Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer (2007)

The Worst Film Ever

One of my all time favorites.

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Don't listen to the negative reviews

Eve- Rachel Scarsten, is Tamzin in Lost Girl. For this, I watched it. Girl crush. It did have less mature moments this movie- but it is a movie, not a Film. Cool monsters from before CGI. gotta like that. And Englund always adds a creepy element; I am going as Freddy Kruger this Halloween and ya gotta love Englund for that. But anyway- Rachel is HOT

Co-producer / co-story author Trevor Matthews is also our title character here. Jack Brooks is an aimless 20 something plumber with severe anger management issues. This stems from a traumatic childhood incident in which he had to watch his family get massacred by a forest monster. Years later, while attending a night school science class, he agrees to take on a job for his teacher, Gordon Crowley (genre icon Robert Englund). Naturally, Crowley lives in a house with a sordid & violent history and the evil forces still residing on this property are soon free to possess Crowley."Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer" does earn points for being in the spirit of insane, low budget 1980s horror. The main problem for this viewer is that, for too much of the running time, some of the humour just fell flat, and it was hard to really care about the main character. What *is* irresistible is the chance to see Englund be broadly funny; he doesn't get that many opportunities to do comedy. He's the main reason to watch. A large amount of the humour is of the lowbrow variety, with no shortage of gas and vomit jokes. But the ultimate monster design is endearingly silly, and the makeup effects and gore are fun.Matthews is good as Jack, especially late in the game when the big shift occurs in his character and he decides to become the ass kicking hero. Rachel Skarsten delivers an effectively bitchy performance as Jacks' fed-up girlfriend. Daniel Kash (Spunkmeyer in "Aliens") is fine as the weary psychiatrist. And David Fox does a reasonably amusing job as our elderly tale spinner / exposition provider.Enjoyable enough combo of laughs and shocks does work towards a decent finale.Six out of 10.

Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer. Need I say more? Oh, okay then.Really, if the title doesn't give you a clue to what sort of movie you're about to watch then I really can't add that much.It's a cheesy, low budget B-movie (or maybe even C-movie) about a loser who had his family killed by a monster. Now, he's a plumber by day and a student at night. Plus he has anger issues. Guess what - he's destined to fight monsters. And that's about it.But is it any good? Well, Robert 'original Freddy Kruger' Englund is in it, so that does mean it's not going to be completely awful and the former spiky-fingered one does overact nicely.As for the rest of it, well, it's okay.The first three quarters of the film don't contain many monsters. Which is a shame, based on its title.However, if you enjoy where it's going, you'll be rewarded with a suitably decent pay-off. This comes in the form a nice slice 'n dice battle in the college with monsters splattering all over the place.Overall, it's fun - especially for the ending. I just wish they could have put the ending in the middle and then added more of the same.

"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.