Truly horrible movie. If your the type that likes empty suspense movies then this is for you. The plot has no food for thought at any level. Im not saying serious food for thought, just the basic "i wonder" thought provocation. It has frustrating moments of "why did she/he do that", "how did that happen", "this makes no sense." I found myself reapeatedly asking those questions throughout the movie.
good luck if you attempt to watch this.
The script and acting was hilarious lol.
share
True, just saw this movie yesterday and it sucked big times!
"favor gonna kill you faster than a bullet."
downloaded it, watched 2 mins and deleted it.
shareThanks for talking smack and stealing my intellectual property.
Jerk.
[deleted]
...seriously?
exoticdoll, you've got to be joking... please for the love of god, tell me you're joking
yeah, I didn't think that movie was that bad. I mean, I hate slasher films with a gun...so civilized, but I thought it was great. I think its 1,000% better than a lot of the studio "horror" garbage. I mean, it looked like an independent film and the opening scene was pretty bad, but I thought the rest of the movie was good.
I love seeing all of the posts like "lame, cookie cutter characters." Well, uhh...this is a slasher/hostage film? I'm sorry...go watch Memento if you want character development. This movie promised some gore and a crazy hitchhiker, and it gave us that.
I don't get how people can claim they love exploitation movies or grindhouse cinema and then declare this movie the worst film of all time. That doesn't make you the cool kid who must be an expert on film because you only like swedish exploitation films.
[deleted]
One can see why you'd prefer the poster rented or bought the dvd to view those 2 minutes, but as long as he didn't share it or sell it and used it only for critical, educational and/or satirical purposes, he's pretty well within the bounds of current US copyright law. Since he didn't view the work for entertainment, and didn't make copies for himself or anyone else, you have little basis to accuse the brother of theft.
shareUm.....no!
U.S. Copyright law does not allow you to freely copy or download copy-written material for free as long as you don't sell it.
Any download of any feature film that is not in the public domain or released under a creative commons type release, is illegal.
Sorry to rain on the hippy parade, but if we don't find a way to stop illegal downloading all we are going to be left with is a handful of studio movies that make it into theaters. That's it. Independent film as we know it will end.
Hate to sound like a party pooper, but anyone in the entertainment industry would agree with me.
I am in the entertainment industry, and I already disagreed with you. Please cite the section of law that forbids him to download your "intellectual" property then delete it without viewing it.
shareDo your own google search. There are tons of references. Simply put, the creator of any work is the owner of it. I, as the owner, choose to rent or sell my work to others. There is a part of the law called the "first sale doctrine" that has been amended to include movies, software, and music that states that someone who purchases a copy of copy-written material does not have the right to give away or sell that work. So, by buying a DVD, you do not now own the copyright. You are not free to distribute it for sale or for free.
Please site where your bizarre logic comes from. Can you walk into Wal-Mart, take a shirt without paying for it, wear the shirt then claim that since you didn't resell the shirt or that you threw it away after wearing it once, it's okay? I think not.
[deleted]
So credit card companies and banks should close up too because of fraud? Why not just enforce the law? Why not teach our kids to respect others? That seems like a better formula for a good society than letting illegal activity shut you down!
shareDoes anyone really enjoy this depraved crap?
God damn I hate movies like this!
[deleted]
[deleted]
Do your own google search. There are tons of references.
Simply put, the creator of any work is the owner of it. I, as the owner, choose to rent or sell my work to others.
There is a part of the law called the "first sale doctrine" that has been amended to include movies, software, and music that states that someone who purchases a copy of copy-written material does not have the right to give away or sell that work. So, by buying a DVD, you do not now own the copyright. You are not free to distribute it for sale or for free.
Please site where your bizarre logic comes from.
Can you walk into Wal-Mart, take a shirt without paying for it, wear the shirt then claim that since you didn't resell the shirt or that you threw it away after wearing it once, it's okay? I think not.
Just real quick. Explain to me, and this is open to anybody, what makes a movie different from any other product? Why is watching a movie, in your mind, different from wearing a shirt?
A movie is made for a purpose. To make money. Someone puts the money into making it with the hope that selling said movie will make a profit. People are hired to perform work and make a product.
Movies are just like shoes, hats, shirts, etc. You wouldn't think it's ok to steal food from Taco Bell would you? I mean, like a movie, that is a single consumption product.
I think your confusion lies in the fact that technology has made it easy to steal movies and music. But just because it is easy and accessible, doesn't make it right.
And no. I am the not the accuser. The RIAA and MPAA have sued several people and won over this matter. It is the defenders of illegal downloads who must prove their point.
And by saying bizarre logic, I'm trying to be friendly and not say that your position is 100% illogical, which, of course, I think it is. And FYI I studied both critical thinking and film at USC.
I for once agree. Piracy is wrong.
I now and again may download a song or two on a P2P programs, but, that is ONLY if I can't find them in stores. Films, on the other hand, are easily accessible, and I would just as soon buy one that download it and risk viruses, corruption, etc.
Also, if the indie film industry died, I would go down with it. I love independent films!
