Avis des utilisateurs

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!

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.

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.

"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.

Wow! What a movie if you want to blow your budget on the title and have it look real bad ask the guys that made this movie on how to do that. They could have spent the money on a good rewrite or something else. Or they could have spent it on beer when they made this movie at least it would have come out better.

In Halloween, three friends seek an ancient cemetery in the suburb for fun and remove a cross from a tomb, where Jack-O was buried many years ago by the farmer Arthur Kelly. The evil creature is unleashed, kills the trio and seeks the descendants of the Kelly family for revenge.

The cheesy "Jack-O" is a combination of a terrible story with awful acting. I was curious with the name of John Carradine in the credits and I can not imagine how a relative authorizes the use of archive footage in such a bad movie, showing a total lack of respect with the name of this great actor. It is impressive how bad the acting is, shifting the film to a comedy instead of the proposed horror genre. This is the type of movie good to see with a group of friends, drinking beer, making comments and laughing a lot. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): " Halloween: A Maldição Está de Volta!" ("Halloween: The Curse is Back")

Note: On 26 Jul 2022, I saw this film again.

Ugh. Pretty awful.

Linnea Quigley gets top billing, but her character doesn't have a big part. Who is her character supposed to be anyway, the little boy's aunt? Another user commented on her getting nude in a shower scene. While there was a shower scene in the movie, it was a head and shoulders shot. Perhaps there are some alternate versions of this movie.

Quigley does have a bigger part than John Carradine, Cameron Mitchell, and Brinke Stevens, though. Carradine shows up briefly in a monkish robe reciting vague dialog. No other characters are in the scene with him, though he's sort of composited in, or else there are over-the-shoulder shots unquestionably belonging to someone else. There's also a really bad photo of him in a cameo locket (it looks like a bad photocopy), and a decent picture of him in a family bible. He conjured up Jack-O originally, or something like that.

Cameron Mitchell briefly shows up on a TV as a TV horror host. Brinke Stevens is in the movie he's showing "The Coven," in which she runs around a cemetery in a robe. Evidently there's more of the Brinke footage as a bonus feature on the Retromedia DVD double feature Mark of the Witch/The Brides Wore Blood.

Jack-O: what's it about? Darn if I know. A little boy is told a story about a pumpkin-headed demon killer, and he and some other kids are scared by a woman they think is a witch for some reason. She follows him home and offers to help his family with their haunted garage for Halloween (put your hand through a hole and feel eyeballs that are actually grapes, etc.). The pumpkin-headed killer shows up several times to hold onto branches while he watches people, or hold his scythe in front of the camera and pose with it for a while. Sometimes he manages to do more than just stand around holding things, and actually kills people.

There are also some flashbacks to a western or prairie family, with the little boy playing the little boy in that family too: ancestors of his, I think. I think they figure into Jack-O's backstory, but I'm not sure how.

The little boy is ostensibly the main character, but we don't really learn anything about him except that he wears glasses, has nightmares, and will fight bullies even if he'll get beat up in the process. More time should have been spent establishing his character. I couldn't have cared less if he died.

Not recommended, not even for Halloween.

When you watch low budget horror movies as much as I do, you get to where you can tell who was involved in creating the movie, as each film-maker adds his own flavor to the cheese. Such is the case with Jack-O. When I watched this truly awful movie, I was left with the undeniable feeling that Fred Olen Ray was involved, maybe not as director but in some fashion, and as I researched, I found that I was correct. Only Fred and a handfull of others could write something this pathetic, and this movie just reeked of Fred Olen Ray. Unless you like Fred Olen Ray (and God only knows why anyone would)avoid this movie. If you're going to rent an Olen Ray pic, rent Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers, it's the only bright shining star in Olen Ray's dark cheesey universe of terrible movies.

My buddies and I spent the majority of a Saturday afternoon watching a selection of "bad" movies. Among the flicks we watched, the strongest contender (for quality bad-movie fare) was easily Jack-O. It's ludicrous that movies such as "Gigli", "Glitter" and "You Got Served" are listed in IMDBs bottom 100. While they're certainly bad movies, they don't belong in the bottom 100. They're robbing "Jack-O", and "Keeper of Time", etc, of the Bad Movie Greatness they so richly deserve.

So what makes Jack-O so great (in bad movie terms)? For starters, Steve Latshaw, the director, decided to cast his son, Ryan Latshaw, in the role of Sean Kelly. Unfortunately for Steve, Ryan Latshaw was dangerously close to being out-acted by a block of wood. The kid, seriously, has no ability to emote whatsoever. The end result: unintentional comic gold. The kid could be listening to a joke, or just moments away from getting his head smashed asunder, and his expression is one of stony "emotionlessness".

