Jack-O: cosecha de sangre

I bought Jack-O a number of months ago at a Blockbuster video sale, and at the time I wasn't expecting anything outstanding from it. Upon watching it, I realized I not only got less than I could have ever bargained for, but a whole lot more as well. It seems, strange, I know. And it is. But it's perfectly fitting when you consider that the utter weirdness that is "Jack-O"

The movie follows a young boy named Shawn Kelly. Somehow, thru ancestral ties, he is marked for death at the hands of a demented, scythe wielding Pumpkin man. This pumpkin man was killed by Shawn's Great-grandfather-uncle-cousin-etc, and now that the villain has been resurrected, Shawn's death is apparently crucial to his hell-bred mission of vengeance. Anyway, much "horror" ensues as Jack-O hacks his way thru various neighbors before battling Shawn to the finish.

I'm not so much here to discuss the plot as I am to determine who may find any worth in this movie. I can honestly tell you that Jack-O is one of the most poorly made movies in the history of time. The acting is deadpan (except when it should be), the script is apparently a 1st grade group project, and the production budget must not have exceeded $150. Some of the most laughable death scenes are carried out in this anti-thriller, and they're all the more humorous when you realize director Steve Latshaw actually seems serious in his movie-making.

And yet I heartily enjoyed the film. I can call it a terrible horror movie, yes. But I can also say I had a great time watching it with my friends, and have watched it several times since that fateful first viewing. Many people (including some of my friends) will find this movie intolerable and needlessly time-consuming, and that's understandable. If you're like me and enjoy ridiculously bad horror movies that take themselves seriously, you'll find Jack-O an instant classic, which is also understandable.

That's why it's so hard to rate this movie. If I were rating Jack-O's quality as a film, I wouldn't give it anything. In fact, the studio would owe me stars. Yet if I were rating it's on the basis of pure enjoyment, I'd give it an 8 or a 9. I'll give it a 4, so to be somewhere in the middle. I recommend everyone go out, rent this, and form their own conclusion.

"Jack-O" was scripted by my good friend Brad Linaweaver, so I'm prejudiced in its favour. Low-budget film-maker Fred Olen Ray had a few minutes of footage of John Carradine sitting in a forest at night, and a bit more footage of Cameron Mitchell staring into a camera and telling a spooky story. Ray challenged Linaweaver to write a feature-length script using these snippets of footage. Carradine and Mitchell appear VERY briefly in "Jack-O", and not together.

"Jack-O" is a bog-standard spookfest. Jack-O-Lantern is a homicidal maniac who died in arcane circumstances but who still comes back for one night every year: guess which night. Yes, Hallowe'en. The crucial (dual) role in this film is a small boy in modern times who's related to Jack-O's first victim (also a small boy) from more than a century earlier on. When I saw that the child actor cast in these roles (Ryan Latshaw) is the son of the film's director (Steve Latshaw), I expected a vanity production. But young Ryan is actually a decent actor: in this film at least, his performance is better than his dad's directing.

I always expect zero production values in a film like this, so I was pleasantly astounded by the realistic 19th-century prologue. Brad told me that this was filmed in an historic village in Florida. Unfortunately, the first few minutes of the film look much, much better than anything afterwards.

There are several very attractive actresses in this film, notably scream queen Linnea Quigley as the heroine, and Catherine Walsh as a "bad girl" who MIGHT have supernatural abilities. Untalented Helen Keeling is attractive, but she speaks her dialogue with one of the most bizarre accents I've ever heard.

There are some REALLY grotty special effects: notably the lightning (why didn't they use a stock shot?) and the scene in which one character gets electrocuted. I've seen more realistic electrocutions in Tex Avery cartoons. The post-dubbing of the soundtrack is worse than it really needs to be for this low budget.

"Jack-O" isn't very good, but it isn't nearly bad enough to be one of those Ed Wood-ish camp classics. I strongly recommend it as a study aid for those who want to learn "Bowfinger"-style film-making techniques. And some of the actresses are very watchable. Otherwise, "Jack-O" is a Joke-O. For thrills and chills, look elsewhere.

Man, this movies sucked. It appeared to have like seven different plots going on at once and they all made little to no sense. The special effects, costumes, and all that stuff were beyond awful. The acting was particullary bad. Everything seemed so forced, especially the lines from the woman with the huge eyes and the little kid (his "Noooooo" as he gets burried is so unenthusiastic it's laughable). A good portion of this movie is rather funny anyway. The one woman's death where she shoves a knife into a toaster, gets electrocuted, and magically turns into the crapiest skeleton dummy in the world had my friends and I laughing for a good ten minutes.

Bottom line: If you're into watching really horrible movies, seek this one out. If not, run for your life.

A bad horror flick requires certain components. A nice shot of a pair of breasts, with no relevance to the plot. A beheading, preferably one where the head rolls to someone who is in love with the recently deceased. An innocent loser who doesn't actually die in the movie, but you wish they would. At least one famous actor in a small and likely irrelevant role. A utility worker of similar individual who gets gored while one of the "stars" looks on. If you agree, Jack-o is the film for you. If not, rent Free Willy or something. If you feel plot is important, you're in the wrong genre, I'm afraid. Great for Halloween if you want to kill a few hours.

I bought this out of curiosity. How did John Carradine (who died in 1988) and Cameron Mitchell (who died in 1994) make appearances in a film released in 1995? Thanks to the miracle of unused film can footage that's probably been sitting on a shelf somewhere for ten years, that's how! You can tell because the film stock used to shoot their scenes doesn't match the film used for shooting "Jack-O." The curse of Ed Wood lives on. The good thing for both Carradine and Mitchell is that this is exactly the kind of movie you'd expect to find on both of their filmographies. Same goes for Scream Queens Linnea Quigley, Brinke Stevens and Dawn Wildsmith.

The setting is Oakmoor Crossing on Halloween, and some kind of curse is released when dumb, beer-guzzling teens disrupt a grave. The result: a hulking killer with a scythe and a big plastic pumpkin on his head! He (it?) goes after the wholesome Kelly family for revenge (and kills others who get in his way). The father opens a Haunted Garage for the neighborhood kiddies. The son (Ryan Latshaw, son of the director) has one continuous, perplexed facial expression for all his scenes and one hilariously badly acted dramatic scene lying in a grave. At least he's a kid. The mother's eyes about pop out of her head while she strains to read her dialogue. There is also an annoying woman who shows up to explain things who seems to be trying to phonetically pronounce all of her dialogue.

So what about the name actors? You see Stevens, Wildsmith and Mitchell briefly on a TV screen (they're used to pad out the time). Linnea has a bigger role as a babysitter, and she does exactly what she can with it. Her enthusiastic performance helps a little bit. There's also one out-of-nowhere laugh when an ultra-conservative couple who watch a Rush Limbaugh clone on TV bite it. The woman slips on a rug and stabs a toaster with a knife. She's electrocuted and the end result looks like a flame-broiled Muppet.

All and all, pretty entertaining stuff! I wasn't bored!