Faithful (1996)

Directed by: Paul Mazursky

Starring: Cher, Chazz Palminteri, and Ryan O’Neal

Genre: Romance, Comedy, Crime

Rated: R

Maggie (Cher) is a rich housewife suffering from depression. She knows her husband, Jack (O’Neal) is being unfaithful, and on their twentieth wedding anniversary, decides to kill herself. Enter Tony (Palminteri), the professional hit man that Jack has hired to kill her. The film follows the blossoming relationship between captor and captive as they await the phone call signaling Tony to do the deed.

This is a slight twist on the cliché plotline of “spouse-hires-hit man-to kill-spouse.” For one thing, the hit man has issues that need to be explored and has various conversations with his therapist throughout the film. For another, he’s not supposed to be tempted to switch sides. Will he or won’t he?

They really tried to make the character of Tony likable, but I just found him quirky and clichéd. Palminteri overacts a little in places as well, making him a weaker character. I didn’t feel much chemistry between him and Cher either – which could have greatly helped the film. Maggie is a believable character, who becomes more likable as the story progresses and she becomes stronger. Cher gives her a strong presence, which takes talent as the character spends half of the movie tied to a chair. Jack – the husband – has no redeeming qualities, and it feels as though O’Neil didn’t even like the character enough to really portray him. His performance was very wooden – and the appearance of his character in the last third of the film took away from what little the film had going for it.

I really liked how Maggie becomes more empowered and recognizes it as the movie rolls on. She learns that she can be strong and Jack is just a waste of skin. The last third of the film is fairly predictable, but I liked the very ending – it didn’t end like I figured it would, with the typical sappy Hollywood conclusion. That made me happy.

This was an okay film, but some of the performances could have been better. The only character I really cared for was Maggie. Both the scenes between Maggie and Tony and the ending were done well, but the parts with the husband disrupted the flow of what could have been a higher rated film.

5.5/10

The Edge (1997)

Directed by: Lee Tamahori

Starring: Alec Baldwin, Anthony Hopkins, Elle McPherson, Harold Perrineau, and Bart the Bear

Genre: Action, Drama, Survival, Thriller

Rated: R

Billionaire, Charles Morse (Hopkins) and his two companions, Bob (Baldwin) and Stephen (Perrineau) find themselves stranded in the Alaskan wilderness after their plane crashes. With little food or supplies and being chased by a man-eating Kodiak bear (Bart), they soon find they have to lean on each other in order to survive.

Normally, I’m not one for movies that involve rogue animals. However I love Anthony Hopkins and a friend recommended this movie, so I decided to give it a shot. I liked it.

The storyline isn’t the most original, but it manages to work for this film. I think this is because the acting is top-notch from Baldwin, Hopkins and Bart the Bear. There is a nice tension between Charles and Bob due to the underlying conflict that both men are in love with the same woman (McPherson), yet they have to support one another in order to get out alive. Hopkins and Baldwin make this tension very believable. Also, the scenes with the bear chasing the men feel very realistic – and some of the things the bear does makes it seem like an intelligent, calculating predator. (For example: shaking the log Charles is balancing on while attempting to cross the river.) It’s hard to believe that in real life, Bart the Bear interacted with people daily when he appears so vicious in the film. He was truly a magnificent animal. (He died in May of 2000.)

I did see the twist in the plot coming a mile away, however. Whenever a love triangle is involved, the story is always a little predictable. The dialogue was also annoying in places, with Bob using Charles’s name every time he talks to him. It was a little irritating because the audience knows the hero’s name is Charles – we don’t need to be told a hundred times. (Someone on imdb actually counted the number of times his name was spoken – it is literally over one hundred.) Lastly, Bob and Stephen were frustratingly dumb in places. I’m really not sure how you hack your leg open while carving a spear or why you would hang a blood soaked rag in the trees when a highly intelligent person told you to bury it. (Blood attracts bears.) Those were the two most irritating things in the movie that could have been avoided if Charles’s companions were smarter.

