Super Hot

In the realm of low budget comedy horrors, this one is slightly above average. It's watchable, the writing wasn't lazy. The acting was fine. I'd say it par is 5, it's just a little better.

Because they only listed it in the "view all reviews" instead of actually posting it...

I'm going 4 stars on this one... ( Amazon only goes to 5 )

This is clearly a B-rate / indie flick, but that said, this movie has a LOT of really good stuff going for it...

Camera work / Audio / Lighting - easily above par for indie... and actually pretty good Acting - WAY above par ( yes, some of it was cheesy, but I'm 99% sure it was intentionally cheesy... and funny... ) SFX - a little limited, but again, what they did I thought looked really good.

Plot - not really a whole lot new going on here, but it was done differently enough ( and even had a little mini-twist at the end I did not see coming ) that it easily held my attention for the duration...

Bottom line... I thought this movie was a lot of fun. It has some pretty solid quasi-dead-pan style humor, with a little bit of slapstick too... I didn't recognize any of the actors, but between how much they must have practiced, and how well the dialogue was written, they could have fooled me... I honestly don't even feel I'm being generous with giving this 4 stars ( which I sometimes do for indie flicks... ). Pretty solid recommend from me for anyone who enjoys the mix of comedy/horror... Will likely watch it again at some point in the future...

My ranking style - 1 - this movie should never have been made... I probably couldn't even finish it... 2 - this movie was bad, but I made it through to the end... can't recommend.

3 - this movie was ok... I don't feel bad watching it... will probably not watch again.

4 - this movie was solid and did a lot of things right... will very likely watch again.

5 - I need to call my friends right now...

( feel free to read my other reviews... I review a LOT of movies... )

I always laugh at reviews that give 1 star and then talk about amateur actors, directors etc. These reviews are obviously not from people who ever tried to create much, let alone a film. This piece has much more going for it than against it. Consider "Slacker" with a horror twist. I thought the casting was superb and the setting frightening, suburbia at it's worst. The writing fit perfetly into the plot premise and lifestyle of the characters. I'm so happy to find gems like this being released on mainstream sites. I'll look for all involved in future endevours.

I watched this after having read nothing but negative reviews, so my expectations were low, but: for a relentlessly low-budget film, carried almost entirely by the inspired performance of lead Kandace Kale (an actor with no apparent internet presence besides this single IMDb credit, a Backstage profile, and- barring a case of mistaken identity- possibly a felony arrest on a California police blotter) this was a refreshingly well-crafted movie.

It starts slow. It ends slow. It suffers from Ready Player One syndrome- it's purportedly about teenagers, but teenagers exclusively interested in the cultural output of (approximately) the mid-1970s to mid-1990s. It seems to be crafted largely around sustaining a cast that is mostly attractive young women, a cast which it frustratingly refuses to exploit gratuitously. The plot itself seems like a bit of an oversight. But it's got a steady, enjoyable rhythm that suits its comedic tone well, and the moments that fall flat are outweighed by those that settle into a satisfying, low-key groove.

This movie isn't bad, but it has a few issues. There's a lot of scenes of characters just talking, or jamming along to music while driving in a car. The scenes are shot well, and the dialogue is fine, but some of the driving scenes feel like padding for run time, and to save on budget. Sure, the background in a moving vehicle is slightly more interesting than characters just sitting in a room exchanging dialogue, but it's hard to ignore the fact that these scenes likely exist for the reasons mentioned.

This movie also some of the worst sound effects I've ever heard in a movie. It's perplexing how a few of these sound effects made it into the final cut, considering the quality of the rest of the film. Firearms have all the audible punch of a cap gun, and grenade explosions are even more lacklustre. The rest of the production is competent, from acting, writing, locations, cinematography, and even the other aspects of sound design, but the firearm and grenade sound effects are noticeably poor.

Also, there's one issue with the movie that made me remove one point from my rating. Near the end of the film, a shotgun appears in a characters hands after a cut, it's fired once, and then disappears in the next scene. It's a pivotal moment in the film, and it has an impact on the plot, so I'd consider this a plot hole, and not just a continuity error. The character clearly doesn't have a shotgun, and the weapon they're holding is ineffective. Then there's a cut, and suddenly they have a shotgun, and their original weapon is gone. Cut to the next scene and the ineffective weapon is back in the characters hands, and the shotgun has disappeared. It's a jarring and obvious mistake in an otherwise competent movie, and it can't really be ignored.

Otherwise, it's an alright movie. I've seen better, and I've seen worse. If you're a fan of the horror/comedy genre, you may find the movie worth watching. Though, be aware the movie is light on both the horror and comedy elements. It's competently made on what I suspect was a limited budget, but that didn't stop the people behind the production from making an alright movie. It won't become a classic, or even a cult classic, but it's not nearly bad enough to fall into the "so bad it's good" category either.