The Greenskeeper

Golf is one of the worst of all possible sports, pointlessly wasteful of natural resources and harmful to the environment; country clubs, as a playground for the rich and powerful, deserve to be abolished outright. Slashers are one of the worst of all possible movie genres, not exactly being known for cleverness. For that matter the early 2000s weren't exactly a great time for cinema, as computer-generated imagery of the era was just advanced enough that everyone and their cousin wanted to make use of it, but not nearly good enough to have aged well thereafter; conceptions of music too often involved very tiresome, sterile pop and radio-friendly rock; and humor was defined by a lot of 'American pie'-like raunchiness and 'Dude, where's my car?' stoner bits, both of which are rather dull and have very limited appeal. Now put all these elements together into one supposed "horror-comedy,' and we have 2002's 'The greenskeeper.' I didn't have high expectations when I sat to watch, but for better and for worse I'll sit for almost anything. The opening scene seems kind of promising, and the film quickly gives us a large roster of awful, obnoxious, privileged white characters that we'll be glad to see sent off to the sand trap of eternity - but otherwise, in all earnestness, this swiftly grows tiresome.

Given that the whole bent here is far less than serious, I suppose it's only fair to wonder if it's not on purpose that everything is so over the top and kitschy, and so pointedly betrays the falseness of the presentation. Are filmmakers Kevin Greene, Adam Johnson, Tripp Norton, and Alex Wier making fun of all these tropes and ideas, or using them for lack of any other creativity, substance, or means? It's a fair question, I think, as our attention is caught in the wrong way by the dialogue, characters, scene writing, and narrative; the attempted humor, the tawdrily boorish and obnoxious sensibilities about sexuality and anatomy; the direction, too much of the acting, the rather bare-faced production values, and cinematography and editing that are only ever unremarkable or outrageous with no middle ground; plain art direction, overbearing music, and aspects of homophobia, racism, and classism. Then again, maybe it's not even a question that really matters, for whether all this is employed in jest or as a sincere expression of film-making, it's just not any fun. In one fashion or another some small moments come off better than others, but I definitely didn't laugh once in eighty-two minutes. I've seen the bottom of the barrel, and this isn't it, but there simply isn't any actual entertainment to be had here.

I guess the practical effects are well done, including blood and gore. The costume design, hair, and makeup are nice, such as they are. The root story in and of itself is decent, if truly nothing special. Despite the worst efforts of all involved, Melissa Ponzio turns in a performance that is fairly admirable. But is there anything else here that's baseline commendable? Is there anything about this that is meaningfully enjoyable? I don't think there is. If you're desperate for slasher fare, juvenile humor circa 2000, nudity, or "horror-comedy," then I guess you'll find what you're looking for. Yet what possible other reason would anyone have to watch this, especially since we could be watching literally anything else instead? What's really terrible is that the only reason I found this in the first place was because the 2018 'Ducktales' episode "The missing links of Moorshire!" was so outstanding that I found myself wondering about other horror or fantasy involving golf; finding this, in turn, feels like the classic notion of a genie granting a wish, but with awful, ironic consequences. There are much worse things one could watch, sure, but for as bland and pretty much outright boring as 'The greenskeeper' is, the distinction doesn't count for much. Check it out if you like, but I don't know why you would.

I FINALLY got to see this movie. I was looking forward to it but was thoroughly disappointed. The plot, if any was there, was lame and tired at best. The acting was below sub-par (for the corpse). The directing was too choppy with jagged scene shifts and the lighting and audio need help. I would not recommend this double-bogey movie to anyone.

I Don't know what to think about this one, first off the acting is kinda split, there are some okay actors and others are bad, but I would not call it good acting. I actually thought the directing was "good" and the script wasn't bad either, so there are some pluses! But one thing I didn't like at all was the ending I thought it was way to much like a scobby doo ending instead of a horror movie ending. This movie didn't have wonderful character development either, I really didn't care about the characters. There are some funny parts, so that helps out the movie. It is a bit gory also, nothing shockingly gory but it has its gory moments! So on a final note I'm going to give this movie a 5.5/10 MAYBE a 6 but probably a 5.5/10

It seems like everywhere you turn there's some horror movie that's trying to be a throwback to the golden age of eighties slashers. However, none that I've come across have perfectly captured the magic that can be found within a VHS of something like BLOOD RAGE or ROCKTOBER BLOOD. Some have come close (CLUB DREAD), and others have failed miserably. So which category does THE GREENSKEEPER fall under?

Allen is the assistant greens keeper at a lush country club, which his mother and stepfather/ex-uncle own. Some snobby young adults convince him to let them in after the place is closed for a little party. However, someone wearing a greens keeper's outfit begins picking them off in various creative and gruesome ways. Is it Allen, who's had enough with the snobs that tease him? Is it Otis, the head greens keeper who's a little loopy? Or is it Allen's father, back from the dead?

The only thing that saved THE SLEEPER from being complete bottom of the barrel trash was the kills, which really brought be back to the methods of murder in classic late twentieth-century slashers. The same almost applies for THE GREENSKEEPER. Most of the kills are reserved for the last half-hour or so, and they are SUPERB. They're gory, funny, and creative, with each utilizing the golf-theme to a tee (pun not intended). Nails are put in one of those automatic tennis ball shooters, tees are forced through someone's forehead, some gets beaten to death with a nine-iron (I think), and you know those golf ball washers? A DIFFERENT kind of balls is put in it. Ouch.

However, some of the characters in THE GREENSKEEPER are likable, including Allen, Otis, and even Allen's stoner friend. You get a sense that these are real people and they come across as very likable. The snobs that get in, however, you want to see die immediately. This is where it fails as an eighties throwback. Typically in eighties movies, we follow the group for most of the time. Here, most of the time is spent on Allen, and him getting most of the attention causes the movie to drag a tad.

However, I loved the killer's disguise, the ridiculous reveal of the killer (as well as his death), the motive, etc. There are some intentionally funny moments during the first hour or so, but as a whole, it felt very blah before the kills began. It was a bit of a chore to sit through, but the brilliant deaths made up for it.

Overall, I liked it. It's nothing special, but it's a decently fun watch if you want to get your slasher kicks. It's far from a perfect slasher, but it's really not that bad as far as entertainment goes.

Don't go in expecting a new classic, but you could certainly do worse.

What saves this film is that the tone is just right, funny and laidback and tongue in cheek. No cure for cancer, just a groovy goodtime.

The actors are all comfortable in front of the camera, especially the lead actor, who just strolls through his scenes with a been there done that attitude that is a refreshing change from the furrowed brow method that passes for acting these days.

The screenplay is funny and lean, bad dialogue is not a detriment here.

The SFX are of the pump blood from under the weapon variety, but some are very creative and funny. Their unrealistic quality adds to the film's charm.

All the bad points of this film work for it in the long run. The inane conclusion to the inane plot fits because the filmmakers knew that they were making a spoof.

The film did seem very static and some scenes meandered to pad the film out, but this is common in a low budget movie.

The trailer is misleading however. John Rocker fans will be disappointed when they find that he is only in the movie for five minutes. The filmmakers acknowledge this in the screenplay; it is part of the joke so I can call no foul on it.

Overall, a fine horror spoof of the slasher films I grew up with, with a refreshing choice for lead actor, interesting kills, and a laid back feel that makes it easy to like.