MovieChat Forums > The Slaughter (2006) Discussion > What the hell were the screenwriters thi...

What the hell were the screenwriters thinking?

posted 14 years ago by GreatWhiteApeofBarsoom
9 replies | jump to latest

The movie starts off reasonably well but then becomes ridiculous in its cliches. The slut, the pothead, the eeeeeeeeeeeeevil businessman, the repressed assistant, the left-wing Rage against the Machine wannabe, the alpha female, the big dumb jock, and the working class hero. Can you say cookie cutter? The inital scenes where the demoness appeared were creepy enough. Then the movie went majorly downhill with the H P Lovecraft ripoff and the ritual to bring evil to life that apparently can take place over the course of a century. As if that weren't enough, the screenwriters felt the need to throw in banal dialogue and seemingly interminable discussion scenes about the nature of zombies into the middle of so-called action scenes. The ending was predictable and cliche-laden as well. I'm not really sure there was any potential in the storyline, but whatever there was never got a chance to breathe from this supremely amateurish effort.

Carthago delenda est.

[–] okusandman 14 years ago

Maybe funny was the goal.

[–] pkillam 14 years ago

It amazes me that money wasted to make this. The horror entertainment business must be booming for this to be green lit.

[–] GreatWhiteApeofBarsoom 14 years ago

Well, if humor was the goal, they failed miserably.

Carthago delenda est.

[–] shiki474 14 years ago

It was hilarious. The script was ridiculous and clearly meant to be. To me this movie hit the mark. I laughed my ass off.
While I was looking for my friend I found my enemy.

[–] ghostbusters 14 years ago

I thought it was boring and stupid up until the last 30 minutes. When all the dead came back to life and the living were making jokes left and right - thus letting themselves in on the stupidity - THAT'S when I started to enjoy the movie.
--
Paul R.

http://1shop.bravehost.com
http://spookcentral.cjb.net

[–] FCA1975 14 years ago

I made it all the way through. Gave it a 4 out of 10. The nudity was good, the female cast was very pleasant on the eyes. Laura Bach....oh my! Adriana Esquivel...oh my my my! The Bush jokes were pretty funny. The pot smoking chap was pretty funny. However, this movie clearly is not original or worthy of a second look or recommendation.

[–] MydnightRose 13 years ago

It was horrible but I still enjoyed it. It is one of the few that is so bad it's funny.

Lois Lane=Leia Lane

[–] xenatikkanen-1 12 years ago

Again, as I wrote in the other thread about this, I actually liked both aspects of the movie; horror/gore AND the comedy. If the acting had been better, the comedic remarks would have been so much better. The acting, timing, choreography, and editing were so bad in those scenes, that it did take some of the impact away from the hilarity. I usually am not a big fan of horror/comedy unless it is done just right, but in these bad flicks, I can generally take it much easier! It is just funny. And this movie was bad, and it was funny. Even in the parts that weren't supposed to be. I thought Razz and that whole zombie bit was absolutely hilarious. I felt bad for Iggy at the end, even with that ridiculously poor execution of her ripping off his noggin...

The ending was so disturbing to me, and again, it lost impact because of the acting, editing, and filming.

[–] All_NightmareLong 12 years ago

I actually laughed a couple times. Some of the lines are so cheesy that it just works. Like this exchange:

Okay guys. I've got some bad news, and I've got some really ****ing miserably unbelievably bad news. What do you want first?
"Just give us the bad news."
We are ****ed beyond all reason.
"And that's just the bad news?"
...yeah.

and shorty after when the same guy calls the faux-Necronomicon the "Nasty skin book".

I have nothing worthwhile to put here...:(