IMDb RATING
3.8/10
1.9K
YOUR RATING
A gang of outlaw bikers pull a home invasion on a disgraced Anthropologist hiding a secret locked in his cabin basement.A gang of outlaw bikers pull a home invasion on a disgraced Anthropologist hiding a secret locked in his cabin basement.A gang of outlaw bikers pull a home invasion on a disgraced Anthropologist hiding a secret locked in his cabin basement.
- Awards
- 7 wins total
Johnny Collins
- Collins
- (as John Collins)
Nik Morgan
- Spyder
- (as Nick Morgan)
James Bickert
- Jimbo
- (as Rusty Stache)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
First of all, I am a huge fan of B-movies, schlock, grindhouse, bad but good, anything with cheese etc. This just lacks character or a spark, the film is one step up from a camcorder film shown in a talent show at a community centre, there is little to no effort put in, the acting is bad, but it's "I don't give a s**t" bad, not "I'm trying as hard as I can, but I just can't act" bad.
Now why did I give it 4 stars, well 3.5 but IMDB don't allow decimal points. Well firstly, it is definitely not the worst film ever made by a long shot, some parts are entertaining with some funny gore/action sequences. A few of the actors put in the effort. Plus, the cover is worth a whole star. A highlight real of the action sequences would have been better, or if it was made as a short film instead, it's too long and starts to grind on you pretty quick. They didn't even have the interest to keep it going for the full 80 mins themselves, how can they expect you to be involved for the set time.
If you're looking for that b-movie gem, stay well away, if you like bad but still bad then it's all yours.
3.5/10.
Now why did I give it 4 stars, well 3.5 but IMDB don't allow decimal points. Well firstly, it is definitely not the worst film ever made by a long shot, some parts are entertaining with some funny gore/action sequences. A few of the actors put in the effort. Plus, the cover is worth a whole star. A highlight real of the action sequences would have been better, or if it was made as a short film instead, it's too long and starts to grind on you pretty quick. They didn't even have the interest to keep it going for the full 80 mins themselves, how can they expect you to be involved for the set time.
If you're looking for that b-movie gem, stay well away, if you like bad but still bad then it's all yours.
3.5/10.
this has to be the worst film i have ever had the displeasure of laying my eyes on. should you watch it? the title says it all.... I am a big Fan of the grind house genre but this was just BAD. Bad acting, bad script, bad film.. enough said. i really cant see why its getting so many good reviews, it's just terrible. and before every one starts giving out to me, i know every one is entitled to their opinion and this is just my opinion, but i just couldn't see any good in it. my friend(who loves this genre more than me) and i sat down to watch it and neither of us could believe what we were watching, especially the last scene, any one who has seen it will know what I'm talking about, i felt cheated because the trailer made it look really good. i would feel bad if i recommended this tripe to anyone. i consider this to be an honest review, please don't have it removed again, whats wrong with having your own opinion, i paid to see this film, i didn't like it, no spoilers, just pure honesty.
(25%) A movie that on the one hand is a fair and honest homage to bad biker movies with their dire story telling, terrible writing, and woeful production values that in a parameter of sleazy trash cinema works as an actual throw-back, but on the other hand you cannot help but think that Quentin Tarrantino has a fair amount to answer for. It's clear this in its own way wants to be a bad film taken from within the boundaries of a low budget sleaze picture from the early to mid 70's, but is that achievement in itself worthy of actual merit? I'm not entirely sure. There are times when this does feel like the genuine article, but again is that worthy of merit? I'm somewhat split on this one. Yes, this is a really bad movie, and yes that was the whole point, but that doesn't mean this is 100% not worth a look for the cult fans out there. For those with zero interest in the old, hugely flawed films need not apply.
It was fun for a while, but now I'm getting rather tired of the fad for 'grindhouse' movies, which see directors deliberately striving to replicate the flagrant content and gritty style of 70s and 80s exploitation films. They may boast memorable titles and cool retro poster art, but they rarely prove to be any cop, their grungy affectations and knowing outrageousness being poor substitutes for real talent.
The latest effort to proudly fly the 'grindhouse' flag is 'Dear God No!', a violent biker flick from writer/director James Bickert, who is so intent on achieving his desired aesthetic and meeting his quota of bad taste and debauchery (thereby ensuring marketability) that he seems to forget about trying to make a decent film.
The most disagreeable aspects of the film are not the sex and violence—after all, those who willingly watch this type of film expect, nay DEMAND such excess—but rather the acting, script and direction. Performances range from the bad to the diabolical, the plot is all over the place, and Bickert's visuals display little in the way of originality (unless lingering on a stripper for so long that it actually becomes boring counts).
My rating: a generous 4.5 out of 10 just for the OTT splatter and rampant sleaze—file somewhere between equally disappointing 'grindhouse' efforts 'Run! Bitch Run! and Nude Nuns With Big Guns.
The latest effort to proudly fly the 'grindhouse' flag is 'Dear God No!', a violent biker flick from writer/director James Bickert, who is so intent on achieving his desired aesthetic and meeting his quota of bad taste and debauchery (thereby ensuring marketability) that he seems to forget about trying to make a decent film.
The most disagreeable aspects of the film are not the sex and violence—after all, those who willingly watch this type of film expect, nay DEMAND such excess—but rather the acting, script and direction. Performances range from the bad to the diabolical, the plot is all over the place, and Bickert's visuals display little in the way of originality (unless lingering on a stripper for so long that it actually becomes boring counts).
My rating: a generous 4.5 out of 10 just for the OTT splatter and rampant sleaze—file somewhere between equally disappointing 'grindhouse' efforts 'Run! Bitch Run! and Nude Nuns With Big Guns.
As a self proclaimed expert on biker movies (I've seen them all), this one is totally out to lunch. It's a bad egg oddity that would have to be put into a category all by itself. Caged up and left alone. What makes it different? It's evil. Everything about it is ugly and mean spirited. These bikers are not people you can identify with but they are not really the villains either. These goons are light years away from the cheesy pretty boy or grease monkey depictions you see on Sons of Anarchy or Hell Ride. They're even different than the glorified image of real bikers in The Wild Angels and Hell's Angels on Wheels. They are probably close to the real thing circa The Hell's Angels 1965 than has ever graced the silver screen. These are murdering, raping, filthy mouthed scum of the earth. They party hardy. The film feels like it was made by real life criminals. I would not like to meet them.
Did you know
- TriviaDuring the newspaper headline montage, the last story has a hidden message from the director.
- GoofsWhen the masked bodyguard's throat is slit, the blood clearly flows from the mask rather than the knife wound, which occurs lower on the neck.
- Crazy creditsUnder production assistant the name Griffin is listed. A reference to The Invisible Man.
- ConnectionsFollowed by Frankenstein Created Bikers (2016)
Details
- Runtime1 hour 21 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.78 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content