One of the wrost movies I have ever seen

Better Late Then Never

It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

Blistering performances.

This movie is a particular type of "theater of the absurd". Think of something like "The Bed Sitting Room" post-apocalyptic, surreal movie starring Dudley Moore and Peter Cook. Of course, it's more gore-bent. However, it's the kind of violence where you can see spurting blood but never have to look directly at the source. The improbable storyline makes just as much sense as a nuclear holocaust. Leo Coco is a study in psychosis. The budget is so low that they couldn't afford to "break-in" the costumes. The clothing is tattered and holed, but spotlessly clean, even with all that blood.The only scene that looked improvised was the chainsaw-starting scene. It looked cinema verite to me and even funnier in that context.I was pleasantly surprised that "gamma radio" could be picked up on a 1940s AM radio with a wooden cabinet. There are little touches throughout the movie, such as oddly pronounced words "eating human flash" vice "flesh" and "eviskerated" for "eviscerated".In short: broad, bold and ultimately funny enough to sit through once.

There I was, minding my own business, fishing for cheesy movies to watch whilst enjoying a late night drinking session. I'd stumbled upon a listing of post-apocalyptic 'classics' and knew I'd hit the jackpot. One of the movies in that list had an intriguing title: 'Beach Party at the Threshold of Hell'. My eye caught, after doing a little research I decided to give it a shot. Couldn't be worse than 'Roller Blade 7', after all...Wow...alright, before I explain why this movie induced violent paroxysms of laughter, I will cover its so-called 'weak points'. Yes it's cheap: there's one scene that was apparently beyond the scope of the makers' budget and/or abilities so it was animated, the costumes are usually jeans and t-shirts cut up, everything takes place in basically one location and the cast is not 'diverse', consisting mostly of the creators in the acting roles. It jumps around and inserts documentary sequences and character introductions that break up the action. It's done in a documentary style that will harsh many a buzz of those used to more straightforward storytelling. If you're Tarantino, Rodriguez or Ritchie apparently that's all well and good, but I digress. There may be further 'negatives', but even the ones mentioned aren't negative to me, so forgive me if something's left out. However, now you must again forgive me as I rub my hands together with devious relish and explain why all that doesn't matter, or at least doesn't make the film any less enjoyable.First and foremost, it made me laugh louder and harder than anything has for a long time. The dialog is great and the gags hit their mark. You do have to possess a sick sense of humor and love of irony to truly enjoy it, but with those two qualifications this movie will take you to fine places. I would love to point out specific things, but honestly, they won't be as funny if you are expecting them. The only one I'll touch is one of the funniest sequences involving some difficulties with a chainsaw. That's all you're gonna get. Just trust me on this, if you're a sicko, your gut will be a-bustin'.Now to address those alleged weaknesses: the documentary style does slow it down, sure, but it's a comedy. It's not an action-packed thrill-ride that needs to move quickly. It was pulled off very well and allowed for the inclusion of some very good and funny cameos, such as Jane Seymour as the last President, Tony Hale (of 'Arrested Development' as Buster) as a biographer and Richard Riehle (who played Tom in 'Office Space') as the narrator. Some may think the documentary bits padding, but I truly think it adds an element of tongue-in-cheek quirkiness to the proceedings, and while perhaps the characters could have been introduced in other ways, I thought their way was far more interesting than characters busting into monologue or ill-fitting dialog. Some may think it a rip-off of other directors, but I say thee 'nay'. What they did always felt more like respectful hat-tips than straight rips, though there were many. The whole feel of the movie is very Dr. Strangelove meets Pulp Fiction, and I say that as a means of description, not really to compare this film to those others. Even at its most serious it doesn't take itself a bit seriously, but it's imaginative and well-written enough not to spiral off into pure goofiness. Campy, yes, insipid, no.Bad acting? I have seen bad acting (I've seen 'Men of Honor'), and with a cast of primarily amateurs the acting is actually very good. Hell, even Daniel Baldwin didn't suck, and that's saying something! But the actors had a lot to work with and had reason to do a good job, for the script, again particularly the dialog, is excellent. I'm not even going to qualify that with a 'for a low-budget movie' or anything. It is just GOOD. It's sharp, and is sharply delivered. The characters are weird but cool and well-played. These are not the typical post-apocalyptica stereotypes, but something altogether different and, dare I say, brilliant. What else do you need? But wait, there's more!There's blood and gore, as one would expect of post-apocalyptic fare, and quite a bit, but done well (though certainly not tastefully) and death scenes that would look cheesy are given the 'go to black' or 'blood spatter on lens' treatment, avoiding the typical groan-and-eye-roll moments that plague horror movies. It's also done with great sick humor. For instance, a spine gets pulled and in later scenes you can still see it lying on the ground as other situations play out in the same area. The much poo'd-upon animated sequence is actually cool, and a smart move on the makers' part. I'd much rather see animation, adding more quirk to the quirky, than hokey live-action. As opposed to simply axing the bit, they use it to make their movie even weirder. I for one dig it and applaud them for it.I could go on, but this beast needs to be wrapped up. In summary, I think 'Beach Party' is simply a great movie, funny and wrong in all the right ways. It stands up against the best the big companies have to offer, and with a fraction of a fraction of the budget. It's a fine example of what indie developers can do with heart and inspiration. If you want big budget fluff, look elsewhere. I for one will not miss you. If you want a to spend a hour-and-a-half chortling and feeling like a misanthrope for doing so, please, for the love of all that is sick and unholy, look this movie up, then tell someone else. That's the only way to make sure that movies like this continue to be made, as they damn well ought to be.

I was lucky enough to have the opportunity to see this film in Tulsa before it ventured onward to Toronto. I had seen the trailer on MySpace, and thought it would be something akin to "Bad Taste", which is one of my favorite movies. It wasn't. But it WAS one of the funniest films I've seen in a long while. In short: fluid, yet relatively non-linear storyline...clever, hilarious, seamless dialog...engaging despots, lovable bumbling heroes, and a protagonist like no other. This film does not play like low-budget; it moves quickly and never catches on a sloppy shot or a cliché line. The acting is first-rate, and visually the film rises to the challenge of it's post-apocalyptic storyline. If you never see this film, I'm sorry for you; and if you do, you WILL NOT be disappointed!

This movie was made by a bunch of white guys that went to school together. Well there's nothing wrong with that, except it looks like it was made by a bunch of white guys that went to school together. 90 percent of the cast are white males about same age. It's almost like watching a bunch of guys at boys camp who turned the camera on themselves. The movie has no plot. It simply repeats the same action of blood bath after blood bath. There are some funny scenes and comedic bits. But they don't redeem the flat monotony.The graphic cartoon scenes are used to cover the stuff that was obviously beyond their budget or resources to do, and not done very well at that. Anything that can't be done with white guys running around on the beach covered in blood is done with cheap animation.I went to see this film after seeing the trailer, which makes it look like a Tarrentino piece. Well, the trailer scenes are as good as they ever get. Ther rest of it just repeats the same kind of mundane, inane comedy. It works at times, but it gets boring after the same stuff comes at you over and over. It's more like a string of Satuday Night Live skits than a movie. It's a hit-you-over-the-head-with-it kind of comedy. I can see where the story idea is intriguing. But, in this film post apocalyptic America is much like Medevil England. In fact Wheatlry says the story ideas came from that era. He plans to make a Part 2. I guess he thinks he's Tarrentino or maybe doing a parody thing.At the opening in LA, Wheatley mentioned he will bring back pretty much the same cast in part 2. He was asked if he might consider a more diverse cast in the next one, to which he replied, well yea, sure.