Overall: It was a good movie because of the beautiful scenery and the believable performances. The writing could have used a little work, however. There was no need for the level of stupidity exhibited by two of the men stranded in the wilderness.

6.5/10

The Virgin Suicides (1999)

Directed By: Sofia Coppola

Starring: James Woods, Kathleen Turner, Kirsten Dunst, A.J. Cook, Josh Hartnett, Hanna Hall, Chelse Swain, Leslie Hayman, Danny DeVito and Jonathan Tucker

Genre: Drama

Rated: R

Based on the novel by Jeffrey Eugenides

The peaceful air of a 1970s suburb is shaken when, over the span of one year, five teenage sisters commit suicide. Thirteen-year-old Cecilia is the first to take her life, and the story follows the family through the eyes of the neighborhood boys as they deal with the aftermath.

I will be straight with you – when you’re done watching this film, you may say to yourself “What was the point?” The one thing many people dislike about this movie is the fact that it doesn’t give the viewers answers to the questions they have throughout the film. You’re left wondering what the film is trying to say. Some think its anti-religious fanaticism, some think its speaking out against intensely overprotective parents, and some see something much deeper. What you take away from it is entirely up to you.

The movie itself is a faithful adaptation of the novel. The characters are believable and all, in a way, are tragic. The girls and their parents, obviously due to the suicide – but also the boys who tell the story. They put these girls up on a pedestal and idolized them. To these boys, the Lisbon sisters – who seemed like normal girls to everyone else – were mysterious and goddess-like. They believe they love the Lisbon sisters and, when the girls kill themselves, the boys experience a loss of innocence the rest of the neighborhood cannot comprehend.

The film is very artfully done, told from the bystander’s perspective – we only get to know the Lisbon family, especially the girls, from what these boys experienced. The girls only stand out when they are with their peers and away from their parents – which is a rarity. Otherwise they almost fall into the background, as scenes with the parents are dominated – as with their lives – by the parents. Symbolism, like the tree infection and the suffocation motif, is littered throughout.

The cast did a great job with this. James Woods and Kathleen Turner are both easy to dislike and to pity as the overprotective parents of the girls. Kirsten Dunst is the main attraction as Lux Lisbon – the rebellious daughter who fights the rules and clearly embraces her sexuality. Aside from Cecilia, the other sisters pale in comparison because they are quiet and obedient. I believe this was intended. All performances by the girls were done well. Josh Hartnett plays the slightly rebellious football player who becomes infatuated with Lux. He’s the only one who gets close to the Lisbon girls, and he’s the one filled with regret after all is said and done.

Overall: An interesting film that leaves you with a few unanswered questions. It examines the way a tragic event affects a suburban town and the ripple effect touching those around the girls. Not recommended for those who like narrative closure – but both the film and the novel are worth looking into.

7.5/10

Killers (2010)

Directed by: Robert Luketic

Starring: Katherine Heigl, Ashton Kutcher, Tom Selleck, Catherine O’Hara, Kathryn Winnick, and Kevin Sussman

Genre: Action / Adventure, Romantic Comedy

Rated: PG-13

Jen (Heigl), recently single, is on vacation in Nice, France with her parents when she meets handsome Spencer (Kutcher) in the elevator. The two swiftly strike up a romance and marry. Three years later, the two are on the run from a seemingly never-ending number of assassins intent on ending Spencer’s life.

The exact timeline of Jen and Spencer’s premarital relationship is fairly vague. The vacation apparently lasted three weeks, though we only see them together in France twice. Then suddenly he’s home with Jen and her family telling her father he wants to marry her. I also wondered if he just decided to move across the Atlantic to live with her when her vacation ended, or if they had carried on a long distance relationship before he dropped everything and moved to the United States to be with her. I was thinking, “Wow, everything is happening so quickly…” We never see the wedding, and then the plot skips ahead three years (thankfully it lets the audience know this with lower third text) to the happily married couple preparing to celebrate Spencer’s birthday. The relationship felt very rushed to me, and I could not find it believable.

