Don't watch this. You'll be begging for those 89 minutes back. This movie is BORING! The plot stinks, its attempt at many twists is just lame, the acting STINKS! The camera is all grainy and lame.
I wouldn't wish this film on my worst enemy.
hey!
i've seen worse,this movie is worth a look!
some of the so called banned films from the 70's were worse than this and they went onto claim cult status and i have a sneaky feeling this will be one of those films that will slot in well with the modern nasties, since the acting/
direction/and general shooting of the film was sloppy.
it has a docu feeling about it and puts me in mind of one of the bundy films??
i truly dont understand your dislike for this movie. i do relize this movie was done on a tight budget but the plot alone was worth the time. this movie contained a rare quality of taking simple people and and having them act in a movie with such a great story line.
shareYes this movie was....well, terrible, but it was so bad that it was comical. Kind of a evil dead(the original) type of bad. Yet another movie that I'll tell all my friends about and have them watch it, but not without telling how bad the film is. So have fun bashing all the movies you just don't understand.
shareCan't honestly say that this falls into the 'so bad it's good' category, more into the 'so bad you'll want to find every person involved in its making and kill them to prevent them from ever inflicting anything this bad on an unsuspecting public again' category.
Note to film makers: if you're going to have this much voice over in your movie, pick an actor who DOESN'T have a droning voice and write something interesting for him to say.
The title of this thread is spot on but missing about forty 'BAD's.
I will give the filmmaker two things. The title (which is stolen from a true crime novel) and the idea of a serial killer hunting another serial killer. Other than that, this is a home movie with performances that could be on AFV.
shareI disagree, this movie was entertaining. The picture quility was poor which probably gives the impression it was a bad movie.
I've seen better movies, but this movie in terms of enjoyment holds its own with other movies like it and exceeds them in many categories.
The acting while not amazing, was on par with what was needed to make the movie enjoyable. Although when Dark is eventually unmasked I was left asking myself is that really supposed to be the major killer.
This movie was abit cheesy but the storyline was good. There was just something about it that wasn't all that great but I can't put my finger on it except for the cheesy part.
shareso awful, so very very awful. seriously, probably one of the worst three movies i've ever seen. the plot has more holes than swiss cheese. the acting and cinematography are deplorable.
DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME!!
[deleted]
This has got to be the absolute WORST movie i have ever seen in my life...and trust me i have seen some sundance reject movies....and this, by far, still the worst. I think that anyone who rated this movie more than a 1 needs a CAT scan, cause your brain is NOT working correctly.
share[deleted]
I know one of the "actors" in this movie. Not an actor at all, but he was asked by a friend to contribute to the cause and simply by being the main contributor was labeled as the "executive producer." He was then given a part in the movie - a rather simple part. He is actually a business professional and a LTC in the US Army - having been mobilized for the war on terror (this is where I met Jeff Kipers).
The acting in this is terrible. I believe the whole production cost was half that of the original CLERKS. It is obvious they didn't know when to roll tape or edit mistakes. Frequently the actors are in a scene and you can see they are waiting for the take to begin. The plot was ok, but the whole production could have been more - just needed more money to hire actors, etc.