100 Tears


Action / Horror

Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Rotten 27%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Spilled 27% · 250 ratings
IMDb Rating 4.1/10 10 1847 1.8K


Top cast

Ted Geoghegan as Sullivan
Heather Fusari as Ella Peregrine
720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
879.03 MB
English 2.0
23.976 fps
1 hr 35 min
Seeds 6
1.76 GB
English 5.1
23.976 fps
1 hr 35 min
Seeds 6

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by Groverdox 5 / 10

Nauseating and cheap, boring and lame, but with a scary villain

"100 Tears" is a suitably dingy and sickening slasher flick, which at an estimated budget of about $75k, is at least a wonder of frugality.

Yes, $75,000 can pay for gallons of blood, viscera, and artificial limbs.

What money cannot buy, however, is a decent story, something you either have or you don't. Or characters. Or perhaps, even cohesive direction, which may be an innate gift some have and some don't.

The story - not that anyone cares about story in a movie like this - is about a serial killer clown and two obnoxious reporters, one of whom looks like Alex Jones, who track him down where the police have failed because they know how to use a computer and the police don't.

The introduction of the clown, shockingly violent though it may be, is handled so witlessly by the filmmaker that it is hopelessly undercut. We see one of the reporters looking at a computer screen and talking about a serial killer on the loose, and then the movie cuts straight to a series of brutal killings by our Bozo. The way this is shot makes it look like the reporter is watching the killings unfold on the computer monitor. They aren't. Some fairly cursory editing could have achieved the effect of having us realise we are witnessing the murders the reporter is describing. This would have provided a sense of mounting dread as we are let into information the reporter doesn't know, and we know they probably wouldn't try to chase up the story if they know what we now know. Get it?

Instead of quick cutting from the description of the acts to the violent crimes, as the filmmakers obviously should have done, we get a lengthy scene introducing 'characters' who exist only so that they can be killed, and their introduction grinding the film to a halt - a halt it finally comes to at around one hour into the proceedings, where I was so bored I mostly stopped paying attention.

I have put more effort into writing this review than the screenwriters did in writing the movie. But, yes, they really went to town on the gore. One early scene shows a person's head split multiple times by Bozo's big meat cleaver, until the head looks like a pinecone. If you're after sickening, over-the-top gore produced on a microbudget, I guess you already know where to look. Just don't expect anything else.

I would like to add, however, that the bad-guy, Gurdy the Clown, is actually scary. Much more so than almost any other slasher villain in any movie made for over one hundred times the budget that this one was made for.

Reviewed by dschmeding 4 / 10

Many kills, boring plot

This is a pretty average horror/slasher movie. I grant the makers they squeezed in a lot of kills and especially fans of decapitations and guts will like it. The movie is about a serial killer in a clowns outfit who slashes people by the dozen with his hack-axe. Two detectives are on the hunt for the "teardrop killer" who leaves bloody tears behind on the murder scenes and got a back story they slowly unfold. Its like two plots running along each other... Clown slashes people with some entertaining ideas (liked the wheelchair down the stairs shot) and the detectives uncover the story with real bad acting. Basically the movie should have concentrated on the gore because this is where its strong side lies... the acting is real bad, the music is annoying (always the same hardcore techno over the kills and one music sounds a lot like being taken directly out of Hellraiser). The pseudo plot will bore the gore hounds to death and especially fails of bad acting and inconsistency. "100 tears" is rather for the trash/splatter fans but I guess because the director couldn't decide which way to go this one will soon be forgotten. And BTW... the closing scene sucks and like in many movies made me think they didn't know how to get out of their scripts mess.

Reviewed by capkronos 4 / 10

Proves yet again that OTT gore isn't everything.

Two tabloid reporters, Jennifer Stevenson (Georgia Chris) and Mark Webb (writer/producer Joe Davison) are wanting to be taken seriously as journalists and begin investigating a serial murderer known as "The Teardrop Killer," who has been hacking up people over a 20 year period but has somehow managed to elude the police all that time by hiding out in an abandoned building's cellar. Jennifer and Mark piece the clues together, which lead them to a flea-bag circus (which seems to be right in the middle of some junkyard) and revelation that the psycho is actually an obese, jilted clown named Gurdy (Jack Amos) who murdered a few people decades earlier before disappearing. Also disappearing around the same time was Gurdy's lover Tracey (Leslie Crytzer), who has successfully managed to change her name and live in the same small town along with her and Gurdy's whorish cutter daughter Christine (Raine Brown) for two decades without being detected. Other characters include a dwarf and bartender who know the clown's whereabouts and a pair of ineffectual police detectives (Kibwe Dorsey and Rod Grant), as well as various victims (a real estate agent, partying teens, etc.) who show up just long enough to get killed.

This very low-budget film (shot on digital) excels at one thing and one thing only - gore. Heck, during the first fifteen alone the body count has already reached double digits as the clown killer goes around a halfway house hacking up anyone he can get his hands on with a huge meat cleaver. There are cut off limbs, slashings, decapitations, guts spilling out all over the floor, a head getting stomped in and blood literally gushing out all over the place. These scenes are actually pretty entertaining and well done. Unfortunately after the first fifteen minutes of almost non-stop carnage, the film then tries to add the plot and deal more with characters and this is where it starts to come apart. In fact, 100 TEARS seems to falter any time it isn't being gory. The entire mid-section of the film is slow-moving, tedious and badly written, with uneven performances and a sense of humor primarily centered around farts and bowel movements. The ending is also rather sloppy, and the overdone gore scenes themselves start growing tiresome and monotonous after awhile.

A good point of comparison might be with Peter Jackson's DEAD ALIVE (aka BRAINDEAD), which has even more gore than this one but also managed to be entertaining and fun when it wasn't being disgusting. Jackson's film is also much more clever and inventive when it comes to creating new and original gore scenes, while the kills in this one - bloody as they may be - aren't particularly clever. Though in this film's defense, it only had a 75K budget while DEAD ALIVE's was 3 million, so I guess they did a good job cramming as much blood and gore in as possible. It's just too bad the other areas of the film aren't quite as strong. From a technical standpoint (cinematography, score, sound, editing, etc.), it's pretty uneven, though again not bad for the budget.

So if you're looking simply for gore and a high body count, then this will satiate your blood lust. However, if you're looking for a scary or otherwise good horror film, you'll probably find less to like here.

Read more IMDb reviews

1 Comment

Be the first to leave a comment