grrg63 I watched this old flick because Katrina Law (Spartacus, Arrow) was in it. It is the worst lit movie I have ever (sort of) seen. It is DARK. I don't mean psychologically, I mean they were too cheap, or too broke, to adequately light the scenes of the film. Or maybe they just didn't know what the hell they were doing. You can barely see what the hell is going on in the damn thing. The plot is convoluted to the point of senselessness and the dialog and actions of the characters are often crotch-grabbingly ridiculous. One egregious example is how Katrina, playing a beautiful young medical examiner, while performing autopsies on corpses displaying disturbing symptoms of weird, unknown, possibly communicable disease, doesn't bother to wear a surgical mask.I've watched a lot of bad movies/TV shows because they had good looking chicks in them and this does have that. Too bad its not better lit so you can see them more clearly.

tmbrunerj1 Choker, apparently renamed as Disturbance at some point for reasons undisclosed, found its way to my collection as a result of the untimely closure of a video store. It sat in my collection, unwatched, for several years.In a word, it is delightfully awful. The 8 rating is because we enjoy horrible movies and were devastated when MST 3000 ended its run. Choker/Disturbance would have been a classic MST3K excursion. Alas, it fell to my friend and me to play the part of Crow and Tom Servo asking all of the smart-ass questions and maintaining an inane running commentary ourselves. Though amateurs, it was extremely entertaining.From the monochrome film noir scenes,replete with Hitchcock-esque silhouettes, the cop with a fedora ripped out of 1947, to the hookers without meth mouth, it was a stirring jaunt through the land of cinematic art gone terribly wrong. Unfortunately, the story was fairly coherent and there were no major continuity errors.So if you too mourn the loss of MST3K, go ahead and get a copy or put it in your queue. Gather 'round the flat screen and have some fun with it just like in the old days.

Paul Andrews Choker is set in Los Angeles where Lieutenant Clark (Robert R. Shafer) & Detective Rourke (James Quattrochi) have several dead bodies on their crime solving hands, all the bodies are covered in a strange slime & Los Angeles pathologist Santo (Katrina Law) who isn't anywhere nearly as good as Quincy doesn't have a clue what is going on. Then they get orders from the 'top' & Frank Russo (writer, producer & director Nick Vallelonga) the mysterious boss of a 'Men In Black' style Government agency says that the bodies belonged to people who were taken over by hostile aliens who jump from body to body leaving a long trail of dead people behind them. Frank also claims that a good alien has taken over the body of convicted serial killer & rapist Hud Masters (Paul Sloan) to help track his evil kind down, amazingly Clark & Rourke don't believe a word of it...Also known as B.E.I.N.G. here in the UK (the current DVD cover features a picture of an alien which never appears in the film itself) & retitled to Disturbance for it's US DVD release (the cover of which is even worse than the UK one showing an alien hand not in the film holding some sort of assault rifle again nowhere to be seen in the actual film) this low budget sci-fi horror film was written, produced & directed by Nick Vallelonga who also stars in it. Right, where to begin? First of the best way to describe Choker would be as Men in Black (1997) with it's secret Government agency set up to deal with alien threats meets The Hidden (1987) with it's body jumping aliens & you can also add a dash of Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) with it's story about aliens trying to colonize planet Earth by taking over people's bodies. So there you have it in a nutshell really, Choker is just a huge rip-off of several much, much better films on a much, much lower budget. The narrative is very poor, the entire first half of the film is set up as a mystery which I presume was intended to draw the viewer in & keep them guessing but it's fairly clichéd & predictable stuff. There's also a real lack of any story during this period, it's all well & good keeping the audience in the dark but the makers of Chaoker take it to extreme lengths without even giving the main character's names, we don't know their motivations or reasons for things & a few little bits of information here & there would have been nice since by the time all the silly 'seen it all before' explanations come around I didn't really care as the film had already lost me. The first half just seems like random scenes edited together, for me there was just no hook or desire to keep watching. At almost 100 minutes it also goes on for too long & there's a terrible ending (if you were an alien trying to survive why would you go the only persons house who knew who you were & could kill you?) which ends everything on a low key note anyway.Director Vallelonga does a reasonable job for the majority of the film & quite often the look of Choker betrays it's ultra low budget roots. Occasionally it actually looks quite good, there's one or two decent fights although the budget didn't stretch to special effects apart from some glow in the dark slime. Then again there are times when it does look every bit as cheap as it actually is, the ending in particular is very poorly lit. Unfortunately there's no gore to speak of & I can't even remember seeing a single drop of blood either. We never see the aliens (despite what the UK DVD box may indicate), they are merely depicted as stringy glow in the dark elastic. The story isn't great or overly original & the character's of Santo, Rourke & Clark suddenly disappear about halfway through never to be seen or heard from again.According to the IMDb Choker had a budget of about $35,000 which is really, really low. It's no wonder they couldn't afford any special effects. Also according to the IMDb Choker was filmed in less than two weeks, why so long? To give some credit where it's due Choker actually looks quite nice from time to time & better than it's meagre budget might suggest. The acting isn't going to win any awards but I have seen worse I suppose.Choker is a pretty awful sci-fi horror film rip-off of several other much better films, I really don't see what most viewers would get out of a film such as this. Not recommended at all.

