Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer

source: Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer

Well, what can I say? If this film was actually made in the 80's I bet they could make a kick ass re-make of it now, unfortunately its only just been made! (Which means the re-make will be out in about 10 years) Cons: - Takes at least 10 mins too long to get into the action. - When the action does start, it doesn't last long enough! - Some of the acting is, well, um... - The entire thing with the therapist is pointless and adds nothing. - I don't think some character (Character?) threads were properly concluded. - End of film was way too sudden! - Needed to have a bigger variety of monster. - Some of the effects were...questionable, cant decide if this was good or bad!?!? Pros: - Robert Englund actually gives a pretty good performance. He obviously had fun with this, and didn't mind getting his hands dirty! (I have met the guy! Just thought id say! He he!) - Hello!! I believe this film was meant to be ridiculous!! - This film should be watched for the old guy in the hardware store, funniest thing in the entire film!! - It is most refreshing to see a modern film that IS NOT infested with CGI!! - Jack Brooks has a nicely thought out background and motivation for his actions. (Nice moment in the van with the Sinatra song) In conclusion, this is not the best film ever made, and I have seen much better 'Hats Off' films of 80's type B-movies. But, mostly due to the Hardware store guy and Robert Englund, this movie is staying in my collection, and if you have 85 mins to mindlessly kill, or are drunk with mates I recommend (Just make sure you fast-forward to the action!) Icarus.

"Jack Brooks Monster Slayer," is not a good movie. In fact, it is a big letdown. While the production quality and tongue in cheek use of rubber costumes reflects the moderately large budget, the story itself is both flawed and boring. The culprit of the failings is found in the assumptions made by the film makers. By focusing on monster creation process, the film neglects important character development and playful action. Overall, this is a film to be missed. Admittedly, "JBMS," will strike a chord with some nostalgia buffs; yet, as a film, this is little more than a mediocre rehash of genre clichés. The downfall of this film is two assumptions. First, the makers assume that showing the history and creation of the monster is both necessary and amusing. Second, supplying detail to the above mentioned monster ontology is assumed to also be necessary and interesting. Neither assumption is wrong, per se. The execution in this film, however, is outright boring. An extended example may help to clarify. Cooking shows run a tenuous line. Watching the act of creation is interesting and informative. Detailing every action that goes into dish preparation is dull. A cooking program needs to find a balance between informative exposition and potentially dull but important detail. The answer seems to be that every part of a cooking show is a mix of technique and technique explanation. As such, breaking down an onion is shown because it informs on knife technique in practice and also illustrates the benefits of uniform piece size in cooking. Peeling a potato or boiling water is not shown because they are important techniques that benefit little from being demonstrated. The point is that all elements of the process are evaluated on the levels of understanding that are conveyable. The same is true for the horror film. A background to the protagonist and antagonist is appreciated as long as it sets the current context as well as developing the actual characters. "JBMS," provides a great amount of detail concerning how the main monster is formed. The slow transition from human to demon is the body of the film. Choosing this transition as the focal point of the story leads to a ninety minute film; a ninety minute film that could very easily have been forty minutes. Furthermore, the added detail affords no real development. To the contrary, the monster development is the cinematic equivalent to watching a trained chef peel a potato. Essentially, this film would have benefited from a focus on devious monster action and not hum drum monster ontology. The above stated, the film is not a total loss. The characters are likable enough, and Robert Englund clearly enjoyed this production. The use of rubber suits as opposed to CGI is a welcome throwback to the creature films of the eighties and before. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that these benefits do not come near enough to balancing out the dry, elongated, boring story telling. This film is worth a miss. I am loathe to recommend this movie even to the horror/comedy buff. There are a great many more interesting and better told stories that are actually worthy of one's time. On a personal note, I will mention this film to friends as a real Turkey. Unfortunately, this will almost guarantee that it is seen by at least one more person. Should you feel the need to hunt this film down, the movie is best paired with low expectations and somewhat sloppy drunkenness.

i've heard lots of people go back and forth about this flick, so I decided to pick it up. I must say, I was EXTREMELY impressed. Newcomer Trevor Matthews (Jack Brooks) has the potential to be the next Bruce Campbell. I think the plot and action sequences, while they've been done before (for the most part), were still done in an original way. The best part of this film would be the brilliant performance of horror vet Robert Englund. This film is honestly a refreshing step back in to the glory of days of mid-80's gore. It is definitely in the same vein of modern gems such as Feast, and is even comparable to solidified classics such as Evil Dead, and Dead Alive. All-in-all, I highly recommend this flick to anyone who wants to have some fun, and ACTUALLY be entertained while watching a movie. I hope the sequel gets made soon.