Congratulations on your academic credentials. To my knowledge, the RIAA lawsuits have all gone after folks for egregious uploading while the MPAA has concentrated its efforts on servers that facilitate uploads. I'm unfamiliar with a single lawsuit against an individual for merely downloading. Moreover, being sued in a civil matter, even successfully, does not make a person a criminal.
Having said that, tell you what, I'll cede you the entire moral highground on the copyright issue. Illegal distribution bad bad bad. Sinful? Despicable? Evil? Sure, why not.
Nonetheless: one must break the law to be a criminal -- and the poster you accused of being a criminal has not done so. You owe him an apology.
(To answer your second question: I'm wearing a shirt now & not watching a movie now.)
Your critical thinking skills may be top notch, but your legal skills need some work.
The terminology discussed here is illegal downloading. Not illegal uploading and legal downloading. If something is "illegal" that means it breaks the law.
The uploading, downloading, duplicating, selling etc. of movies when you are not the copyright holder is against the law. To do so is breaking the law. You can try and push for a terminology change if you like (i.e. calling illegal immigrants "new comers" or "undocumented")but that is not going to change the simple facts.
Rental chains either purchase the films from the producers with the right to rent them or they split the revenue with the producers. Sell through markets purchase DVDs and then sell them for a profit. Television and cable companies license the movies and then sell ad space. P2P sites and people who download movies steal content. Period.
The Spielberg WAR OF THE WORLDS has been downloaded almost 780,000 times from illegal peer to peer sites. Now, I fully understand that not every downloader made the decision to steal it rather than buy it, and that many people would never buy the film, but downloaded it because it was free. Even if only 10% of those people stole it and would have bought it, that cost the studio at least a half a million dollars in lost revenue. And that's a conservative number.
So, no apologies. Downloading movies is against the law. To do so makes you a criminal.
[deleted]
Everybody breaks the law and I'm assuming that includes you also Leigh, unless you're super-human. So what if downloading is illegal? This law is nearly impossible to enforce. You probably would be doing it yourself if you weren't a part of the people suffering from it.
I will say though that I only download what I can't find in stores. As a matter of fact, I buy atleast four CDs a week so it's not like I'm cheap or anything. Alec Baldwin has even admitted to downloading films and he's an actor himself.
"An apple a day keeps the jewish man away" -leigh scott on why health is important to him
Where do these bizarre quotes on the bottom of your posts come from?
Sure, I break the law. I speed. I smoke a little wacky tabacky from time to time. That's not my point.
The point is, most people don't blatantly steal. So, I just want people to associate downloading with stealing instead of assuming it's something else.
"The IMDB message boards are posted on by monkeys with slightly advanced intelligence."-So Many Bingos LOL on himself and other IMDB posters.
[deleted]
The reason most people don't steal is because it's not very easy to get away with. Otherwise, people would do it all the time. I'm not above it, I probably would too. It's not morals that prevents a person from going to their local Walmart and sticking a CD in their pocket, it's fear of the consequences.
The reason downloading is looked at differently is because it's pretty rare that somebody will get caught and end up in big trouble for downloading a movie.
I'm not saying whether that is right or wrong but it's something that you're going to have to accept as a director.
If I had the chance to put some of my work out of the public, I would be thankful that people would even take the time out of their lives to watch it... even if they did download it from the internet.
Nice sig btw.
"Everytime I direct a straight to video release, Alice Cooper finds a lucky penny." - Leigh Slawner trying to defend Hanson's music
I think the issue is whether or not significant harm comes from illegal downloads.
Perhaps it's viewed as a victimless crime; that the people who make movies are getting rich anyways, so who cares. This could be an excellent opportunity as an indie filmmaker, to elaborate on why this is not the case. Granted the law is the law, but the cornerstone of civil litigation is the prima facie element of damages; how you were damaged/hurt by the defendant's actions.
I'm not taking any sides here, I'm just saying if we're going to have an open and honest discussion about why video piracy shouldn't be tolerated, we need to talk about how it specifically hurts smaller filmmakers (Like yourself).
Thoughts?
Matt/David
Hahaha this thread has run off in a different direction :) But to add and futhermore to conclude this train of thought and some erroneous assumptions made, I will give you this. There is no law stating that uploading or downloading pirated works is in any way illegal. You can read up on this if you want on the Internet. There are various sites which are dedicated to case studies on this matter. I don't support pirated works! But if you guys want to be technical about if the poster was wrong or right? The act of downloading the movie is not illegal. Apart from that there is no legislature about it, the NetAct states that the nature of downloading a file is too ambiguous. There is no means of determining what is downloaded, since filenames can be altered to conceal there content. Futhermore it cannot be determined if the download is human or machine, search and download bots have come along way. Having a copyrighted movie which has been pirated in your possesion IS illegal. And that is where it gets tricky.You MAY download but you MAY NOT posses. So to that extent the poster did commit a crime. But as the other poster stated, there are little to none civil cases concerning this. Sad to say everyone has pirated music or movies on their pc at one time. And the real legal targets are indeed the facillitators. Again i'm against the whole piracy thing. If you want to download a movie so badly you can for just 5$ download a legal divx movie at various sites. Or god forbid go to the cinema ;) Support the crew who made the film by contributing (even though we're making their pockets ridiculously fat) Regardless, a lot of work goes into making a movie, months upon months to years of production/editting/filming time.
