of course it's intended as a family comedy.) It plays like TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE if Leatherface was dozens of big furry adorable kitties. The director is pretty entertaining in the lead, as well - like if Will Ferrell played a Kurt Russell action hero. In several shots huge cats leap on him and wrestle him to the ground (clearly impromptu), claw him up accidentally, then he's all bloody and his clothes are shredded. It's insane.
Her mom Tippi Hedren was also injured on-set... she eventually divorced her husband (the director/star) though only several years after. He lost most of his fortune making ROAR (he had co-produced THE EXORCIST) as well as their Hollywood home. And, of course, a lot of the cats that he ostensibly cared about/for got hurt or killed.
All that said - if you can forget about all that stuff, somehow
- I think the film itself is a uniquely thrilling horror movie experience. (Of course it's intended as a family comedy.) It plays like TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE if Leatherface was dozens of big furry adorable kitties. The director is pretty entertaining in the lead, as well - like if Will Ferrell played a Kurt Russell action hero. In several shots huge cats leap on him and wrestle him to the ground (clearly impromptu), claw him up accidentally, then he's all bloody and his clothes are shredded. It's insane. #8
Good Movies / Re: Recent Viewings, Part 2
Last post by M.10rda - Today at 11:03:44 AMBack in the old days I liked watching a classic Epic Movie on or around Easter. I returned to this tradition in 2024 and watched LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, problematic but a true masterpiece and legit Epic. Last year I watched SPARTACUS, also pretty darn good and plenty long. As I'm taking a family vacation next week and may have no time for movies (sigh), this week I watched
KNIGHTS OF THE TEUTONIC ORDER (1960):
.......And the annual Easter hot streak has... ended.
This is a Polish film that (like SUDDEN FURY) has an avid fanbase. And like SUDDEN FURY, it kept my critical judgment on high alert for its entire duration - 2h45m which felt more like three hours thirty. I'm posting it in the "Good Movies" section 'cause the filmmakers clearly were trying to make a good and serious movie. As often is the case, Mileage May Vary! KNIGHTS OTTO is part Bergman/Tarkovski medieval saga, part Monty Python sketch, all ponderous all the time, yet for a very long and bleak movie it's got a serious case of ADHD, w/ scenes that end mid-action and jump settings abruptly across spans of years and continents.
What happens? Okay, the titular Teutons get in a big feud w/ a Polish lord named "Jurand of Spychow" who looks like Nick Fury Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. (from the comics, not the movies) if played by Rutger (SPLIT SECOND) Hauer. The Teutons attack his castle and his young daughter runs into the woods but then comes back to find her mother has been murdered, so obviously Rutger Fury is p**sed. But instead of watching him get vengeance, we jump a decade or so into the future, where the daughter ("Danusia") is now the most boring looking maiden imaginable, yet nevertheless a young Polish knight named "Zbyscko of Bogdaniec" (who looks like Miles O'Keefe) falls madly in love with her at first sight. At the same time he's somehow cheesed off the Teutons so they get the Polish king (I think?!) to sentence him to death, which propels his uncle "Macko of Bogdaniec" (the kind of garrulous character who in English films would've been played by Brian Blessed in the 70s/80s or Brendan Gleeson in the 21st century) to set off on a dangerous quest to save Zbyscko's life. All his efforts are futile though because Zbyscko is saved from the noose at literally the last possible moment by Danusia in what is the first of some (unintentional) LOL moments of absurdity yet is apparently founded in Polish history and/or culture. In spite of this, the mortally wounded yet persistent Macko begins a new campaign to marry Zbyscko off to a cool crossbow-wielding huntress who seems infinitely more fun to roll with than Danusia, yet Zbyscko maintains his staunch commitment to his bland blonde bae. Alas, Danusia is kidnapped by a small militant faction of Teutons and then.......
.......And that covers maybe the first 45-60 minutes and then KNIGHTS OTTO keeps on truckin'.......
