It was just bad. Poorly executed, pointless, the "dated" effects were bad, the prosthetics as well, and the film was boring. And I am speaking as a horror fan, who has no issue with extreme violence and gore, so it has nothing to do with the film being "shocking" (which it isn't, this has been done countless times before).
shareWell what do you consider to be a better extreme horror flick? This is (IMO) one of the best I've ever seen. The gore is fantastic, and for a first-time director it could have been a lot worse.
In fact, I think the director's (Arthur Cullipher) forte is makeup and effects. a hell of a lot better than the CGI garbage I've been seeing in horror lately.
To each his own, but I am curious to know what you find to be "shocking" if this didn't do it for you.
It may of had very extreme content but the acting and effects were so bad that it made all of those scenes ineffective and laughable.
If all you need from your horror films is gore then I can understand why someone would enjoy it....Personally, I need some kind of story.
And poor acting just takes me out of the film.