I really thought the writing could have been a lot better than it was. The story was not well-thought out. The person who sent the assassins was pretty predictable, especially since they pretty much tell the audience who it is maybe fifteen minutes before the climax. The characters were fairly stupid in places, and some felt entirely useless. For example – Jen’s mother was nothing but a comedic device, redundantly shown drinking lots of alcohol (multiple glasses of wine, Bloody Marys with the pitcher as a glass, etc.) It made me wonder how Jen could possibly have the “amazing relationship” with her mother that the film claimed she had when her mother was clearly an alcoholic. The ending leaves the biggest question of all: how do you explain away all the dead bodies?

The acting left something to be desired. I never considered Kutcher as an action star, and after this I don’t think he should pursue another job within the genre. He was fairly wooden and hard to believe as a spy. Heigl really didn’t seem to care for her character at all – she’s played in so many romantic comedies, this is old hat for her, and she really didn’t seem to put forth the effort. Both she and Kutcher are talented comedic actors but it really felt like neither one was invested in this project whole-heartedly. Also, the two didn’t have any chemistry together – and that alone can make or break a film. Selleck and his trademark mustache had the best acting as Jen’s overprotective, seemingly paranoid father. As stated above, O’Hara (most notably known for her role as the mother in the first two Home Alone films) was underutilized as her character was little more than a lush.

After all that running around, being shot at, crashing cars, physically fighting with other people, the clothing and actors look pristine. There are no rips, stains, stray threads or lint on these clothes and not a scratch on either of our title characters – highly unlikely. Also, did they really expect us to believe that a woman on the run from assassins would remain in high heels the entire time? Especially when the two stopped off at a K-mart and she could have easily grabbed a pair of cheap flip flops at the very least. At that point, I doubt she was thinking how dorky comfortable shoes would look with her outfit, and probably would have thought that it would not be logical to remain wearing shoes that high. If they didn’t want her to buy shoes, at least have her kick off the heels and run barefoot. So ridiculous.

There are a few things I did like about the movie, however. The scenery in the beginning of the film was beautiful. The fight scene between Kutcher and Kathryn Winnick (“Hannah” from Season 6 of Bones) was fun and it was nice to see her kicking some butt. I also liked the fact that the film seems to be pushing the message that you should always be yourself in a relationship – if you’re meant to be with that person, they will love you for who you are, past actions included. They also push the message that honesty is key. It’s just too bad the film was so poorly written and acted.

Overall: This could have been a fun film, but it was dragged down by a script that wasn’t thought out well and actors that really didn’t seem to care. There are some positive elements that keep it from getting a much lower rating, but overall, I was not impressed.

5/10

The Virgin Spring (1960)

Directed by: Ingmar Bergman

Starring: Max Von Sydow, Birgitta Valberg, Gunnel Lindblom, Birgetta Pettersson

Genre: Drama, Suspense, Crime

Language: Swedish (Subtitled)

Rating: Not rated

I had been very curious about this film for a long time before I finally got to watch it. Knowing that it was the inspiration for Wes Craven’s Last House on the Left, my interest was piqued. So, the other night, after I discovered it on Netflix Instant Watch, I settled in with this well-noted classic. (*Note: I know I would normally lump this in a post with Last House and its remake, but this was never directly remade. Last House is not an official remake of The Virgin Spring.)

The story is set in Medieval Sweden following a small farming family. Karin (Pettersson) and her servant Ingeri (Lindblom) are sent off to deliver candles to the church to celebrate the Virgin Mary. On the way there, the girls have a falling out, and Ingeri stays behind while Karin goes off on her own.  A ways up the road, she comes across a small group of shepherds, and kindly invites them to share her lunch with her. During the meal, the two men attack Karin, raping her and eventually killing her. Later in the day, the men unknowingly take shelter at the home of Karin’s parents – a mistake they will soon regret.

