Claustrophobia

Lauren (Melanie Lynskey) is house sitting in a quiet, wealthy neighborhood and decides to throw a slumber party for her officemates. Unfortunately, only two show up: her spunky friend, Gina (Sheeri Rappaport), and the quiet new girl, Grace (Mary Lynn Rajskub). Could the lack of party guests be due to the well-known fact that there is a crossbow-wielding rooftop-loitering serial killer on the loose in the area? Unfortunately, they spend too much time discussing this, and they hear footsteps coming from above.

This film has finally received a DVD release in the US. The title change was changed from the appropriate Claustrophobia to the misleading Serial Slayer. The packaging, which features an evil Vin Diesel lookalike with a crossbow standing by a dark and creepy house, is also misleading. This film is actually an attempted subverison of the slasher genre. The terror is mostly psychological and not the type you would see in an ordinary slasher: the film takes place entirely during the day, there are only a few characters in an enclosed space, the perspective of the killer is never shown, and there is little on-screen violence and gore. Unfortunately, this interesting concept is poorly executed. The film obviously was made in a short period time on little-to-no budget, so it is understandable, but it is hardly an effective thriller.

The main problem with Serial Slayer is the unbelievable plot. A rooftop serial killer who draws his victims out of their homes so he can shoot them with a crossbow is a great premise. Having a slasher film set during the day, so that the killer cannot lurk in the darkness, is also a neat idea. Combining these two concepts does not work, at least in the context that is set up in this story. According to a radio announcement at the beginning of the film, this serial killer has already claimed a handful of victims. So it makes sense that the neighborhood is a little empty, as most people would probably go elsewhere until the killer is caught. However, apparently nobody drives through this neighborhood (including cops, who should probably be patroling the area), because nobody notices a guy on the roof in broad daylight.

But more importantly, why the hell would you have a slumber party in an area where everyone knows there is a killer on the loose? Early-on, there are some funny conversations (I'm assuming this is why it is listed as a "comedy" on IMDb--but this is no horror/comedy!) between the girls about serial killer hysteria and the chances of being a victim, which would be acceptable in any other context, but it just sounds ridiculous here. They also discuss how the past victims were all killed outside of their homes, which apparently brings them a sense of safety...even though none of the windows are locked, these women seem 100% convinced that the murderer is not going to break-in and kill them. There are several laughable instances where the characters try to draw the attention of the neighbors that make absolutely no sense. If you can get past some of these ridiculous premises, then some scenes in this movie could probably be really suspenseful.

The acting in Serial Slayer is unfortunate. All three lead women have proved in the past that they are damn fine actresses. Probably due to lack of time, good direction, and horrible dialogue, their performances here are really low-key and their fear is not at all believable. Some of the interactions between the characters are amusing and you wish the film would become the character piece that it is so obviously striving to be.

Another huge problem with the movie is the ending. After watching the film, I skipped around the director's commentary and was shocked that I completely misinterpreted the ending. Sadly, the way I saw the ending was much more exciting and made much more sense than what the ending actually turned out to be. It isn't meant to be ambiguous and open to interpretation, it is just poorly done.

On a side note, the movie also features a small "comeback" performance by Judith O'Dea (Barbara in the original Night of the Living Dead), but it is nothing to write home about. As I said before, this movie is extremely low-budget (made with hand-held digital video) and I'm sure the cast and crew worked extremely hard to get it done in time, so I hate to rag on it. It has a cool concept and a little bit of suspense, if you can get past the non-sensical behavior of the lead characters. But it is really not a well made film. Rent Slumber Party Massacre instead.

My Rating: 2.5/10

I've seen some bad movies in my life time, but this movie is one of the worst. What surprises me the the most is that it got distributed outside USA. You can clearly see that this movie is made by amateurs, first of all the lighting is really bad, at one point you can't even see the person being film because the sun whites out the camera. The acting is bad, the dialogs are boring, and scenes are drawn out to make the movie longer (at least so it seems) Another thing is the sound effects. the plot in the movie spins around a serial killer going after three girls in a house. Most of the time the killer is on the roof. This results in footsteps on the roof.. But the footsteps sounds SO wrong. It actually sounds like someone walking on dry snow, only there is no snow. There are some good things about the movie though. Sheeri Rappaport who plays Gina actually plays a credible character, and at the end of the movie they manage to make it a bit scary, and for a minute your not sure how it's gonna end.

