Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

To all those who have watched it: I hope you enjoyed it as much as I do.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

The pseudo documentary purports to be about the making of a low-budget post-nuke sci-fi/action opus with a tribe of fierce Amazon women battling rot-faced mutants, but it's actually nothing more than a shameless excuse to showcase several elaborate gore set pieces, with a generous sprinkling of tasty gratuitous female nudity tossed in for trashy good measure. Said gore includes a machete in the head, an icepick piercing an eye, a juicy throat slicing, a gruesome dismemberment, and, best of all, an exploding head that's caused by strenuous sex (don't ask). Director Peter Rowe maintains a zippy pace and a lighthearted tone throughout. The staging and shooting of all the gore gags are depicted in fascinatingly meticulous detail. Alas, Paul James Sanders as bumbling comic relief dimwit Fang proves to be more annoying than amusing, but fortunately he ultimately receives a suitably nasty comeuppance at the end. Allan Kane's spirited and syncopated synthesizer score keeps things bouncing along. Chris Britton's plummy narration rattles off a lot of pretentious film school level howlers. A real goofy hoot.

Here is a film that claims to have "...the best horror effects in a decade." When in fact, the effects are horrendous. Right off the bat, they introduce the fakumentary with an eyeball being stabbed. Its just ridiculously dumb. Not only is it obviously fake, but just dumb. Of course all effects are fake, but try at the very least to make them look realistic and not high school level. One effect is of a zombie, but the funny part of the whole effect, is that there is no zombie makeup, just a rubber mask like ones sold at Halloween. Sometimes you have to ask yourself, "are they serious, or is this a joke?" This is something very cheesy to watch, but is watchable for a laugh. Video renters were gullible back in the eighties.

SPLATTER is interspersed between real-live action sequences of a "movie" and a documentary crew going behind the scenes to show us how the grisly fx are achieved. The "movie" portion is awful. For starters, it's shot-on-video. So right off the bat it's production values are that of your typical 80's porn. The story, or lack thereof, concerns a tribe of amazon queens doing battle with all sorts of zombies and mutants. The gore is cheap and phony, yet strangely disgusting and gratuitous. A very dated but enjoyable synth score plays throughout to spruce things up a bit. I won't lie though, this portion of the film is extremely entertaining and I wish a real movie called SPLATTER was made and not this pseudo-documentary piece. The behind-the-scenes portion of the film bogs things down a bit. Stupid humor, a dumb character named Fang and a shot that would've been cool, loses all merit when it is played over, and over and over again. But, the most amazing thing about SPLATTER is that there once was a time when something so offbeat, so corny and low-budget like this was made. I'm talkin' 100% Velveeta here. If you dig REDNECK ZOMBIES then SPLATTER is surely worth 75 mins. of your time.

Well, this is the end of the line for splatter fanatics. This is the documentary to a film being made. A film which, if you asked me, looks like it was a sham. I have never seen this mutant flick anywhere, and it could be that it's so rare, I haven't seen it. But, judging from the FX in this "documentary", I probably could do without seeing this mutant flick.The main point of this film is to show the audience how gross effects are sometimes engineered. The flesh-and-blood effects, however, seem off slightly. They just don't look real enough to be all that impressive. The filmmakers chose to throw some nudity in, as well, to keep the viewer from getting bored.And, then there is the action scenes. That's when I said to myself,"This isn't a real film," The documentary refuses to give real plot points away, making me doubt.But, hey, more people have seen the MAKING OF DEMON LOVER that they have seen DEMON LOVER. So, that's just my opinion, but if you take a look at SPLATTER, doesn't it seem just a bit too irreverent?OK. So, my point is taken. There is nothing of the Tom Savini, or Stan Winston, variety here. It's strictly amateur hour. But, what a funny, entertaining hour it is.