Halfway through this long movie I had gotten to the point where I could identify on sight or recognize the names of about a dozen of the scores of characters and factions. All of them have consonant-heavy Polish names and all of the Teuton bad guys have interchangeable sketchy (fake?) facial hair. Characters disappear for a long time and you think they're dead and then they show up again sans fanfare. A guy who I think is the King of Poland shows up every 20-30 minutes for a while and sits on a throne and makes pronouncements, then when you finally arrive at the climactic war scene it seems like he's supposed to be the main character, which was surprising. Another central character meets someone on the field of battle in that sequence and talks to/about him like he's been their arch-nemesis for the entire movie and they have the film's final face-off but for the life of me I couldn't recall ever seeing the arch-nemesis previously. I had no real problem keeping 100 characters straight on GAME OF THRONES but I had dozens of hours to get up to speed - this movie is like cramming eight seasons of GoT into 170 minutes. There are at least two big arena duels (like the Mountain vs the Sand-Snake) that seem like they will resolve some major conflict (ala Paul vs Feyd in DUNE) but they don't, the plot keeps chugging. KNIGHTS OTTO made me feel as confused as I felt as a kid the first couple of times I watched Lynch's adaptation of Herbert's novel(s) but even moreso.
I could chalk all of the above up to user error rather than hasty adaptation (of a classic Polish epic novel). The filmmakers have invested great effort in realizing some parts of their story: there's a lot of eyepopping color at times (seemingly more impressionistic than realistic), some elaborate tracking shots of huge swaths of extras doing their thangs, and a few vivid evocations of the chaos of combat. In one exceptionally badass moment, an unarmed Jurand of Spychow hulks out and whups @$$ on a whole roomful of Tutons w/ just his bare hands and any furniture that isn't bolted down.
But most of the time, KNIGHTS OTTO comes off as a hyper-enthusiastic home movie made by some kids in the woods behind their house. Mind you I take similar issue w/ Bresson's LANCELOT DU LAC and Malick's NEW WORLD and THIN RED LINE: Bresson obviously made LDL the way he did per his own peculiar perspective on authenticity X artifice; Malick clearly just hates to plan and loves abruptly throwing actors into unchoreographed mayhem, which sort of works in NEW WORLD but just looks like a trainwreck in TRL. In the case of KNIGHTS OTTO, I'd guess the production was badly underfunded in relation to its ambitious scope, like Badham's EXCALIBUR. Most of the action in KNIGHTS looks completely impromptu and, as a result, not authentic or badass but just half-hearted and fake. Blows from swords are clearly never actually connecting and anytime someone gets run through it looks like the staging of elementary school theatre (i.e. wooden sword briefly hugged in an armpit). The enormous finale was probably intended to look like the Battle of the B@$t@rds but is mostly dudes staggering about flailing their arms wildly. There's also a (totally gratuitous) bear attack scene that's a little less ridiculous than the one from WINNETOU 2 but then later another "bear" is spotted in a pit during a duel (?why?) and that bear is 100% just a dude in furry ears wearing mittens.
Overall, an ostensibly Good Movie w/ lots of moments of MST3K-caliber ineptitude, though probably not worth enduring just for the lolz. 3/5?
There is one legit brilliant line from the bad guys (also quoted by a Letterboxd user), which one delivers after they stab one of their own to cover up their other crimes:
"Why, oh Christ, must we commit so many crimes to defend your name and extend your reign?"
Great question, resonant question perpetually and in 2026, yet the film at large doesn't really serve to illustrate and support that great question.
KNIGHTS OF THE TEUTONIC ORDER (1960):
.......And the annual Easter hot streak has... ended.
This is a Polish film that (like SUDDEN FURY) has an avid fanbase. And like SUDDEN FURY, it kept my critical judgment on high alert for its entire duration - 2h45m which felt more like three hours thirty. I'm posting it in the "Good Movies" section 'cause the filmmakers clearly were trying to make a good and serious movie. As often is the case, Mileage May Vary! KNIGHTS OTTO is part Bergman/Tarkovski medieval saga, part Monty Python sketch, all ponderous all the time, yet for a very long and bleak movie it's got a serious case of ADHD, w/ scenes that end mid-action and jump settings abruptly across spans of years and continents. What happens? Okay, the titular Teutons get in a big feud w/ a Polish lord named "Jurand of Spychow" who looks like Nick Fury Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. (from the comics, not the movies) if played by Rutger (SPLIT SECOND) Hauer. The Teutons attack his castle and his young daughter runs into the woods but then comes back to find her mother has been murdered, so obviously Rutger Fury is p**sed. But instead of watching him get vengeance, we jump a decade or so into the future, where the daughter ("Danusia") is now the most boring looking maiden imaginable, yet nevertheless a young Polish knight named "Zbyscko of Bogdaniec" (who looks like Miles O'Keefe) falls madly in love with her at first sight. At the same time he's somehow cheesed off the Teutons so they get the Polish king (I think?!) to sentence him to death, which propels his uncle "Macko of Bogdaniec" (the kind of garrulous character who in English films would've been played by Brian Blessed in the 70s/80s or Brendan Gleeson in the 21st century) to set off on a dangerous quest to save Zbyscko's life. All his efforts are futile though because Zbyscko is saved from the noose at literally the last possible moment by Danusia in what is the first of some (unintentional) LOL moments of absurdity yet is apparently founded in Polish history and/or culture. In spite of this, the mortally wounded yet persistent Macko begins a new campaign to marry Zbyscko off to a cool crossbow-wielding huntress who seems infinitely more fun to roll with than Danusia, yet Zbyscko maintains his staunch commitment to his bland blonde bae. Alas, Danusia is kidnapped by a small militant faction of Teutons and then.......