The other aspect of the movie that we found awesome was the sheer number of "double dreaming" sequences. What is a double-dream? Well, it's when a character wakes up from a nightmare, and then something equally nightmarish happens, and then the character wakes up again. Basically: they wake up after dreaming about waking up from a nightmare. Clever device, no? I believe the character of Sean Kelly experienced no less than 3 double-dreaming sequences.

Let's see... what else? Oh yeah! This movie has a veritable cast of thousands. It's truly stunning to see how many speaking roles are introduced throughout the course of the movie. Best of all: almost none of the characters have anything to do with the story. They're either killed by Jack-O, or they serve no purpose whatsoever.

Jack-O himself was pretty sweet. Like most other B-movie monsters, Jack-O has the amazing ability to, seemingly, teleport over great distances. He's invariably hanging-out, somewhere in the background, whenever you're dealing with a major character. What's puzzling, however, is that when he's actually chasing someone he moves at a shambling/stumbling speed, and yet he's able to keep up with people who are sprinting.

That's all for now. Closing remarks: if you're looking for a unintentionally hilarious bad movie, you can't go wrong by renting this beast.

Bad Movie Score: 7/10 Good Movie Score: 3.5/10

This thing, it shouldn't be called a film, is almost worse than "Manos", but you just have to see it it's hilarious. If you see it at video store rent it, if you see the 10th anniversary edition, yes there is a special edition, for under $10 buy it, if your friend has it borrow it, you just have to see this. The acting is so bad, and the gore is is so fake. After viewing this you'll be asking yourself why did they make this insult of the art of film? That's assuming your face doesn't melt off like the Nazis's in "Raiders" . If you manage to see this, be sure to vote this movie as 1 (awful) so it can make the bottom 100, it really deserves a spot there. I'm surprised it's not number 1, right now.

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 had known Brad Linaweaver at Florida State U in the early 70's when he was an inspiring, inventive writer who I thought was headed for greater glory.

And that is why I rented this video. Well, well, well, the time has not been kind to Mr Linaweaver. I suppose the pressures of making a living makes higher aspirations expendable. Another flower whose bloom has come and gone un-noticed in the summer breeze. Amen. There is nothing more to say. And nothing more to add. A sad epitaph to a once blossoming career as stated above. But it is the price one pays for chasing shadows without a firm foundation or goals for oneself in life. Because this movie has no goal, no purpose, and I kept telling myself, what happened to Brad's creativity, his once shining genius? Gone, gone, years of neglect has deteriorated his once shining mind.

If you are in search of a masochistic thrill, rent this movie, and show it to a group of your friends sober. This movie is just plane lame, but there not completely without value. The brief tits are nice, and there is one victim's death that is funny as hell. Other than that, this is straight garbage. But it is still better than "Grim" or "Spookies"

I can not believe I even wasted a NetFlix rental on this complete piece of CRAP. How long did it take to make this film? 15 minutes? On a budget of what? Fifteen bucks? I can spend a few hours with my Sony Camcorder and come up with something better than this treacherous lump of bile, and it's even available on DVD!?!! A very sad thing to think classics like The Stepfather have not been released on DVD but this chunk of steaming dung makes it to the format. Here's hoping my rating of ONE ONE ONE ONE makes the overall (already) pathetic rating of 2.5 go DOWN.

Amateurish, awkward modern slasher is not completely without its amusements, at least for die hard - and I do mean DIE HARD - B cinema completists. It's dull too much of the time, and the acting is by and large pretty dodgy. But considering just how minuscule the budget apparently was on this flick, it's to the credit of director Steve Latshaw and company that they pull off a movie that is at all coherent or enjoyable in the first place. The look of our evil pumpkin headed monster is decent, but the character obviously has not become an icon of the season.

A wizard played by John Carradine was put to death ages ago, and he placed a curse (but don't they all?) on his persecutors and their descendants. In the 1990s, the average suburban family the Kellys must do battle with the infernal demon of the title, conjured up by the wizard once upon a time.

The script by Patrick Moran is based on a story by Brad Linaweaver and Latshaws' contemporary Fred Olen Ray; Moran also plays Jack-O. It's on the lame side, all in all, with not much in it that's memorable in any way - save, perhaps, for the conservative couple the Watsons who watch a Rush Limbaugh parody character on TV. The gore isn't too bad, and Latshaw makes a good stab, if you'll pardon the expression, at generating some atmosphere.

