Skin Crawl (2007)

"Skin Crawl" is barely passable as a horror movie with a few decent moments.**SPOILERS**Tired of trying to make her marriage work, Margaret, (Debbie Rochon) decides the time is right to divorce inattentive husband Howard, (Kevin G. Shinnick) and move on with her life. When his mistress Sadie, (Julian Wells) suggests an even more extreme answer to their problems, he doesn't know how to agree to the plan but eventually relents, letting her go about her plan. When she succeeds and has her killed, she lets him in on the plan, which was to blackmail him out of her money and use it to live with her boyfriend Colin, (Armand Anthony) but when everyone involved in the ordeal begins to die off, they realize that she's the descendant of a long line of witches that had placed a curse on the family to rise from the grave when threatened and seek out their revenge, putting them all at great risk and forcing them to find a way of surviving her blood-thirsty reign of vengeance.The Good News: There was some good stuff here, though there wasn't a whole lot of it. The fact that there's a lot of nudity on display might be the best thing about the film. There's a lot of it in the film, most of it from the one who tends to engage in a slew of erotic moments in here, ranging from a spanking session with her in a school-girl outfit to several full-on sex scenes that, while not explicit compared to the performer's other work, still manages to satisfy the nudity quotient. It even manages to throw in a rather risqué sequence where, pulling the pants down to reveal no underwear and a sly come-on, it uses that to it's advantage and creates a rather erotic scene that creates even more nudity in here. The fact that the film also has a rather strong and original story is nice, since it manages to create something of interest every now and then when there's no zombie action, which is quite small anyway. From the double-crosses and different web of deception going on between all involved, there's a deeper story here than at first glance, and while it's not the most useful in moving the film forward with anything resembling energy, it's still a lot of fun and sticks out against similar-sounding films. The only other part here that works is, predictably, the zombie rampage at the end, which is short but really fun. There's a cool-looking zombie, complete with the usual dirt-encrusted appearance that always looks great, a bunch of wounds to indicate what happened in life, and a great feel that really works well. There's a tense stalking scene, several gory pay-offs and more to be had during this part, and it really satisfies at every turn, with the gore, tension, payback and revenge, making this one's good moments all exclusive to there.The Bad News: There's a couple flaws to this one that hold it down. One of the biggest is the fact that the pacing to this one is way off. There's a lot of time in here that doesn't evoke much interest or excitement, and most of that is due to the film's rather less-than-stellar way of handling everything. The film has a lot of scenes that are just plain dull and leave a lot to be desired. By switching around with the plot and offering up some different takes on the whole situation, it makes for a series of scenes that are just plain hard to get into, and in the end, it allows for sequences that are just boring. While the scenes of the double-crossing mistress, the family drama and the killers being given personalities make for a compelling drama, none of them are generating much excitement with the horror elements, and it can, at times, be mistaken for not having much at all to do with the genre. These scenes are not interesting or exciting, and because of that, the film is just so slow-moving and boring that it's hard to get into. Even worse still, the film makes it an hour in before the zombie is even resurrected because of all these boring moments, and they're much longer than they should be. The only other flaw to this one is the film's overlong and incredibly confusing opening. It's fun, but frankly, it goes on too long and could've been told in a much shorter amount of time than what it offers. These here are the film's big problems.The Final Verdict: While it's not all that great, it's pretty much ruined by the single flaw rather than any series of instances. If you're able to overlook the flaw and can get into it based on the story-aspects, then this one shouldn't be too bad, though if it doesn't appeal to you, then seek caution.Rated R: Graphic Language, Full Nudity, several Sex Scenes and Graphic Violence

Oh my, I would really recommend giving this film a miss if you're craving for a canonic cinematic experience with good acting, effects and production values. Don't watch it if so because you simply won't like it, it has none of it. Now, If you're aware that you're about watching a cheaply produced movie, with acting that could range from annoying to hard-tried and a simple story, you'll find Skin Crawl is quite enjoyable, its simple story is actually driven through a fun and twisty storytelling, towards the bloody satisfying ending the cover promises. This movie simply delivers what it promises, so if you'll give it a go, do it with the right expectations and you'll have a nice time.

Obviously some who were involved with the production of this movie are reviewing it, otherwise it would have a uniformly low score.Let's not bother with the plot here, it's already been mentioned by other reviewers and is neither original nor noteworthy.The production values are generally acceptable, with decent camera work, and acting that is at least as bad as you know it's going to be. Maybe worse. I'm OK with average to low production if some element of the film makes up for that. That's not the case with this movie.What they're trying to sell this movie on is sex and horror: the movie contains very little of either. Forget the review where they mention all the different kinds of sex in this movie - you don't see any of it. You'll see even less horror, unless your idea of horror is being terrified at the idea these people would be allowed to make a movie.There aren't enough special effects to mention, the dialog is about the same as you would expect from an elementary school stage play, and the nudity is confined to some lightweight T&A, less than you'd see on late night cable. You would be better off paying a couple neighborhood skanks to dance around your living room. Squirt a little ketchup on them and you'd have about the same amount of horror this movie contains.

I would just like to know what (if any) basis for comparison that people say that films of this yore are 'worst movie ever made' or 'director should be flogged'...you get the drift.I am just interested as to what is considered a 10 in the same production budget range.It's no good just making bland comments that we've all used before. I thought Spidey 3 was a major disappointment (on that budget) but I thought Cabin Fever was great (for that budget)...but both made a shed load of money.But I do know something, that if the budget was low enough for this movie and yet it got distribution...then a profit was made somewhere along the line...and in the film BUSINESS...that's all that matters.Good luck to anyone who makes a movie and gets a distribution deal.