are probably involved with its production in some way. There is no other way some people could possibly be so enthusiast
-
markos-9 — 21 years ago(February 28, 2005 06:16 AM)
I think you are being a bit hard on this movie.
I've read your comment and you are so focused on the absense of night shots. Well, that's the movie's breakthrough. All horror movies are shot in the dark. The idea of terror in daylight is new and it worked. Ok, the budget was low but that is not the director's fault. If the same movie was produced by Warner, you would have another opinion I guess.
If you're really looking for a great idea ruined by the director, try Blairwitch project. 10 minutes of horror and 2 hours of pointless wondering in the woods.
I think that one should look a bit further and say, hey, give Tapio some serious cash and let's see what he'll come up with. -
lord_jeanquev — 21 years ago(March 02, 2005 04:57 PM)
I agree with Markos way to hard about this film. This film is well done with the budget it has and it is supposed to be set in daylight being terrified in the dark is easy. Also the dark bit has been done to death with horror films I liked this break fromt he original that it was supposed to all happen as far as we are concerend anyways in a single afternoon/evening. Is this a must see film no but its not a bad film and is entertaining enough to have made it worht the rental. Oh and I rented it so that should let you know I had nothing to do with the film in any way.
-
brokenlovesongs — 21 years ago(March 16, 2005 06:56 PM)
well I guess we all have different tastes, because I loved Blair Witch from start to finish, and I thought that mostly every scene helped build up suspense through realism- wether it was night or not. but that movie was well made, and had a purpose. yeah, and I know I'm being harder than I should be on this film, but I still do hate it. whatever.
-
herkharvey72 — 21 years ago(March 29, 2005 08:42 AM)
dude, you should've said that in the first place, because that took your credibility down about 1000% blair witch was total suckitude. so was open water, for that matter. the worst thing about serial slayer is that it looks cheap, but it IS cheap. but at least it's an actual movie, with a real story arc, real characters, real suspense BTW, if you hate this movie so much, why do you keep coming back to this page and posting comments about it? if i don't like a flick i just give it a low rating and forget about it
-
brokenlovesongs — 20 years ago(April 15, 2005 03:45 PM)
well that would totally ruin the purpose of forums like this wouldn't it? I don't want to come onto a message board and just see comments from people who like the movies! That would be stupid. I wide array of varying opinions is much more interesting and informative, as long as arguements are relatively well-constructed. Your's is not.
-
vamp2syd — 20 years ago(June 10, 2005 11:06 AM)
I don't have a problem with low budget or bad movies, I just don't like being mislead by the cover like this one did. The guy wearing that mask on the cover of Serial Slayer was never in the film. This movie was not about a serial killer torturing the suburb of LA, no, this was about three girls. Don't be fooled by the cover or any of the write ups on this film.
Don't trust anyone
This one was bad, I've seen my good share of low budget and my good share of bad movies, and this one is right smack their.
Take the Thriller and Horror of the label and just call it a bad Drama
Sorry, but the truth must be told.
1 out of 10 -
demonknight_98 — 20 years ago(December 14, 2005 12:49 PM)
Gotta agree with vamp here, this movie's cover was misleading and some would say constitutes false advertising. If they the director and marketing knew it was a good movie they would not have to LIE about it to get people to watch it.
Within the first 5 mins I had this sinking feeling I had picked a lemon but I gave this one a chance. This is proof that some people are just not destined to make movies. The curse of technology is the fact that anyone with a little money can now make their own craptastic movies!! -
skotoparavich — 20 years ago(June 12, 2005 01:07 PM)
Fully agreed. This is not a real movie. It is home-made movie by few enthusiasts. While I support independent movies, this one is absolutely pure junk. I would have no problem with it, it if was labeled as home-made movie and if it was distributed for free. Then, I would have been the greatest enthusiast. But to try to sell it in par with other movies, that's a shame. The plot is non-existant. The story is horrible. The dialog is painful. The reader might ask if there is something positive about it, and I would say there is. But the way it was marketed prevents me from even mentioning the few positive elements. Recommendation: avoid at all cost.
-
yesaimon — 20 years ago(November 27, 2005 10:17 PM)
Can i just ask seriously, are people speaking truthfully when they say their heart was racing a mile a minute and that the movie was supenseful???I just think it was plain stupid. You're right, whoever said it that the cover was incredibly misleading, as I got it wanting to see a good horror film, but got this crap.
Fudge McNuggets -
edgein86 — 20 years ago(November 28, 2005 06:05 PM)
I enjoyed the film, but it didn't get my heart racing a mile a minute. I actually saw it as more of a black comedy.
Also, it wasn't the movie's (or indeed the director's) fault that it ended up being marketed as a balls-to-the-wall "slasher." The film was shot independently, but Lions Gate saw it and liked it, bought the rights and for some money-making reason decided to scrap the original title ("Claustrophobia"), along with the director's own (less misleading) artwork.
-Nate -
IslandDweller — 14 years ago(October 16, 2011 11:39 AM)
This movie's better on second viewing. I bought it for 3.99 at the supermarket and was really pissed when I watched it, because I thought the script and plot were decent (evidently I disagree with a lot of people on this thread) and it has a strong cast. But I put it in a second time because I loved the opening Judith O'Dea scene and wanted to watch that a second time. I kept it in because it was Sunday morning and I wasn't doing anything better and I must say that, when you go into this movie prepared for the god-awful video quality, it's good points are much more evident and it really is, IMO, an above-average horror flick.
Oh, and I think it makes it more disturbing that it is set during daylight. It adds to the violence's sense of randomness. If you're not safe during the daylight hours, are you ever safe? And didn't many of the DC sniper slayings take place during the day?