And on a side note. The Hitchhiker.. not as wel worked out as I had hoped. Entertaining nonetheless for a slasher film. But it could have been more. The whole masochistic nature of the hitchiker was never explained for instance.
[deleted]
DL,
I do respect your opinion that you feel your work is being stolen. I also agree the laws are not clear cut on downloading of videos.
I think the biggest point not mentioned here is that Hollywood is missing what many consumers want -- The option of watching new releases at home from Day 1. Most of the people I know now have large screen LCD/Plasma 16:9 TVs with sound systems that will give movie theaters a run for their money. Movie theaters seems to be for tweens these days and we are bombarded with commcericals, rude people on cell phones, constant talking, sticky floors, etc. The whole movie going experience is not what it used to be.
If Hollywood was smart, they would come up with legal ways for people to purcahse movies online or even create some ONE PLAY DVD for new releases.
The problem is that Hollywood fights the new technologies. They were against the VHS/BETA Machines and fought hard against them until they realized they could make money renting movies. Now it is just aboutt creating as many formats as possible. A person bought a movie originally on Betamax then had to purchase it on VHS. They then purchased it on DVD. Now, do they buy the BluRay of the HD-DVD version? Oh wait, the directors cut is now out in every format. A year later the extended cut it out.
It is my opinion that Hollywood is killing themselves with extensive greed, subpar and unoriginal movies, and trying to sell the same product over and over.
Hollyood needs to adopt new technologies and utilize them. You can never stop movie piracy. Even if downloading a movie really is illegal in the U.S. then tell me about other countries?
I know Netflix now allows streaming movie rentals which I think is good but the better solution is to start allowing people to legally obtain first run movies for a reasonable price. Dont fight the technology. Find a way to profit from it. The MPAA can continue to sue and put pressure on groups releasing movies but there are always 2 people for each one arrested willing to take their place.
Why fight a losing battle? Why not use the technology to your advantage?
Dean
DirectorLeigh, greetings from the future where movie piracy (whether for financial gain or not) is indeed illegal. Anyway, thought you would like to know I recently bought this movie on DVD! Not exactly my kind of movie, but found it gripping and absorbing. (I am a big Sarah Lieving fan and wanted to see her in a different role from the action movies and I thought she was great).
I wanted to tell you I found it amazingly refreshing to see you actually respond to comments on the IMDb message board for your movie! I was amazed to see your comments and I admire your courage and fortitude in enduring the barrage of negativity and obstinance in the interest of defending/explaining your craft, as well as offering insights into the film-making business at large. All the best to you and I will be looking for more of your work.
Typical IMDb comment: I loved this movie and if you didn't you're an idiot!
There is no argument to support that illegal downloads are legal.
However, the difference between a shirt and a movie is that the former is a material good, while the latter is an intellectual service. In both cases, the consumer is protected by laws assuring a reasonable quality of goods or service. You can't just sell junk *beep* and expect to get away with it (though many do). Determining the value of quality is much more difficult to establish for intellectual services meant to entertain as the standards are highly subjective. However, there is no justification for stealing an item to find out if it's any good. Yet this is a predominant attitude among downloaders as it is generally felt that consumer protection for intellectual properties are substandard - that is, why pay to be entertained when more often than not the material is not entertaining? Once bitten, twice shy. Generally, the law favours the producers, but the market forces favour the consumers. If word of mouth concerning a movie is favourable, many consumers will purchase a dvd - if word of mouth is unfavourable the consumer would rather download it than purchase it.
Whoever distributed the movie for him to download is in violation of copyright law even if it is distributed freely - profit is not a factor.
I doubt very much whether the downloader could be legitimately prosecuted as he has deleted his copy. If he was apprehended with it in his possession it would be a different story. Of course, in a criminal investigation, police could seize his hard drive and attempt to recover the data. But he could provide a defense which would give reasonable doubt. Ie - "I thought I downloaded a legitimate program, but after 2 minutes of viewing I realized it was pirated material, therefore I deleted it."
One has to prove not just distribution or possession, but also criminal intent.
Also, most movie theatres have a policy to refund your admission if you walk out on a bad movie within the first 30 minutes. Intellectual property is difficult to refund, but if it is devoid of "entertainment" value the consumer is entitled to some level of consumer protection. Otherwise, producers would have free license to manufacture any crap and charge a non-refundable admission just to find out what it is.
I stopped watching after the first 41 minutes as the women were too stupid to kill the bastard hitchhiker when they had the chance. Which meant an obligatory half hour of meaningless chase scenes where the women would be bumped off one by one until the last woman who would obviously be the married brunette protagonist would dispatch the killer - HO HUM! This reminded me a little bit of Tarantino's Deathproof, or the Rutger Hauer hitchhiking flick from the 80's, but far less original and entertaining; therefore I didn't want to waste another 45 minutes to see how it turned out as none of the characters involved me in the plot. I couldn't care less if they all died as this movie was devoid of character development.
share