★ 2 / 10
An half star for the old special effect
R T
an half star for the old special effect, and the other just because it's beter than some other 0.5 half star.
an half star for the old special effect, and the other just because it's beter than some other 0.5 half star.
★ 1 / 10
The Laughing Dead (Somtow Sucharitkul, 1989) Somtow Sucharitkul
R T
The Laughing Dead (Somtow Sucharitkul, 1989) Somtow Sucharitkul is better-known to horror novel fans as S. P. Somtow, author of a number of well-received…
The Laughing Dead (Somtow Sucharitkul, 1989)
Somtow Sucharitkul is better-known to horror novel fans as S. P. Somtow, author of a number of well-received novels (the best-known of which is probably Vampire Junction). He's a good writer, and what I have read of his work I have enjoyed a great deal.
And then there is The Laughing Dead, Sucharitkul's (thankfully) only foray into film directing, which offers us hard evidence that competence in one medium does not guarantee competence in other media in any way, shape, or form. Since I watched this abomination, I have been trying to come up with something I can compare it to. Nothing works. Exorcist II: The Heretic is better than this. Spiker is better than this. Mustang Sally is better than this. It's a little better than Zombies Ate My Neighbours: The Movie, but only a little. And Zombies Ate My Neighbours: The Movie is the worst movie ever made that does not star Hugh Grant.
I would give you a plot synopsis, but that would be overlaying some semblance of coherence onto this mess. It involves Aztecs, zombies, and Aztec zombies, as well as a priest and his former girlfriend, who I think may have been an ex-nun but could never be certain. And some stereotypical boorish American tourists who I think were supposed to be played for laughs right up until they were offed in tiringly unoriginal ways (and, in most cases, afterwards as well). It also involves a cameo from Somtow as a mad scientist who moonlights as a piano player at a hotel bar. I kid you not. (Somtow is also a noted composer.)
âMurkyâ? is a good description of not only the plot, but the camerawork (it doesn't help that the movie's been out of print for twenty years, so even if you find it now, you're going to be watching a long-degraded VHS tape). It might also be applicable to the acting, but âmurkyâ? would give you a sunnier picture of the acting than should actually be presented. It's downright terrible. Most of these folks never acted in another movie, and for good reason. I can't even recommend this as a terrible-movie drinking game, it's that bad. Avoid at all costs. Â 1/2
Read full review
★ 1 / 10
So bad,you can't even imagine
R T
So bad,you can't even imagine.
So bad,you can't even imagine.