This movie was fun and entertaining but I think people are getting a little ahead of themselves in some of these reviews. It's not the greatest modern horror film or even the greatest horror film of the year. It's just mindless fun. Try not to take it as anything more than that and you should like it. The acting is pretty bad but we can't really expect much, I suppose. However, Robert Englund was pretty good. The story is an interesting idea but I think it takes too long to get going, about a full hour and then we're left with about 15 minutes of actual action. Normally I like slow moving films but not when I'm promised a "fun" movie.

Sometimes you see a movie at the video store and you decided to take a chance on it, usually you're stuck with a bad movie and out a couple bucks, not the case with Monster Slayer. Jack seems to be a fairly regular guy, working a thankless job and dating a whiny college girl. But Jack is not a regular guy, when he was a kid he witnessed a terrible tragedy, a tragedy he blames himself for and that fuels his episodes of rage. While doing a job for his science teacher, Professor Crowley (Robert Englund), Jack unintentionally awakens an ancient evil. Soon his entire science class is in mortal danger. Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer is a slow building monster movie, that really allows the character of Jack to be explored before the crap hits the fan. After the opening scene we don't see a monster for about 2/3 of the movie. But that's fine because the last third makes up for it. Jack Brooks also does something rarely seen today, effective use of prosthetics. Instead of relying on cheesy cgi like this weeks Sci-Fi original, this movie uses well made monster make up to create realistic hell spawn. The acting is fantastic for a movie of this level, Trevor Matthews does a fantastic job as the hero. Rachel Skarsten is terrifically annoying and James A. Woods plays the stereotypical wanna be philosopher college kid who smokes too much weed, perfectly. While this movie is made in the spirit of Army of Darkness, you will not confuse the two movies. Jack Brooks is much more serious, but not too serious. Jack Brooks doesn't throw out classic one liners, or is too cocky for his own good. Jack is just a guy with a lot of anger issues who steps up when he's needed the most.

The ambitions of director Jon Knautz and his entire cast & crew were obviously limited, but nevertheless admirable. All they ever intended to do was bring homage to the glorious horror decade of the 80's and make a nonsensical movie with clichéd themes, stereotypical characters and over-the-top gooey make-up effects reminiscent to the movies the young filmmakers grew up with, like "The Evil Dead" and "Demons". I saw this film at the Belgian Fantasy Film Festival, were it fulfilled the role of ideal midnight movie crowd-pleaser. "Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer" offers plenty of splatter, absurdly crude humor, identifiable anti-hero characters, silly story lines and – last not least – Robert Englund himself in another terrific supportive B-role. Jack Brooks is an ordinary twenty-something man, working as a plumber during the day and attending chemistry classes in the evening in order to reach a more valuable certificate. He suffers from one major problem, though. Ever since he helplessly witnessed his family getting butchered by a forest monster as a child, Jack can't control his anger and regularly suffers from aggressive outbursts. When his teacher, Professor Crowley, gradually transforms into a monstrous entity after a plumbing job gone awry, Jack comes to realize the monster slaying business is exactly the type of anger management he needed. "Monster Slayer" is pretty weak in the plotting department, as you can see, but this widely gets compensated by the enthusiast spirit and determination of everybody involved in the production. The film starts off a little slow and hesitant, but once Prof Crowley starts undergoing his transformation, there's no more stopping the camp and cheese! You can clearly notice how genre veteran Robert Englund enjoyed helping out the young crew and the make-up department seemingly just received a carte-blanche. The monster designs and demonic grimaces are delightfully cheesy and gross, just like they were in the 1980's, and the film constantly remains comical and light-headed in spite of the gory bloodshed. Trevor Matthews is terrific as the reluctant Bruce "Ash" Campbell typed horror Savior and he receives good support from various other young and (still) unknown players. "Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer" is a totally unpretentious and entertaining throwback to B-cinema, and even though it'll never be regarded as a classic, it's warmly recommended viewing for all fans of the genre.

