The Sore Losers

A very low budget film, i'm guessing not even breaking into the five-digit range. The sound is sloppy, as is the editing, with the format bouncing back and forth from S-VHS to 16mm to 8mm and back again.

But for all it's technical flaws, The Sore Losers is really a fun movie with a greaser-punk feel to it. Awesome soundtrack, featuring the Drags and Bantam Rooster, among others, and hey! Mike Maker can act! I'm surprised I haven't seen him in more films.

I really wish there were more films like The Sore Losers. We need more quirky low-budget films that are actually good. Guys, make some more movies!

If you love ´The CRAMPS´ you love this thrash-movie. It´s like a CRAMPS-song come true in picture and sound, it´s all that you like : catfights,cool clothing, great music(the thrash/garage/ one),a weird story and a red-haired-hell-of-a-women like Poison Ivy. This movie is great to watch with a couple of friends and a couple of six-pax !!!Lots of FUN!!!STAY SICK!!!

Anyone with a half a brain can tell this was made by a group of amateurs with a budget that couldn't be more than a couple thousand dollars. I liked the film's use of lighting, as well as the costume design, but other than that there's nothing good I can say. The story's an incoherent mess. It's one of those confusing story lines that goes in many different directions and is hard to follow, yet at the same time it's not worth following. Besides the lighting and costume design, the film is a stylistic mess. It's like one of those student films where the director is simply trying to show the professor all the different things he can do with visuals, but totally ignores the concept of making a "good film." The sound is terrible. There's one scene where we're watching two characters get out of a car, from a distance, and it sounds as if the characters are right in front of the camera (an obvious use of ADR). Some of the camera-work is shoddy as well. In one scene, two of the characters are in an amusement park, and it's shot on a cheesy home video camera. And no, it wasn't a stylistic choice. I guess the filmmakers weren't able to sneak a film camera into an amusement park, so instead they used a mini-camcorder. That's the kind of stuff you can only get away with in film school. And like in many bad films, there's a good deal of nudity. Some of the girls have pretty nice bodies, but the use of nudity is simply a ploy to distract us from the fact that this movie really sucks and doesn't make a lick of sense. Some viewers may be able to interpret something from this micro-budget flick, but I was lost. Then again, I'm not a fan of movies that jump back and forth, nonchalantly, from one reality to another, and there's no surefire way of telling what's real and what's fake ("The Matrix" being a big-budget example). I'm sorry, but I actually like to understand a movie. Is that too much to ask? There are some complicated films that are worth uncovering the mystery in subsequent viewings, but this is not one of those cases. Besides, why should I take any film seriously that's made by a director who doesn't even bother to put any effort into hiring good actors or using good cinematography?

The other person who commented on this movie is absolutely correct. This is a low, LOW budget production that manages to be entertaining despite its economic handicaps. I've watched it three times (I got that same deal with the three other movies because a former friend of mine was in one of the "Witchcraft" atrocities) and I'm still not sure what it's all about. It is difficult to watch if you are hypnotized by the gloss of big budget Hollywood nonsense. If you can appreciate some kids going out with a few thousand dollars and a lot of crazy ideas, I suggest this as a nice alternative to the crap at the local movie theater.

Reading the reviews of this movie, even the positive ones, you might get the idea that this is one of those impenetrable stream of capriciousness flicks. It's not, though repeated viewings are recommended for the full effect. The film Liquid Sky presented us with a pop-culture stepping from the steamy emotional jungle of hemp and hallucinogens into the bright, shiny, scientifically specific land of cocaine and pharmaceuticals. This film symbolically dishes up the dilemma faced by hardcore anti-hippy reactionaries who dove back into the pre-Pepper past and have been stuck in two decades of time for 40 years. I'm about 15th reviewer in line, so I won't rehash the lunatic plot. From the moment a flying saucer right out of PeeWee's Playhouse Morphs into a Candy Color red '56 Chevy Bel Air on a back road in red-clay farmland, you're in for a wild ride. The world you're in is a world dead-set against Hippies from God on High to the lowest of the low, but the dang things won't go away no matter what's thrown at them!(It's significant that this is made in Memphis. Punks and freaks got along quite well in the S. East) Once we meet the protagonists, a lowbrow Americana road trip ensues, sidetracked by general mayhem, supernatural encounters, two sets of Men In Black, Zombie Mom, Bokononian foot sex, flashbacks, strip clubs, the Gubment, Hippy massacres, and X-Ray Specs. As the alien assassins stumble on, the arbitrary rules and punishments guiding their mission start to wear on them, and they begin to sound positively Hippyish themselves! (Now think of the Clash's Sandinista, or Johnny Rotten's PIL). Every scene, no matter the budget, is a delight of design. There are moments of quiet beauty as well as jarring EC Comic style violence. Pop culture references abound, slyly enriching the narrative. The women are amazing, the soundtrack inspired. This movie should have reached many more people in a timely manner. Why it took so long to arrive in my reach says much about the collapse of the creative media universe. I live for this kind of artifact. Until mom and pop rental shops closed I could support and share significant indi efforts. No longer. I'm reduced to digital dumpster diving. Watch and wonder. Sure beats the crap outa "Spun".