The plot is very similar to that of the film it inspired – though this one focuses more on the characters and less on the horror aspects of the incident. This film focuses heavily on guilt – many characters feel it for different reasons throughout the film. For example, the small boy with the two older shepherds witnesses the crime and wants to tell someone – he can’t eat or sleep and becomes physically ill at the thought of what was done to this lovely girl. He even tries to cover her corpse. Several other characters are also physically and even violently affected by their guilt over the incident and what occurs afterward. The emotion is tangible in many scenes.

The film also deals heavily with religion – specifically Catholicism. Guilt is a factor often associated with Catholics (ex: the saying “Catholic Guilt.”) There is also an emphasis on virginity. There’s the celebration of the Virgin Mary. The family berates Ingeri for being pregnant out of wedlock, calling her a “disgrace” and telling her they never should have taken her in. Karin is celebrated for her purity – she is the favorite among her family. Her virginity and honor are stolen from her.

I also saw a theme of the Seven Deadly Sins within the film – most notably vanity, envy and wrath – and each person possessing this sin is punished. Karin is wearing her best clothes on her journey – wanting to look her best, and she falls victim to men who rob her of her riches, her maidenhood and her life. Ingeri’s envy of Karin is what leads to their fight and Karin going off by herself. Lastly, Karin’s father’s actions toward the end of the film are the epitome of “wrath.” 

The cinematography is beautiful, which gives the film a twisted element. The viewer is sitting there wondering how these horrible things can be done to this young woman in such a beautiful place. It reminds people that something like this could happen to anyone at any time, anywhere. The rape, while not incredibly graphic, is fairly hard to watch – it’s also more brutal than many films of that era. The sets seemed authentic and the costumes believable.

Lastly, the acting was decent. The characters of Karin, her father, and the small boy were played perfectly – you could really feel their emotions. The other actors offered decent performances, but they fell to the background in comparison.

Overall: Though it is not my typical taste in film, it is very good and lives up to its reputation as a classic. Well-shot and acted, with a lot of religious themes laced within, this is worth at least one watch for all film buffs out there.

7.5/10

The Haunting (1963) Vs. The Haunting (1999)

The Haunting (1963)

Directed by: Robert Wise

Starring: Julie Harris, Claire Bloom, Richard Johnson, Russ Tamblyn, Rosalie Crutchley, Lois Maxwell, and Valentine Dyall

Genre: Horror / Psychological Thriller

Based on the Novel “The Haunting of Hill House” by Shirley Jackson

"Hill House ... had stood there for eighty years and might stand there for eighty more ... and whatever walked there, walked alone."

Following the plot of the 1959 novel, three people are invited to take part in a paranormal study with Dr. Markway (Richard Johnson) at a secluded mansion with a reputation called Hill House. Along for the adventure are Eleanor “Nell” Lance (Julie Harris), a woman with deep rooted insecurities who longs for acceptance; Theodora (Claire Bloom), an eccentric, sexually ambiguous, confident woman; and Luke Sanderson, a playboy who stands to inherit the house in the future. Theo and Nell were selected by Dr. Markway because they exhibited a history with the paranormal. Nell has had “poltergeist phenomenon” occur around her, or possibly because of her – it is hinted she has telekinetic powers. Theo is thought to have ESP, or at the very least to be incredibly perceptive. Luke is just along to make sure no harm comes to the property, and he seems fairly skeptical about any paranormal phenomenon that has occurred within the house. They soon discover that they are not alone in Hill House as strange and horrifying (for them) things begin to happen. It becomes clear that the house wants Nell, and is determined to have her. But is the house really haunted, or is Nell unknowingly making these things happen?

