CHOKER!!!




I was fortunate enough to have recently seen a screening of CHOKER. And let me tell you, it's a balls-out, Sci-Fi tour de force. It turns the genre inside out, and the innards exposed therein are worth the look.

Paul Sloan's Hud Masters oozes creepy fun. And the girls of CHOKER? They're hotter than train smoke. Ella Thomas is a quiet revelation. And Colleen Porch is vintage Sci-Fi Vixen. (S.F.V., if you're scoring at home.)

Overall, a good, ghoulish treat. A ferocious entertainment...

reply

Well, I've just watched it and it's absolute crappola.

Crappy script and acting asside, the whole thing is too damned dark. Why did they film everything at night and without a decent lighting rig? Some of the fights might have been interesting, but I couldn't see a thing.

Anyway, to cut a potentially long review short, it's trash -- and not even good or "balls-out" trash -- of the highest order and should be avoided at all costs.

If you want something similar, check out John Carpenter's THEY LIVE, which has a similar plot while being a billion times better than this stink fest.

One more thing, does anyone know what camera it was filmed on? I'd have given it an extra mark if it was shot on a DVX or something else in that pro-sumer price bracket as I'm a sucker for guerrilla filmmaking... but having said that, the film still sucked.

reply

The acting except one of the hookers and the main guy was really poor.
Like the one chick calling someone to "lock position and come and clean up". Someone responds in the phone, then she nods to confirm. How the h€ll would the guy on the phone know that she is nodding?
"Hmmm, the friction from your earlobe rubbing against the plastic shell of the mobile phone suggests that you are nodding agreeingly! I'll be right over!"

People, you should know by now that without a good script or a good story you can't make a good movie. Especially without money or time.
The special effects in Choker were worse than many effects in the early 70's.
The fighting scenes... Dear me...
Just because you shake the camera while shooting doesn't make it looke like someone's fighting!
Probably great to watch for people that watch tv-sci-fi, but others should avoid wasting time on this.

Better luck next time, filmmakers, put some effort in the script in the future, then we might start getting somewhere...

reply

this was a terrible movie.
there was not one person in the film who could act. i apprecite that it was made for $35,000, but where did the money go??. actors? no. lighting? no. quality camera work? no. OH OH OH it must be on the bright green stuff?!

also, what's going on with the poster? the green hand holding the gun? where was that in the movie? oh. it wasn't. lame.

yikes nick vallelonga. me no likey.

reply


Wtf?
How can the get som many crappy actors in one movie??

reply

Roseypeetz is Nick Vallelonga and I claim my £10.

reply

What are you talking about? I saw this when I was a teenager and it was one of the most misleading and all-around miserable late-night films of my entire life. I regret watching it, but you obviously love it. Are you the director, or do you just need an adult?

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

reply