Ticks

I know this is a low budget horror film, but I liked it anyway. Not a lot of gore by today's standards, but the make-up and special effects were good. It was also enjoyable to look at Ami Dolenz, and to watch the bad guys get "ticked". Two thumbs up!

...and this is a average one with a few real great scenes.The typical "at camp" when things go buggy story line that we are all comfortable with.

Above average humour and effects makes this one worth watching,only the first fifteen miniutes were slow.

Insects make good horror movie material due to the fact that a lot of people are scared of them. There have been movies about giant spiders (Kingdom of the Spiders), scorpions (The Black Scorpion) and ants (Them!), and while ticks aren't exactly the most exciting insects around; their bloodsucking nature does make them a good subject for a film such as this. As you might expect considering the fact that this film was a direct to video release, most things about it aren't exactly brilliant. However, it's obvious that the most important thing about a film like this is the gore and Ticks certainly isn't lacking in that department! The story is obviously just a means to an end and sees a class of delinquents going out into the forest for some sort of moral building exercise. However, their little trip is interrupted by a bunch of bloodthirsty ticks that have grown to massive sizes because of chemicals put on weed plants to accelerate their growth. Unfortunately for the kids, the ticks' appetites have grown with them; and now they are on the menu...

The film has a good basis for gore, as it's directed by Hellraiser 2 director Tony Randel (who also directed the less than impressive Children of the Night) and the executive producer is one Brian Yuzna, who every gore fan should recognise. The plot doesn't contain a lot of surprises, although it deserves some plaudits for staying interesting for most of the way through. The story progresses in the usual way for this sort of film - i.e. there are a few clues that something bad is going to happen, then bad things do happen and eventually everything gets out of control. The film doesn't pay a lot of respect to it's insect star as there aren't many references to real life ticks, but then again I didn't go into this movie expecting a natural history lesson. The cast is only notable for the fact that it stars a young Seth Green, although he really isn't that much of a highlight. Alfonso Ribeiro, who is more famous for playing Carlos in The Fresh Prince of Bel Air, also makes an appearance (which is completely unlike his TV persona) though he is underused. The film ends well, though too many people survived for my liking, but all the same this is good fun and recommended.

If you are in the mood for a fun horror movie that doesn't take itself too seriously and has all the right gross out gimmicks- check it out. If it wasn't for a friend mentioning this movie title I would have passed it up. But I trusted his judgment since he is a horror aficionado- and I read some decent reviews in some of my old issues of Fangoria/Gore Zone.

The acting is silly, but it is obvious that this is the way it was written. The key difference between a movie like Ticks (Infested) and some really bad Sci-Fi Channel movie is that everything is done in the Evil Dead 2/ Bad Taste slap stick kind of way. And they go for the gross out money shots in every other scene (lots of pulsating blistering skin waiting to explode, etc). And thank God this didn't have any of the cheesy computer animated gore and FX. I love the latex, goo, and prosthetic body parts of the old school- even if it does look fake. At least you know the actors are actually interacting with it rather then a "green screen".

So, gather a few friends, kick back a few beers or Mountain Dews, and be prepared to rewind a few scenes so you can watch them again!

I don't really understand the criticism about this film ; maybe if it had a 50 millions $ budget, everybody would find it "cool"? Tony Randel did his best and the movie still boasts good production value despite the numerous troubles they had on the set. This one's mean, politically incorrect (no "back-to-the-nature" crap) and without the shoddy humour and cute one-liners everybody seems obliged to include in his horror just because Freddy said so (c.f. "Nightwatchers"). I saw it three times with friends who enjoyed it as much as I did. And I don't care if some of the actors ended up in some moronic TV fodder for brainwashed teenagers. Not a great movie (unlike Brian Yuzna's "Return of the living dead 3"), but strong, however.