Hobgoblins.

Review #1602: Hobgoblins.

Cast:

Tom Bartlett (Kevin), Paige Sullivan (Amy), Steven Boggs (Kyle), Kelley Palmer (Daphne), Billy Frank (Nick), Tamara Clatterbuck (Fantazia), Duane Whitaker (Roadrash), Jeffrey Culver (McCreedy), Kevin Kildow (Dennis), Kari French (Pixie), and Daran Norris (Club Scum M.C) Written, Produced, and Directed by Rick Sloane.

Review:

"I went to junior college to learn the basics of film making, then spent three years unlearning their techniques, because none of them applied to how the real industry works. I did have access to free school film equipment, a sound stage and post-production, so they did come in handy. They discouraged me every step of the that I should find another career to pursue, but I became a working director and was back as a guest speaker by the time I was 23."

Sometimes you just need to be reminded of why one loves movies by seeing the ones that are clearly and obviously products of a different era that turn to waste one's time. And sometimes you need to look upon different voices with their own perspective on how to make a film without being hindered by interference or a lack of money to stop someone. Sloane, a California native, aspired to be an animator from a young age, but he shifted his interest to filmmaking through study at Los Angeles City College for art and film courses. He found the films they showed to be "cinematic pabulum" (for films like The 39 Steps...), but it was the showing of one different from the others in the low-budget Hollywood Boulevard (1976) that inspired him the most, noting it as a teaching tool for low-budget filmmaking that he would utilize as a template for the films he would later make. He directed his first film with Blood Theatre (1984), a slasher/horror comedy feature. Sloane is known for his self-production of each film he does, which also includes editing and cinematography. Of course it also helped that in the days of the 1980s and 1990s there were (as he claims) "40,000 mom and pop video stores across the country, and you could get instant distribution on practically anything that was feature length." If he thinks of himself as some sort of cult director like John Waters or someone who simply wanted to make films of the taste he had as a teenager, then all power to you. Sure, the film might seem to be a ripoff of Gremlins (1984), but Sloane has stated that he wrote it before that film was released, one that on first draft would only show the eyes of the monster. Clearly there were changes made in those years, but none of them probably involved a better script.

Sure, there were numerous films that could be thought of as ripoff-I mean descendants inspired by Gremlins such as Ghoulies (1985), Troll (1986), Critters (1986), and Munchies (1987). And all of those have one other thing in common: All of them had a follow-up film, because one utterly, truthfully, faithfully needed a sequel to Hobgoblins 21 years later. I mean hey, even Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966) had follow-up films come decades later and that also got a restoration from the original workprint; personally, Hobgoblins proves that some things could deserve to take a whacking on the wayside. It may have been made on the cheap, but cheap films can still be good if there's something interesting to go with it. This is a collaterally cheap clutter of a movie, clanking at 92 minutes with clumsy queasiness. It is inconceivable, inept, inert, and a waste of time. Manos might be boring with an amateur at the helm making obvious missteps, but what we have here is a bad movie with an established director in making cheap B-movies, more specifically ones with threads of a plot mixed with hair-brained characters and effects that are exactly what to expect from looking like silk pillows. So here we are, with monsters that have one big interest: creatures that make people's biggest desire come true while eventually killing them. You know, that could make an interesting idea, one that could rely on the futility of having dreams that are either not realistic or ones that people have to strive for themselves as opposed to freaks from space. Here, we have idiots for characters, a mix of teenage clichés that don't even get the benefit of what happens to those other, better-budgeted, better-scripted (of sorts) horror films: a body-count from the main cast (one, and I repeat, one person dies in the film). Even the satisfaction of seeing those fuzzballs get blown to bits is muddled in the fact that they were kept in a film vault for 30 years by a guy guarding an old film studio because...if you can find a reason, you will personally get a letter of commendation from me. If anything deserves to be called cinematic pabulum, his film would be written in the biggest font possible with bold lettering as perhaps #1 on a piece of paper that is then set on fire while the Star Spangled Banner plays loudly in the background. But wait, why don't we do a rundown of a scene or two to really bring the point home. For starters, our main four is tiresome from the very get go, made particularly clear in a spar involving rakes and garden hoes that goes on for quite a while. Believe it or not, it was actually a homage to the final fight from Streets of Fire (1984), but even Sloane has admitted to it being the worst scene he has ever done in a film. 92 minutes cannot go by faster, particularly with a sequence involving our lead being berated for being weak (by losing the fight...to a guy in the Army) while in the background involves goofy noises. How about highlighting the fantasies the hobgoblins give out - one meets the woman (who he had been calling repeatedly) of his dreams, and nearly is pushed off a cliff, another loses their prudish inhibitions and goes to a nightclub, and the other gets to play out being a commando that gets set on fire...oh but he comes out in crutches at the end, so he's okay. But our climax involves the lead getting to do a big fight scene to prove he's a real brave man...and then the old man saves him from a hobgoblin trick.

But hey, there may be positive things to note. Sure, he made a cheap movie under his own control and it has found a bit of cult appeal when it comes to being made fun of. Mystery Science Theater 3000 made fun of the film, and Sloane liked most of what they said about his film. It reminds me best of that joke that goes about how is not owned, truly they aren't owned, as they slowly shrink and transform into a corn cob-I mean bad movie. But it is important to say that he made a moron movie, one that might as well be idiot-proofed from being eviscerated that says anything too different from what has already been said about its obvious failings. Cheap isn't even the worst of its problems, considering its vapid characters and effects, terrible execution, and all-around failure in every single category in attempts at horror, comedy, and science-fiction. Staring at a wall with droning music playing might be the better alternative then to see this once, if only because you wouldn't be inspired to write a thousand words about it. In short, it deserves to stuck in the bottom of the barrel for all time, belonging in the pits with filmmakers like Coleman Francis and James Nguyen. But hey, at least he gets to make films that he liked when he was a teenager on his own dime...so that means something for someone.

Next Time: Believe it or not, it's one long on the backburner to cover. The Postman (1997).

Overall, I give it 0 out of 10 stars.