are probably involved with its production in some way. There is no other way some people could possibly be so enthusiast
-
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?