It's great that new directors get to make movies, and i understand that these guys have a limited supply of money. But distributing this around the world is ripping people off. Luckily i didn't have to pay to see it.

I don't know from where to start: the film is amateurish. The acting is terrible, the plot is poor even the usage of camera is childish. A serial killer using arrows to kill his victims... The making of the film took less than two days, the script took less than three days I think. If it took more then something is wrong with the cast. No I did not like this film at all it's more bad than ''Decoys'' or ''quiet kill''. It is a surprise to me that 61 people voted for it and it has an average rating of 5. I suppose there were some friendly votes. I cannot believe that people actually paid to watch this movie or the ''actors'' got paid to participate.

A crossbow killer terrifies a suburban community, and his latest targets are three co-workers house-sitting for the weekend. Lauren (Melanie Lynskey), the optimist, has invited her department from work, but only two show up: socially awkward Grace (Mary Lynn Rajskub), who's terrified of leaving her house, and outspoken Gina (Sheeri Rappaport), who expected a bigger crowd, and doesn't want to be stuck with these two all weekend. Their unease with each other soon yields to the awful possibility that they might be the serial killer's next victims, as the telltale signs of his modus operandi accumulate. This is a low-budget movie that makes good use of its "claustrophobic" production by turning a few horror conventions on its head. It substitutes bright, unfiltered daylight for night, obscuring the stalker while making his targets vulnerable; they can't escape while their every movement is visible. The women are trapped without electricity, shrouding them with natural indoor lighting and shrinking their environment even further. Ambient sound is kept to a minimum, to make room for the smallest aural clues of the killer's presence. Occasionally it's punctuated by the trampling of the stalker's feet overhead, which seems to mirror their nervous, galloping heartbeats. The three actresses play well off each other, with lots of comic interplay to relieve the tension. Grace seems thrive on nervousness, while Melanie plays the calm at the center of the storm. Sheeri's performance covers the emotional extremes. She projects her feelings of frustration, rage, and despair, and it seems as if it's on behalf of all three. She takes a confrontational approach with everyone, including the killer, and as a result, is able to discover the true face of the terror that hunts them. While "Claustrophobia" uses some of the same imagery of serial killer movies, its approach is lighter and more playful, and manages to avoid resorting to cheap exploitation, without sacrificing the sense of intimacy with the characters necessary to relate to their terrifying experience. Maybe that's because it seems its subtext is empathy: Even as their community remains ignorant of what's happening in broad daylight,the killer seems to understand their every weakness, to prey on them. Meanwhile, the "shooter" on the opposite end, the camera, seems to work against the killer's agenda, trying to avoid taking his point of view, and not allowing the three women to be reduced to mere targets. Because of this approach, we're not so much voyeurs while watching this, but participants. Sheeri Rappaport wrote of her experiences in earlier horror film, "Little Witches", of the difficulty in starring in a movie where the agenda and desires of the producer and the audience can be very different than that of the performer. `Claustrophobia' seems to offer an opportunity for all three points of view to meet on common ground. I recommend this not only as a horror film, but also as a unique take on the genre, and a good opportunity to see these actresses in a different light. Don't forget to turn the sound up!

The script was good, a lot of the photography was good, but the lighting was abysmal. There was no effort to correct the differences in exposure between interior and exterior. The acting was a little mannered. I assume that the movie was shot digitally. The editing was very effective in some sequences and less than good in others. It almost seemed that the editor occasionally got bored and quit trying. If I seem overly critical, let me hasten to add that the movie had more good qualities than bad. However, the bottom line word is "amateurish." It really wasn't worth the hassle of driving to Culver City and shelling out five bucks.