ShangLuda Admirable film.

Dirtylogy It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Paynbob 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.

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Leofwine_draca In my years of trawling through cheap movies, I've discovered that there are two varieties of bad films. The first is the 'enjoyably bad' movie, which is poorly made and doesn't work, yet is still fun to watch mainly for all the wrong reasons. You can have a good time watching these kind of movies. The second variety is the 'just plain bad' type of film, the kind that rests at the bottom of the pile. I know I always pick on it, but the first film I bought for review was the Filipino atrocity THE THIRSTY DEAD. That's just a plain, boring, totally worthless bad movie.ONE BY ONE is a film which falls into the former camp of bad movies. Sure, it's very poorly directed (by Bill Hinzman, the guy who played the famous cemetery zombie in the original NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD), the special effects are cheap and tacky and the acting is an atrocity in its own. Yet, I found myself glued to the screen, frequently laughing and incredulous at the antics playing out during the movie. You can't really get any more '80s than the beginning of this movie which shows a group of cheerleaders dancing to rubbishy music while a geeky photographer zooms in for a closer look. Creepy janitor Harry is also lurking around, pretending to mop the floor but instead getting an eyeful of the girls. He's the type of character who enjoys watching the girls undress in their locker room - and, coincidentally, the viewer also gets to partake in this activity. There's a lot of nudity which gives the movie a sleazy, slimy kind of edge.It doesn't take long before the murders begin, with the beautiful young girls getting their throats messily slashed by a killer in an army costume. The splattery special effects in this film reminded me of the ones in Friday the 13th, so at least they have something going for them, although the majority of the good stuff has been hacked out by the censor's knives here in the UK. Now, scriptwriter John Russo wasn't content to have his film that straightforward. Thus begins a complex subplot involving a wicked nurse (who also happens to be the mother of Harry, the janitor), who cares for an elderly woman. The woman's granddaughter is one of the cheerleaders and is due to inherit millions on her 18th birthday, which is only a week away. When Harry snaps a photo of the killer, his mother blackmails the villain with the evidence and asks him to commit one last crime; namely, murder the granddaughter on her 18th birthday so that her inheritance will pass on to her grandmother, who can then also be bumped off to make way for the nurse to claim the money for herself.Confused? Well, it explains itself pretty well on screen, although you have to admit that this premise is pretty unrealistic. These activities take up the first hour of the film, and while what's happening up on screen is pretty bad, at least it moves quickly and doesn't become boring. The acting, as I mentioned above, is dreadful from the cast of unknowns (overage actors pretending to be teens again), with the only familiar face being that of Russell Steiner, a.k.a. the unfortunate Johnny from NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. It goes without saying that cronies Bill Hinzman and John Russo also find cameo roles for themselves to appear in.Now, "what of the last half an hour?" you may ask, and "why is this labelled an action film?". This is where the film gets really crazy. It's like at the hour mark, Russo suddenly got tired of his slasher plot and switched track into making an urban thriller. Two young innocents, Jeff and Vicky, are captured by a biker gang headed by a drug-dealer who has been turned in by Jeff earlier on in the film. They are taken to a warehouse, where they are beaten until Harry the janitor intervenes. You see, Vicky is THE granddaughter, and if she dies before her 18th, there won't be any money for his mother. Meanwhile one of the gang members rebels against his leader and violence suddenly erupts, with the rebel, Harry, Jeff and Vicky all getting shot dead. The biker gang flee back to their trailer to hide.Except that Jeff isn't dead. He goes to his house, grabs his dad's assault rifle and goes back to the trailer home of the gang...Yep, incredibly this film has now turned into a REVENGE thriller with the wounded Jeff turned vigilante! I really couldn't believe my eyes as I was watching this film, and the twists and turns the plot was taking. What follows is a highly cheesy shoot-out in the woods, with loads of stuff exploding and people getting shot. Things culminate in a one-on-one with the gang leader in which Jeff shows no mercy. Yes, ONE BY ONE is a bad movie. Yes, it's also an enjoyable bad movie, worth watching alone for the bizarre plot and unpredictable storyline. It's amazing the kind of films they make these days...

