moviemanianow There are two versions to Equinox, one more coherent than the other. Unfortunately both have several issues. Both, do have a certain charm however. For such a low budget production the effects are okay, there's some early stop motion effects by David Allen (Laserblast). These effects are decent but jittery and at times a little sloppy. Allen's later work is certainly better. There are several creatures on display-all from Allen's wonderful imagination. There's a King Kong-like demon ape (seen on the film's poster), a Cthulhu-like squid creature, and a devil-like demon. Presented in all its weak and terrible glory is a man painted green in an animal pelt who resembles the Jolly Green Giant. The stop motion creatures are serious and diabolical, clicking with the film's tone-then along comes that eye sore which comes and then goes. The characters are bland but occasionally likable but the acting ranges from moderately decent to awful. The story is actually pretty interesting and inspired Sam Raimi's Evil Dead (1981). Basically there's two versions to the film (hurray for confusion) there's the 1967 film and the 1970 film.67 Plot- David receives a call from his teacher (who resides in a cabin in the woods). David sets out to visit his friend with 3 other friends. They find the place in shambles and all begin to explore. Vickie finds a castle and gathers the others. Once inside they wind up in a cave with an odd old man. He gives them a book and tells them to leave. David skims through the book and reads a note left by his teacher. The book is a gateway between the realms of shadow and light. His teacher snatches the book away as they're attacked by a monster, then the Jolly Green Giant appears, as does a demon...70 Plot- Best friends Jim, David, and their girl friends go on a picnic. They have a run in with Asmodeus the park ranger (cool name), find a book, and monsters.The 1967 film is highly recommended, it has a dull driving sequence but has a fluent flow. The 1970 film is a real chore to get through with sloppy editing, odd/uneventful pacing, and is overall awful. Sadly people are most familiar with the 1970 version, which is why so many people hate it. I say give the 67 film a watch, it's no Evil Dead but for a low budget horror film from the 60s (a time when sci-fi was all the rage) it's pretty entertaining and imaginative with a campy charm.

X X There seriously needs to be a new genre for movies like this: "intended horror". There wasn't a single scary thing about it, and I spent most of the film giggling. The shots of "Asmodeus" doing that thing with his lips were more than I could withstand; it was like watching Mick Jagger aping an algae eater and I was rolling on the floor. It looked like the total budget of the film was about $100 and most of that was the gas they used to get to the locations. The claymation scenes would have made the Dr. Who producers blush. A demon who looks like a baboon who soaked his butt and legs in Rogaine? If you want a few laughs, check this one out.

zee This movie stinks.Bad script, bad acting, nothing scary, offensive to women (or any thinking human being), and stupid, stupid, stupid. The rating here is wrong. It's not a 5 star movie. It's not a 3 star movie. It's just awful.The story is a flashback narrated within a flashback narrated within a flashback, about an evil book and magical signs and the four stupidest young people on the planet who are forever splitting up when they know something is out to get them. I particularly like the way they wander off from each other in an unfamiliar cave. They're the sort of idiot characters who, by the first 20 minutes, make you root for something to kill them and thereby improve the human gene pool.Most awful, for me, was the blatant sexism of the thing. "We can't climb up there, the girls are with us." "You girls stay here." "Where's my food, woman?/You suck at cooking." On and on and on, ugly and relentless. True to 1970, I suppose, and thank goodness we are not living there any more. (Reminds me why as a child I used to hope to grow up to be a lesbian--I wasn't one, but it seemed a far better choice than dealing with men like this.)Let me say something positive about the movie: You could make a good drinking game out of it. Every time the obnoxious male leads say to their girlfriends, "you girls stay here," or "we're going alone" or something with that meaning to it, take a shot. You'll be falling down drunk halfway through.Claymation? Who cares? I've seen it before, and I've seen it better. If it were the best I'd ever seen (and it isn't) it doesn't make up for the fact that this movie is terrible, a half-star out of ten sort of terrible, a terrible that makes you long for a black and white Roger Corman film instead.Seriously, it's awful.

Polaris_DiB This movie could almost be considered a best-of compilation of previously-discovered visual effects, cult film conceits, and camp. The story itself is reminiscent of old movies from Attack of the Gila Monster to Haxan, the imagery covers the world from Godzilla and King Kong to Vertigo, the themes include creepy castles, desert wastelands, and Satanism, and the characters run from one situation to another with careless abandon as they commentate on the very things that are happening to them with a weirdly analytical mindset. The movie precedes the career of its visual effects creator (who went on to work on Star Wars and Jurassic Park, to lend Equinox some credibility) and its plot foretells the later Evil Dead and Evil Dead 2 of Sam Raimi. That said, it's not all that interesting.Basically, a group of four kids go out to visit a professor friend of theirs, only to meet with horrors involving a Satanic book, a creepy park ranger, a kooky old geezer, and spectacular (and mostly claymation) monsters. By today's standards, it's a pretty slow movie as it pretty much doesn't mind taking the time to let the camera linger on the special effects or, worse, on the dialog. There's an interesting sub-theme about religious symbols as a sort of metaphysical chemistry, and for what it's worth the characters are a lot more aware and intelligent than most horror film fodder. Unfortunately, that only gets the movie so far, as its creativity still serves a ridiculous premise that is, to most b-horror film buffs, all too familiar. In that way, it really is like listening to a best-of CD of a certain era or sensibility: you've heard it all too often before and the real joys are more often on the lesser known works.--PolarisDiB