I'll be honest, I hate most SOV (shot on video) movies, I've always thought most of them suck and suck hard. In fact both of the films I'm examining today, I watched as a young teen and ended up turning them off about 20 minutes in and then cursing the makers of the film for stealing my hard earned allowance on the rentals. Needless to say, my opinions on movies have changed quite a bit since puberty (just a bit). So I've decided to reexamine both REDNECK ZOMBIES and VIDEO VIOLENCE and I'm glad I did. Both are SOV gems and deserving of their spots in horror movie history. Don't misunderstand me though--both of these films are bad, bad movies, but even bad films have own their place. Look, everybody knows the difference between a "good" movie and a "bad" movie--RAGING BULL=good movie, I DRINK YOUR BLOOD=bad movie--but you know, I think I've seen RAGING BULL twice, but I've lost track of how many times I've seen I DRINK YOUR BLOOD. Basically bad movies are bad but that doesn't mean they don't entertain and are not worthy of any adulation. I hope that helps people figure out where I'm coming from when I praise these two flicks.

Straight out of the world of Troma comes--REDNECK ZOMBIES, a horror/comedy that delivers on the gore, but no so much on the laughs. There are a few laughable moments sure, but not as many as the makers of the film probably think there is. REDNECK ZOMBIES doesn't really bring anything new to the table as far as zombie flicks go--a toxic chemical turns locals into zombies, there's an outbreak, there's a group of people fighting for survival, there's a Lord of the Flies moment, chaos ensues, guts are munched, one survivor, the end--but damn if I couldn't keep my eyes off of it. The film is one of the most schizophrenic films I've ever seen, one moment it's a screwball comedy and the next it's a really dark horror film and it changes from one scene to the next. What I think this stems from is that the makers of the film didn’t having a clue of what they were doing. The golden rule of writing is "write what you know", these guys sure as hell didn't know much about Southerners. Basically the "rednecks" in the film are just stereotypes recycled from He-Haw and The Beverly Hillbillies--not that I'm defending rednecks (far from it), but they're not all tobacco chewing, overall wearing, shoeless, moonshine drinkers, but I suppose that image is "funny" so they rolled with it. I did like the fact that all the non-rednecks in the cast were pure 80's (when the film was made) and the rednecks seemed to be lost in a time warp as they come off as dust-bowl era hillbillies.

Okay so the humor didn't work for the most part, especially they black guy that is high on acid, that I'm sure has never done acid in his life. I've done acid plenty in my youth and saw people on acid and not once did they act like a character from a Looney Tunes cartoon (they may have looked like one). Though I did think the camera effect during the acid freakout scene was kind of cool in a lame 80's kind of way. The little fat guy that didn't speak but always had a bottle of booze in his hands was kind of funny. Again, I think the writers of the film, Zoofeet and P. Floyd Piranha thought that the film was way more funny then it turned out and I would bet money that they were high when they wrote it--I mean their names are “Zoofeet” and “P. Floyd Piranha”!! Plus they must think stereotypes of flaming homosexuals are pretty funny too, for there are ‘three’ of them in the film.

Luckily the lame humor doesn't break the film because what is left is a halfway decent gore flick. From what I can tell most of the budget for the film went into the gore effects (this is a TROMA movie after all). TROMA has always been hit and miss (mostly miss) when it comes to comedy, but one thing they always manage to do right is gore--but does the gore alone make the film worth watching? Well, no--but if you like TROMA movies, 80's style or anything involving zombies--it's worth a watch. I would advise getting high or buzzed first as I'm sure it's more enjoyable that way--I watched it sober and it was a tad rough.

All in all, REDNECK ZOMBIES is not a horrible flick nor is it a horrible waste of time. The filmmakers seemed like they were having fun making the film and unless you're a complete movie snob and/or can't tolerate lowbrow humor; you might enjoy it for what it is.

Now on the other hand we have, VIDEO VIOLENCE. It’s Z budget trash, but it seems there was an effort to make something of substance here (isn’t that cute?). For one, you can tell that the makers of the film were really into horror, not just trying to make a quick buck and second, the plot is actually a good one. The plot sort of reminded me of an old EC comics story (Tales from the Crypt, Vault of Horror, ect.). A movie theater owner from New York moves to a hick town to run a video store. Someone returns a rental that is a real snuff film. The guy goes to the police, but they don't believe him and through some strange occurrences he's put in a 'boy who cried wolf' scenario and has only his wife to believe him. Meanwhile people are being killed left and right by two serial killers that film all of their killings and the tapes keep ending up in the hands of the video store owner. Soon he has no choice but to take matters into his own hands.

This one was an utter surprise to me when gave it a second chance, years later. The acting wasn't that bad (for the most part…could have been a lot worse), the directing was good for a SOV movie (and first time director, Gary Cohen) and the storyline was intriguing--there was even a small amount of character development. The lead actor (Art Neill) played the role very well and you could tell he took the role seriously--too bad he's such an ugly bastard--think Jeff Goldblum with a serious receding hairline and a pony tail and you'd be close. Half way through the film I pretty much figured out the mystery, but it was still a fun little flick. When I first watched this film as a kid I turned it off once I saw the quality of the film, I'm glad I gave it another chance.

I also enjoyed the two serial killers that act like they're on a late night talk show as they kill their victims. They laugh and joke and seem to be having lots of fun, which actually makes for some dark, disturbing scenes. The old dude that played the sheriff hams it up big time, but I enjoyed his performance too.

The film is quite dated, but a great nostalgia trip for anyone who grew up in the 80's. The video store scenes with all the large VHS boxes, the fact that they make a big deal about how so many of the townsfolk all own VCRs (they were still quite expensive back then) and there being no cable available in the town, the clothing, the cars--everything is so 80's--like, totally.

The film is not a gorefest, but the small amount of gore that is used is filmed very well. There is a VIDEO VIOLENCE II and it delivers on the gore, but looses any substance and lacks a good storyline. I enjoyed the first film much more (part 2 is available on the same DVD as part 1)

Final thoughts on both films: REDNECK ZOMBIES is a fun flick if you like b-horror and zombies and a high tolerance for low brow humor. VIDEO VIOLENCE is a good horror flick, it may look like cheap crap (because it is) but there 'is' some substance to the violence.

Later, Freex.