What I loved most about this movie was how true it stayed to the classic novel. The film opens with the same lines as the novel does, and ends with the same poetic lines. They kept most of the major unsettling moments from the novel and they translated well onto the screen. The pounding and writing on the walls, ghostly touching, etc. was all made believable. I also liked that they kept the lesbian subplot between Theo and Nell in the film, as well as keeping it as subtle as it was in the novel. (In the 1950s and ‘60s, homosexuality was still a very taboo topic, so anything dealing with it had to be subtle.) There are hints throughout the film that Theo has a thing for Nell, and she is very ambiguous about her personal love life. (Ex: she lives with a ‘partner’ whose gender is never specified in both the novel and the film)

However, the name changes seem unnecessary – in the novel Eleanor’s last name was Vance and the doctor’s last name was Montegue. This is more of a nitpicky detail than anything, though. Also, they changed the character of the doctor’s wife from a woman who thought she could communicate with the spirits of Hill House to a woman who was highly skeptical and even challenged the house’s ghostly phenomenon. Granted, the movie character was far less annoying than her novelized counterpart, but I would have preferred that they remained true to the story. She was a great antagonist to everyone involved in the study, including the doctor himself.

As far as the components of the film go – it was very well-done. The atmosphere was perfect – it gave off that creepy, claustrophobic vibe necessary for ghost stories to take root in the viewer. Yet at the same time, the sets were beautiful. The suspense element was a major factor in the success of this movie – we never actually see the ghosts that haunt Hill House, just hear them and see the aftermath of their antics. The viewer is always wondering what will happen next, if everything is really happening or if Nell is just crazy.

 The acting was pitch-perfect, each character brought to life as if they’d walked right out of the book. (Minus the changes in Mrs. Markway of course) Nell is hard to take in places. Her character can be very annoying. However, she isn’t meant to be likable. I felt sorry for her because she was so socially awkward and had never really had a mature, mutually respectful relationship with anyone. She was incredibly needy in her longing for a connection – trying to find one with Theo and with Dr. Markway. Julie Harris did a wonderful job depicting Nell’s socially awkward ways as well as her decent into madness without coming off as campy or cheesy. Claire Bloom was graceful and lovely as Theodora, but she could also be nasty when the scene called for it. Richard Johnson gave off a very Vincent Price-like air as Dr. Markway and Russ Tamblyn’s Luke was charming and playful, if a little greedy and self-involved. Each character was on screen as they were written in the novel, which is something hard to come by in book-to-film adaptations.

Overall: A definite classic film with great atmosphere, a few scares, and great acting. It is true to its source material and does the novel justice, bringing it to life on screen. Both this film and the novel are highly recommended.

8/10

The Haunting (1999)

Directed by: Jan de Bont

Starring: Liam Neeson, Catherine Zeta Jones, Owen Wilson, Lili Taylor

Genre: Horror / Supernatural

Rated: PG-13

Loosely Based on the Novel “The Haunting of Hill House” by Shirley Jackson.

The plot is similar to that of this film’s [superior] predecessor: three people, Eleanor or “Nell” (Lili Taylor), Theo (Catherine Zeta Jones) and Luke (Owen Wilson) are invited to Hill House to participate in a study on insomnia conducted by Dr. Marrow (Liam Neeson). What they don’t know is that Dr. Marrow is employing the old “bait-and-switch” method – the patients think he’s studying their insomnia, but he’s really doing a study on fear – and Hill House definitely provides them with plenty of that. Upon the first night there, the banging noises begin, and events progressively intensify. Once again, it becomes clear that the house wants Nell, but for a reason far different from the original film. As Nell descends into madness, she believes that she must protect the ghosts of the house as she begins to unravel the mystery of why Hill House is haunted.

I remember seeing this film at about thirteen or fourteen, and thinking it was rather bland. Now, having a lot more movie knowledge and knowing that it was spawned from two far superior works, I’ve come to truly dislike it. The back-story of Hill House was completely changed from that of the novel and original film – the only similar element is the name of the man who built it. While in the novel and original film it was proposed that the house was just “born bad,” in this version there is a rather clichéd and ridiculous explanation for the haunting that trivialized the original ideas behind the story. The idea that it may also be in Nell’s mind or of her own creation is also dropped entirely, losing another aspect of depth that the original story had.

