It was only filmed in 9 days. I'd say it had pretty good camera work and make up for that. Also, they brought in a lot of college students from around the area ct. So, of course the acting wasn't going to be all that great. I still say it did pretty freaking awesome for all of that and it's small budget.
shareYou're right, a lot of the effects were impressive for such a small budget film. That is about all it has going for it, but so what? I couldn't do that in 9 months, let alone 9 days.
"... and now I'm off to some charity B.S for knocked up teenage sluts."
When you stack this movie up against many of the other fare of this type, it's not that bad. You have to take it all in context. Is this a classic? No. Is it by far the worst, done-on-the-cheap, indie film I've ever seen? Not by a long shot.
All in all, I thought it wasn't horrible or unwatchable like others I've seen (and there are loads of those). I've also watched a movie or two with much bigger budgets who may have had a cast of somewhat known performers, but weren't as good.
It's easy to pick this project apart and tear it down on numerous levels. I'm the first person to point out flaws and although this one had it's fair share, I actually enjoyed it. Can I defend it on this alone? No, I'm probably in the minority, but I can live with that... After all, I've watched a movie or two by Uwe Boll.
"After all, I've watched a movie or two by Uwe Boll."
You're so brave.
No, you are wrong, you do not have to take it in context on IMDB, since it is not a genre site. You have to rate it against the "Night of the Living Dead"'s as well as the "Guardians of the Galaxy"'s.
You would be right, if this was a site about low budget genre movies. THEN you can rate it in context.
Sure you should give kudos where it is due, but this is not the movie to fight that battle.