But the characters are pretty inane. At least Carradine and his fellow veteran Cameron Mitchell (as a TV horror host) don't get embarrassed too much; their roles are really just cameos. (Their footage had been shot several years previously, and edited into some newly shot scenes.) The same goes for scream queen Brinke Stevens and *her* peer Dawn Wildsmith. Still, it's hard to completely knock any movie that gives Linnea Quigley the starring role, as she plays a surly, unlikely babysitter. Ryan Latshaw, who has the pivotal role of young Sean Kelly, is the son of the director.

Sadly, this would turn out to be the final film appearance for Mitchell.

Five out of 10.

A lot of people are being very harsh on these user reviews and don't really understand what an accomplishment it is... and that it's setting out to do exactly what it wants to. It's a party movie. This film isn't trying to be groundbreaking, but rather bask in all of its B-Movie glory. It's extremely entertaining, especially around Halloween time. It delivers laughs, gore, some obligatory nudity from a b-movie horror legend (Linnea Quigley!) , and maybe even a jump scare or two and does it all on a super micro budget. Its synthy soundtrack provides a nice back drop and the lighting and cinematography might even be a step above what you're used to seeing in films like these. It's clear Steve Latshaw loves B-Movie horror (a sub-genre all of its own) and in my opinion he totally squeezes a diamond from a piece of coal.

I have to say, the deaths of the right-wing married couple were fantastic and I got a lot of laughs out of their parts. The wife getting electrocuted by the toaster is one of the more memorable on screen deaths I've seen in any horror movie. I LOVED that kill. And the way the pumpkin man reacts to it... slowly backing away. LOL! Brilliant!

So lighten up everybody! Grab some treats and tune in. This is a GREAT party movie. I miss movies like this. They just don't make them like this anymore. Tune in! Jack-O rocks!

This is undoubtedly a bad film but it's got a certain retro 80s charm to it even though it was made in 1995. It centers around a mythical creature named Jack o a pumpkin headed monster that's both goofy and rad. He exists because a wizard was put to death back in the day and this creature is his vengeance. Ad you can guess he comes alive on Halloween and goes after basically anyone whose in his way but especially a young boy whose a descendant of the man who imprisoned him. Its goofy and fun and stars Linnea Quigley as his cool babysitter. Now by no means should you expect a good movie on any level. It looks pretty much like crap and the performances are abysmal but it all works for what it is.

2.75/5

I watched this film and was puzzled, was this supposed to be some family Halloween movie or was this supposed to be full on horror? With the extremely light body count I would say kid's, but with the slightly gruesome beheading, I would say horror. With Linnea Quigley, definitely horror, but it is so weak. No wonder no one remembers Jack-O as he was a joke in his first outing as he meanders around a lot and misses the opportunity to kill again and again! The film also likes coherency as we are treated to random scenes again and again and lots of shots of John Carradine who had been dead for over five years, apparently even death did not stop him from appearing in bad horror films!

The story, well a guy tells a boy this story about Jack-O and we kind of do a flashback a flash forward and like a flash sideways. It finally shows a kid waking up twice as he and his friends walk and discuss witches and then one of the friends starts pummeling the kid who woke up because that kid stopped the other kid from throwing rocks at a witches car! What horror! Then this woman inexplicably makes friends with the son and begins just hanging out at the house where the parents are going to do a haunted garage and inexplicably charge a dollar and not let their son help. The titular title character finally shows up and finally goes on a very slow killing spree as Linnea babysits the son whose parents are right outside trying to make money off their haunted house until Jack-O comes several minutes later to kill!

This film features John Carridine's picture and a few edited in movie clips, but I do believe he was in the film more than Linnea was. I would have preferred to see more of Linnea because she always adds spice to a film like this. There are a few others that make cameo appearances, but other than Cameron Mitchell and the ones I have already mentioned there is no one that noteworthy.

The movie moves along at a snail's pace and seems at times to be a film about a wacky parents desire to make money off their awful haunted house than it does about a supernatural killer from beyond the grave. The killer does get some kills in, but one of the victims dies by being stupid, Jack-O didn't touch them! The design is not all that bad though; however, they are more interested in showing us the feet of the killer than the pumpkin head. Like I said, it seemed like this film was going to be a children's movie, but they decided to go all in at the last minute and give us a tepid little murderous pumpkin man movie.