.......And that covers maybe the first 45-60 minutes and then KNIGHTS OTTO keeps on truckin'.......Halfway through this long movie I had gotten to the point where I could identify on sight or recognize the names of about a dozen of the scores of characters and factions. All of them have consonant-heavy Polish names and all of the Teuton bad guys have interchangeable sketchy (fake?) facial hair. Characters disappear for a long time and you think they're dead and then they show up again sans fanfare. A guy who I think is the King of Poland shows up every 20-30 minutes for a while and sits on a throne and makes pronouncements, then when you finally arrive at the climactic war scene it seems like he's supposed to be the main character, which was surprising. Another central character meets someone on the field of battle in that sequence and talks to/about him like he's been their arch-nemesis for the entire movie and they have the film's final face-off but for the life of me I couldn't recall ever seeing the arch-nemesis previously. I had no real problem keeping 100 characters straight on GAME OF THRONES but I had dozens of hours to get up to speed - this movie is like cramming eight seasons of GoT into 170 minutes. There are at least two big arena duels (like the Mountain vs the Sand-Snake) that seem like they will resolve some major conflict (ala Paul vs Feyd in DUNE) but they don't, the plot keeps chugging. KNIGHTS OTTO made me feel as confused as I felt as a kid the first couple of times I watched Lynch's adaptation of Herbert's novel(s) but even moreso.
I could chalk all of the above up to user error rather than hasty adaptation (of a classic Polish epic novel). The filmmakers have invested great effort in realizing some parts of their story: there's a lot of eyepopping color at times (seemingly more impressionistic than realistic), some elaborate tracking shots of huge swaths of extras doing their thangs, and a few vivid evocations of the chaos of combat. In one exceptionally badass moment, an unarmed Jurand of Spychow hulks out and whups @$$ on a whole roomful of Tutons w/ just his bare hands and any furniture that isn't bolted down.
But most of the time, KNIGHTS OTTO comes off as a hyper-enthusiastic home movie made by some kids in the woods behind their house. Mind you I take similar issue w/ Bresson's LANCELOT DU LAC and Malick's NEW WORLD and THIN RED LINE: Bresson obviously made LDL the way he did per his own peculiar perspective on authenticity X artifice; Malick clearly just hates to plan and loves abruptly throwing actors into unchoreographed mayhem, which sort of works in NEW WORLD but just looks like a trainwreck in TRL. In the case of KNIGHTS OTTO, I'd guess the production was badly underfunded in relation to its ambitious scope, like Badham's EXCALIBUR. Most of the action in KNIGHTS looks completely impromptu and, as a result, not authentic or badass but just half-hearted and fake. Blows from swords are clearly never actually connecting and anytime someone gets run through it looks like the staging of elementary school theatre (i.e. wooden sword briefly hugged in an armpit). The enormous finale was probably intended to look like the Battle of the B@$t@rds but is mostly dudes staggering about flailing their arms wildly. There's also a (totally gratuitous) bear attack scene that's a little less ridiculous than the one from WINNETOU 2 but then later another "bear" is spotted in a pit during a duel (?why?) and that bear is 100% just a dude in furry ears wearing mittens.
Overall, an ostensibly Good Movie w/ lots of moments of MST3K-caliber ineptitude, though probably not worth enduring just for the lolz. 3/5?
There is one legit brilliant line from the bad guys (also quoted by a Letterboxd user), which one delivers after they stab one of their own to cover up their other crimes:
"Why, oh Christ, must we commit so many crimes to defend your name and extend your reign?"
Great question, resonant question perpetually and in 2026, yet the film at large doesn't really serve to illustrate and support that great question.
