Had no idea that he died in the WTC on 9/11.
Anyway, I won't excuse this film because he died tragically. The man had twenty years to make another film and redeem himself from this astonishingly bad horror film. I wish he had because he had talent.
If you love and support Michael Jackson 100%, copy & paste this into your signature. We love MJ!
Since you acknowledge that McCrann "had talent" and this is his only film credit, it couldn't have been ALL that bad, could it?
shareIf I paid to see this film in a movie theater I most certainly would have been angry at wasting my money on this. In the late seventies and early eighties many films of the quality of "Bloodeaters" made a quick dollar by having a impressive trailer. When word got out that the movie was just awful, they would pull the movie and then release it in another region. This is how frankly bad movies such as "Bloodeaters" made a profit at the expense of gullible moviegoers who trusted that a movie released "professionally" would be a enjoyable evening at the cinema. Film distribution was totally different than it is now.
So yes, it WAS that bad!
If you love and support Michael Jackson 100%, copy & paste this into your signature. We love MJ!
he made this film just for fun. i don't think he had any intention of becoming a big movie star ;) very sad, though. r.i.p. charles!
shareI knew Charlie McCrann professionally, in the insurance business, years after he made this movie and you're right that he made it for fun. Making a movie was just something he wanted to do, and he took a leave of absence from his employer and put together funding from a variety of sources (including, I was told, a grant from the EPA based on the film's environmental theme).
On a personal note, Charlie was one of the nicest, friendliest people I've ever met. He was an intelligent man with a terrific sense of humor, and his loss was painful to all of the people who knew him in the insurance community.