The dialogue was uninspired and barely varied from character to character. The only dialogue that remained the same in all three versions was Mrs. Dudley’s (housekeeper) speech about when she sets the meals on the table and how she will not stay after it begins to get dark – consequently the only decent lines in the film. Also, the characters have changed. Theo is now a blatant bisexual, who not only states this fact, but also flirts with both Nell and Luke. (The lesbian subplot raises its head, but is swept over and nearly forgotten by the end of the film.) Luke is no longer the handsome, charming, playboy heir, but just another hapless insomniac with a goofy demeanor. And what is with the constant changing of the doctor’s last name?

The doctor’s wife is no longer a character at all. She doesn’t exist in this reality. Instead she is replaced by two pointless characters - Mary and another assistant to the doctor – both of whom have maybe two to five minutes of wasted screen time. They were completely unnecessary to the plot and could have been left out altogether. Mary’s injury and the death of one of the main four characters seem to have been added for shock value, but were also unnecessary.

The acting in this is rather wooden considering the all-star cast. Liam Neeson and Catherine Zeta Jones have both been up for Oscars and have clearly proven themselves as incredibly talented. Owen Wilson has a great sense of humor and comedic timing – his is probably the most natural performance out of all of them as his character is similar to many others in his career. Lili Taylor’s performance is solid at first, but becomes a little campy as she gets more involved in the mystery behind Hill House. Catherine Zeta Jones exudes sex appeal and glamour, but she doesn’t really seem to care about her character, and there were times when it felt like Liam Neeson was wondering what the hell he was doing there.

The sets were nice, though a little over the top. Considering this was supposed to be a manor built in the 1800s, I find it hard to believe there would be a carousel-like ballroom floor and a hallway comprised of water, requiring stepping stones to cross. While these elements were beautiful, they were unrealistic to me and took away from the rest of the house, which was actually a very realistic portrayal of an 1800’s manor-style home.

This film is praised for its use of special effects, but I can only wonder why. Some of them were decent, but for the most part, they were made up of really bad CGI. Projected faces in pillows, obviously fake moving wooden carvings, and clearly computer generated smoky ghosts do not scare me – they are rather annoying. The effects were overdone and used way too frequently. I guess de Bont didn’t get the memo that sometimes less is more. Apparently, if you have a great sound system hooked up to your home television, the sound effects are amazing, but I haven’t had the pleasure of experiencing them, nor to I believe they could save this lack-luster, effects ridden effort.

Overall: This could have been a decent film. With today’s technology and the star-studded cast this should have been a lot better than what was delivered in the final product. Too much CGI and terrible writing downgrade this film from what it could have been.

4.5/10

Knock Knock (2007)

Directed by: Joseph Ariola

Starring: Nicole Abisinio, Chris Bashinelli, Kat Castaneda, Antonio Mastrantonio, Kim Taggart, Sal Sirchia, Joli Julianna, Lou Savarese, Stephanie Finochio

Genre: Horror/Slasher

Rated: Unrated

It was a boring night at home for me, so I cuddled in with some popcorn and the laptop, deciding to watch something off of the Netflix Instant Queue. I read the premise for this flick and though I figured it was probably low-budget cheese, I gave it a shot anyway.

The story follows a group of teenagers being killed off one by one in ways that are similar to their father’s professions. Sounds interesting, right? Sure, but the execution of the film made it barely watchable.

The acting was absolutely atrocious. I know bad acting is to be expected from low-budget, but damn. All of the actors were either incredibly wooden or over-acting. The kids were all blitz attacked so they didn’t have to try and act scared. Also there were some people with awkwardly noticeable accents varying from New York, to Boston, to sounding like rejects from The Sopranos. Awful.

