Very disappointing...

So much average

hyped garbage

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

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.

The Criterion Collection is a very artsy line of DVDs. Most of their films are foreign or occasionally independent films--the sort of stuff the average person probably would never watch. Because of this artsy-fartsy image, I was shocked when I watched "Equinox" because there is absolutely NOTHING artsy or sophisticated about this film--in fact, it's horrible. While not quite as horrible as "Robot Monster" or "Plan 9 From Outer Space", it is very close! Four young idiots (one of which is Frank Bonner who played Herb on "WKRP in Cincinnati") go off into the hills for a picnic. The wander into a cave and meet a crazy old man who gives them a book--a book containing evil demonic secrets! However, Mr. Asmodeus (dressed as a ranger) wants the book and he can create monsters to attack them! Can these four idiots manage to survive or will they succumb to the forces of evil? And, will anyone watching this horror film even care?! This story was apparently originally a school project and was eventually expanded into movie format. Unfortunately, in doing so, hair lengths, belts and clothing change back and forth A LOT--and you could watch the film repeatedly just to see this and laugh at it. However, my vote for dumbest thing about the movie are the stop-motion clay monsters. Never have I seen stop-motion integrated so poorly and sloppily or characters so clay-like!! I also loved the driver-less car at the end--especially since in long shots you can CLEARLY see that there IS a driver!! All in all, very silly, sloppy and dumb--and a lot like a YouTube horror film made by 14 year-olds. If I was this guy's professor, I would have given him a D minus! Which leads me to wonder HOW this became a Criterion release. Were they playing a joke on us?!

Equinox (1970) ** (out of 4) This film was originally made in 1967 but it got a distribution deal in 1970 by producer Jack H. Harris but he demanded that there be some re-shoots, scenes re-edited and a few more touches to make it look more professional. Both versions have been released by Criterion (!?!?) but I only viewed the 1970 version. Basically four friends head out for some fun but they stumble across a strange book and soon a large demon and ape creature are stalking them. Look, there's no question that EQUINOX has its heart in the right place but I'm a little confused as to why Criterion would give it such a lavish treatment. I'm not certain if the film was included in a group package with other movies but there's certainly nothing special here to warrant such a release. In fact, a movie-only edition would have been good enough for this thing. Again, I understand this was an extra low-budget movie shot for fun and on that level it's actually not too bad. However, once you start talking about "classic" then things are getting blown out of control. The acting and visual look of the film is quite tame but it actually adds a little charm as our characters run from one thing after another. The stop-motion effects look fairly poor here but you have to remember that they were simply done for fun. With that said, on that level they add a little charm including the ape creature, which was clearly influenced by King Kong. At 82-minutes the film drags in most spots and the biggest problem is that there's just so many dialogue scenes and not enough action or stuff dealing with the monsters.

Please understand. When I give this only a 2/10, that really is a pretty accurate assessment of the quality of the movie in almost every respect. I'm not knocking the kids who made it. It was apparently done by a bunch of relatively inexperienced young people on a shoestring budget, and I respect the effort that was put into it - but the fact that somebody tried hard isn't going to make me pretend that this is anything but what it is - a really bad horror movie about four young people who on a hike through the woods discover a book about evil that eventually has them doing battle with the devil. The stop motion animation on the various creatures that appear can be forgiven - not only was this a shoestring budget, but it was also made in 1970. The field of special effects was still developing, and the creatures were quite fine. It was more the acting and the dialogue than any of the technical aspects that dragged this down. The dialogue between the characters didn't seem natural. More than anything, it sounded dubbed (even though this was obviously done in English) - almost as if the movie had been filmed and then the dialogue was redone later. Maybe that was typical of very low budget movies in the era? I'm not sure about that but I found it very distracting, because the dialogue wasn't always in sync with the mouths of the actors - even though even a cursory bit of lip reading confirms that the actors were saying the words we were hearing.Really this is most interesting for some of the names that are associated with it. One of the four young people (Jim) is played by Frank Bonner, who would go on to much greater fame some years later as Herb Tarlek on the TV show "WKRP in Cincinnati." I also did a double take when, glancing at the credits as they rolled at the start of the movie, I noticed that the assistant camera man was Ed Begley, Jr! Also, Dennis Muren (uncredited as one of the directors) went on to do some visual effects work on some pretty big movies, including several of the Star Wars episodes and Battlestar Galactica. So there was obviously some talent (or at least some potential talent) involved with this which makes it worth watching as a curiosity, but little more. (2/10)