Great-Cthulhu This comment MIGHT CONTAIN SPOILERS – hmm, but not much to spoil, on the other hand.Now, I got my hands at B.E.I.N.G. (UK DVD title) when I bought a set of 80s Sci-Fi flicks … dunno if there are better movies in the box set, but hey, this movie surely lowered the expectations for the rest. After reading the other comments and the trivia here on the IMDb, I won't bash the movie for looking cheap or doing things rather rushed – looks like they had neither money nor time. Then again, one can criticize this: (A) Lack of storytelling. The background story – being thin enough – is only explained for a certain degree, and everything happens quite fast. This must not be a flaw for a movie, but it doesn't improve this one. And than they do things like this: Missi Logan, the right hand of the main character is killed somewhat in the middle of the flick. Now, she did not have much to say earlier, but then, after you have all but forgotten about her miserable role they give you a ten minute flashback about "why she was the best there was, how the nebulous agency did hire her, etc.". This I found somewhat out of place, because like I said, she did not have any character while she still ran after Sloan's character – so why bother? (B) Most actors are no good. Sorry, but only Paul Sloan, who I found good enough as somewhat clueless, driven killer and Hayley DuMond – who did a okay job as a cold, but nevertheless hot evil lady, did really act. The rest just kinda stumbled along. The cops where so stereotypical that it hurt, Nick Vallelonga did not much with a one-dimensional character and the girls, the girls. More or less all of the gals in this movie look like they started their career in porn movies – and "act" like that. Okay, they look hot, too – but their wooden acting skills make every wainscot go green with envy. (C) Plot devices. They just do more or less all the bad things to do. Have some fights with wild gals in leather. Kill a kid. Let the bad cop beat the crap out of the main character. Have a martial arts fight with absolutely no style or anything else but, "oi, I know a real karate guy, why not invite him and let him do some tricks, so there are another five minutes wasted and the audience might actually think it's cool". Sorry, it's not. And then they do the usual "Bad Ending". In the older days all people did good endings. Then some did bad endings which added a nice dreadful touch to a movie. Now every blasted C-grade Horror does a bad ending and like with the good endings back then, you know it's coming, and hey here it comes, and hey, did it not add to anything but the terror – maybe they will do a sequel! All in all, I thought this movie lacks too much of a movie to be called entertaining, but then again, maybe they tried hard. This not always means you are not going to fall flat on your face. B.E.I.N.G. falls not completely flat, but more or less so. Only for Sci-Fi hardcore fans or people who like flicks that look like you could do it yourself.