Steve Van Kooten Contains nudity, a lil' blood. A bunch of high school delinquents start getting knocked off in several hammy ways before one brave (or somethin')boy decides to take justice, and gratuity, into his own hands. - - - I've certainly had enough of Bill Hinzman for one lifetime and that was before I saw the Majorettes. John Russo wrote the script that, most horrifyingly, is based off his novel... allegedly. Fans of bad cinema may find the overall ineptness entertaining- as I did for a short while- but it gets bogged down by too much of a "so bad its good" thing. Eventually, there ends up being very little value in watching the next series of inanities go by. Worthless, skip it.* out of 4

mattymatt4ever It's not even a good movie. To many standards, this would be considered a bad movie, bordering on awful. But it's intention was B-horror, so what can you really say? To be fair, my review is a tad biased, since I've been reading a book called "Making Movies" by John Russo, the writer of the screenplay and the novel. He discusses the making of this movie in several chapters, and hence I became hugely interested in checking out this obscure horror flick. So I bought a copy of the video on Amazon.com for a cheap price, eager to add it to my collection. I always enjoy (being an avid video/DVD collector) having movies in my collection that virtually no one has heard about. Hell, there are people out there who aren't avid video/DVD collectors who have movies like "Gladiator" and "Independence Day" in their collections. So I don't want to jump on the bandwagon. Besides, I'm always curious (outside the collection circle) about obscure independent and low-budget films. So the minute I received "The Majorettes" in the mail, I was more than psyched to watched it right away. Needless to say, this is a truly amateurish work. The dialogue is horrible and the acting is even worse. The film itself isn't very well made, but the atrocious acting was so bad that it distracted me from the cheesy aesthetics. But at least I got some laughs out the deal, though unintentional. The death scenes were poorly edited. They were edited somewhat like a R-rated movie edited for television, cutting mostly to close-ups and medium shots of the killer, until we finally cut to the knife being slashed across the victim's neck. Then we see a little blood. That's the only gore we see, and I'm sure that's due to poor production values. We basically just see the victims drenched in blood, to let it be self-explanatory that the victims got stabbed in other places. But the only effect the director was able to pull off was the neck-slashing. The plot is flimsy, full of way-too-obvious red herrings (the evil nurse, the creepy janitor, the fanatical priest--just to name a few), and when we finally discover who the killer is, we don't have a clue as to what his/her motive was. It's basically just thrown in there to have the audience go, "Wow! I had no clue he/she was the killer!" I was definitely surprised to find out who the real killer was. I just didn't think it made much sense. And towards the third act, the plot meanders, totally abandoning the majorette-killer premise and seguing into another subplot. So I have a lot of bad things to say, regarding to how this movie was made. Who wouldn't? I think a better approach would've been camp horror, rather than serious horror. But I got enough laughs from the bad acting (the actors literally never change expression and sound more like they're running through a first read-through) and didn't really need the actors to wink at me and confirm that they're in on the joke. Nevertheless, it has a certain so-bad-it's-good quality. It's like a train wreck. It's really bad, but you just want to see what happens and who gets out alive. I ain't gonna lie, this movie really interested me, in the way that monster movies used to interest audiences back in the 50's. So if you're looking for fun, B-movie entertainment--then I would recommend checking it out. But there's one other minor criticism I have to let out: the lack of gratuitous nudity. There is nudity in the film, but it's not exploitative. If this were a first-rate, or even second-rate, film that would be a good thing. Basically, you see the sides of the girls' breasts, but rarely do we see frontal nudity. Call me a perv, but if you're gonna make a bad B-movie, you may as well thrown in a ton of nudity. It's not like feminists are gonna be watching this! My score: 5 (out of 10)

plaznihqyllnikaaf No wonder, nobody bothered to comment on this piece of s...! What starts out to be a slasher (and a extremely bad one, that is) then suddenly change direction and becomes an action movie, with a lot of gunfight and explosions!? I can only hope that the book is better (which it doubt). So don't bother watching this. There's not enough blood to make it a good stalker/slasher flick, and there's not enough action to make it a good action movie. The plot(?) is non-existing, the acting is worse than bad, the "effects" are really dull (all victims get their throat cut, how inventive) and even the editing is bad.You're better off renting the old classics like Friday the 13th, the prowler, helloween and if you liked the action part of this movie you're better off with all Craig R. Baxley's movies.