What is the best anger management program for someone who has witnessed his family slain in one's childhood by a hideous monster and has blamed himself for not having been able to do something to save them? Meditation? Yoga? Pilates? Yolates? Gay exercise videos? Wrong: it's professional monster slaying. The bottled up emotions that might complicate everyday life can be used effectively to annihilate various monsters and thusly to achieve great therapeutic effect combined with social beneficence. That's The Monster Slayer in a nutshell. It's a campy, smooth old-school gore-fest, but it's well executed and acted in spite of the fact that the cup of the budget runneth not over. Good old Robert Englund delivers a tour de force over the top charleslaughtonian performance which is a delight. Rachel Skarsten is a perfectly nasty Barbie bitch from hell. Her high-pitched whining scene in the car is a total blast. Now the hero, Trevor Matthews, is someone to watch with attention. Methinks stardom might come knocking on the door any day soon. A very nice 1980s style (i.e. trendy) flick makes a great 1,5 hour entertainment if it's not Hamlet you're really craving for.

Tightly wound plumber Trevor Mathews has serious anger issues due to the fact that his parents were killed by monsters when he was just a wee lad. When his college professor played by Robert Englund unleashes an ancient horde of evil creatures, it is up to the plucky plumber to realize his destiny as a monster slayer and save humanity. The ranting of Trevor Mathews in the title role is very amusing but it is really Robert Englund who steals the show. He is clearly having a ball with the material and his enthusiasm is contagious.I laughed quite a bit.The SPFX are pretty good and refreshingly old-school.Lots of gore and prosthetics as opposed to lame CGI. I wouldn't mind watching Jack Brooks slay monsters thru a whole series of films like this!

After viewing "Still Life", a short film directed by Jon Knautz, I was genuinely excited for his feature film debut, "Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer". "Still Life" had perfectly captured the essence and feel of an episode of "The Twilight Zone" and I was eager to see what Knautz could do when taking on the horror-comedy genre. The campy nature of the name and promotional materials suggested something along the lines of "Evil Dead" or "Army of Darkness"; a fun, gory, 80's style horror flick with lots of monsters. While that was what Knautz was going for, he utterly fails at capturing any of the fun or entertainment value these movies had. The problem with "Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer" is that it completely lacks an understanding of what made these horror-comedies, that it tries to evoke, so great in the first place. Two-thirds of the running time is primarily devoted to the film's hero, Jack Brooks, a plumber and college student, as he goes to class and attempts to deal with his uncontrollable bursts of anger. There's nary a monster in sight for the greater part of the film, barely even a drop of blood or the slightest attempt at anything horror-related. Even if "Evil Dead" or "Dead Alive" had subsequent amounts of the gore cut out, they'd still be entertaining. "Jack Brooks" isn't. It's plain boring, which is the worst thing a film of this nature can be. Jack Brooks himself is not all that interesting, at least not enough to warrant the amount of screen time he's given. All one needs to know about him is revealed in the films first ten minutes and from that point on, whenever he's not beating the pulp out of a monster (and he rarely does), he's not worth watching. The movie goes nowhere, following him around on psychiatric sessions and scuffles with classmates. Eventually things do pick up. Jack Brooks battles a few monsters, some heads are crushed, a few humans are slaughtered, and then it's over. Just like that. All within the span of about fifteen minutes. It is a good fifteen minutes. The monsters are all fairly inventive (and done entirely in camera) and there's some great gore gags (the best being a zombies head crushed in), but after sitting through seventy-five minutes of pure tedium, fifteen minutes just isn't going to cut it. That's really all there is to it. I could ramble on about the acting which is fairly well done (especially horror icon Robert Englund in a non-traditional role) and how the creature prosthetics are a nice throwback to the days when films didn't use CGI, but it really doesn't matter. "Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer" is utterly boring and while Jon Knautz obviously does have the talent to create a good film (once again, the last fifteen minutes are killer and "Still Life" was amazing – check it out), "Jack Brooks" completely misses the mark. It has its successes (acting, make-up), but those don't change the fact that it's not very entertaining at all. The screening I caught this at had the director and cast in attendance. One piece of information I picked up was that a sequel was in development and that this time, it would focus more on fighting monsters as opposed to "the creation of a hero". My advice: skip this one and wait for the sequel.