Still, Oscar Winners couldn’t even save this drivel. The dialogue was terrible – it wouldn’t be believable no matter who said it or how it was said. The entire film was poorly written – it feels like this was a first draft that Ariola wrote up in one weekend and then ran with. The killer is supposed to be human, yet some of the kills are just ridiculous. The opening kill – which is supposed to catch the attention of the audience – was incredibly dull, with the killer just knocking on the door and disappearing whenever the victim answered it. This goes on for about six minutes before he punches through a solid door and grabs her by the throat. He kills another victim by stabbing the blunt end of a mop or broom handle through his stomach. Both seemed very far-fetched and ridiculous. This guy is not Jason Voorhees – he’s human, therefore he should not be able to do such things. It’s not scary, it’s just dumb.

The characters are unlikable – all of them. We have the cliché macho jock male, his head cheerleader “I think I’m all that” blonde girlfriend, the stoner, and then a bunch of bland forgettable characters ripe for the killing. I didn’t care about the “final girl” – they never gave me any reason to. Normally I’m always rooting for the girl in the final battle, but she wasn’t given a chance to fight back, and she had no personality to begin with. The whole long-lost grandfather storyline irritated me as well – even though he was the best character in the film. It was like the Ariola was thinking, “Well, they’re all on the chopping block anyway, who cares what they’re like?”

An example of bad writing is when the “Rico” story enters the plotline. All of a sudden, Grandpa Mike is asking around about a guy named Rico, who had been caught in a fire in his father’s funeral home, and then committed soon after. However, we never learn where he got this information, so the audience is left asking “Where the hell did this come from?” There are two characters named “Billy” – one male and the other female – as well as a completely unnecessary character in Cindy’s skanky older sister. Also, for the record, if your grown male son is sitting in his room playing with dolls that have pictures of the victims plastered to their faces, it is not touching, it’s creepy and a sign your son might be involved in the murders. Just a hint.

The wardrobe is pretty absurd too. The female cop is always wearing short skirts, high heels, and tops that either bare cleavage or are see-through. Somehow, I don’t really think a female detective who probably has to spend her days chasing perps and doing legwork would wear something as impractical as stilettos. Plus, police work is still considered very much a man’s world – a woman in that field would be trying to be taken seriously, not objectifying herself in the workplace. Also, in the flashback sequence, the guys in it are supposed to be from the late ‘70s to mid ‘80s, yet their clothes look like what high school kids wear today. One guy in the back had a giant afro, but that’s about the only thing to signify it was a different era.

The camera work on this film was very shoddy in places. There were shaky zoom-ins and zoom-outs, and there were places you can tell a hand-held was used because the camera shakes so much. It was a bit dizzying. I also felt like a pervert during Cindy’s shower sequence because of how the camera just lingered on her naked body as she lathers soap all over it. I don’t know if they were trying to create suspense here, but I felt like a creeper staring at her breasts for three minutes because the camera man couldn’t stop focusing on them. It was an obvious attempt at luring the young adolescent male audience and it was annoying.

You can tell the production values are low because of how poorly edited and retouched it was. Some of the dialogue was hard to hear from one person but completely fine from another – things like that can be touched up after filming has wrapped. They sell programs for it that can be installed on your home computer. Same with edits – there were a lot of cut-to-black spaces. I know college students who could put together a better film than this.

The one thing this film does have going for it – aside from the interesting premise – is the actual death sequences. I think most of the budget must have gone to the special effects because they were awesome. The deaths themselves were way too quick to have me scared at all, but the killer mutilated a few of the bodies afterward – some of which was cringe-worthy, even though the victim is dead. The intestines looked real and there was a lot of gore. I was pissed some of the more deserving characters were killed off-screen. I really wanted to see the cliché jock bite it.

Overall:

This film had no suspense whatsoever and very bland and unlikable characters. It’s very poorly written and acted. The only good thing about it is the special effects, but they do not make this worth watching. I’d recommend you skip this one.

3.5/10