CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
5.5/10
2.6 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
Agrega una trama en tu idiomaA screenwriter, who lives in a cabin by the lake near Los Angeles, drowns young women, then goes back to visit their bodies and do their laundry.A screenwriter, who lives in a cabin by the lake near Los Angeles, drowns young women, then goes back to visit their bodies and do their laundry.A screenwriter, who lives in a cabin by the lake near Los Angeles, drowns young women, then goes back to visit their bodies and do their laundry.
Katrina Matthews
- Blonde at Theater
- (as Katrina Mathews)
- Dirección
- Guionista
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
I have seen this movie many times and enjoy it every time. The sequel is not too bad either but the first one is definitely better. I thought the plot was very good. It was much better than someone getting their head chopped off every 5 minutes. I especially loved the music, it is as creepy as the movie. Definitely my kind of movie and my kind of music. I thought the underwater scenes very good, pretty realistic. It wasn't until i watched it again recently that I realized the actor that played the deputy was on the current TV show Navy NCIS and what a cutie he is. I have always loved Judd Nelson and he can play the crazy guy with the best.
One of the better made for tv movies I've ever seen. Nelson gives a nice creepy performance. I found the story very interesting and different and the visuals were enough to make me squirm. I'm sure there are some who will complain about the very end of the film, but personally I like that sort of thing.:) I would have liked to have seen a few more of his "garden" getting collected, but with all the commercials they have to put in I know their time is limited. Since this is on tv, I think it is well worth the time to stop and watch. And I hope it comes to video, because I would like to add it to my collection.
In my opinion, most movies of this sort sink or swim (pardon the pun) based on the villain, and everyone else kind of falls to the wayside. This one swam. This villain was bad (as he should be), yes, but what I liked about Stan is that he really enjoyed his work, and I can somewhat relate to him as I have been dabbling with screenwriting myself. Judd Nelson played him just right, really giving the impression of a regular guy just trying to do his job.
Some other reviewers have questioned the genre classification of this film, and I'd just like to throw in my two cents. I looked up the individual who wrote this film, and he was a guy who had been in Hollywood for a while, so I'm thinking given the whole subplot with Stan's agent and the director, that this may be a dark (VERY dark) satire of Hollywood and the people who try to make a living in that town, much like "Swimming With Sharks", another fine film.
Some other reviewers complained about a lack of explanation as to why Stan does what he does, but I am not one of them. I'm sure Stan had a motive that made sense for him, and those last two words are what is key here: FOR HIM. Sure, we'd all like a reason for what he did, but the makers of this film are under absolutely NO OBLIGATION to tell us what it is. Personally, it made me wonder about his motives, and I found that much more refreshing than whatever motivation that might have been revealed. I mentioned that I am dabbling in screenwriting and one of the books I picked up said that as long as the screenwriter knows why his characters do things, that's all that matters. No one else has to know.
Good well-played villain, a darkly humorous look at the Hollywood system, and some wickedly funny moments add up to a worthwhile film.
Some other reviewers have questioned the genre classification of this film, and I'd just like to throw in my two cents. I looked up the individual who wrote this film, and he was a guy who had been in Hollywood for a while, so I'm thinking given the whole subplot with Stan's agent and the director, that this may be a dark (VERY dark) satire of Hollywood and the people who try to make a living in that town, much like "Swimming With Sharks", another fine film.
Some other reviewers complained about a lack of explanation as to why Stan does what he does, but I am not one of them. I'm sure Stan had a motive that made sense for him, and those last two words are what is key here: FOR HIM. Sure, we'd all like a reason for what he did, but the makers of this film are under absolutely NO OBLIGATION to tell us what it is. Personally, it made me wonder about his motives, and I found that much more refreshing than whatever motivation that might have been revealed. I mentioned that I am dabbling in screenwriting and one of the books I picked up said that as long as the screenwriter knows why his characters do things, that's all that matters. No one else has to know.
Good well-played villain, a darkly humorous look at the Hollywood system, and some wickedly funny moments add up to a worthwhile film.
I enjoyed the movie then again i am a sucker for these kind of movies.. in this one Stanley is a, quoted from the sequel, "missunderstood genuis".. But i guess its one of the movies that you have to enjoy the physcological things to get it and to enjoy it.
As for the second one, like most sequels, its not the best.. it seems (and i am watching it as i type this) in return to cabin by the lake, Stanley has lost some of his "vision" and it just more interested it getting revenge on the directors, producers, ect. for butchering his script...
As for the second one, like most sequels, its not the best.. it seems (and i am watching it as i type this) in return to cabin by the lake, Stanley has lost some of his "vision" and it just more interested it getting revenge on the directors, producers, ect. for butchering his script...
I had been wanting to see this movie when I saw it previewed on the USA channel, and when it finally came on,I got to watch it. And, I was surprised! It was a good thriller/horror/comedy film. Although, it wasn't much of a comedy. Judd Nelson (The Breakfast Club) and Hedy Burres (Valentine) were great!!! It was an excellent T.V. movie. I still haven't seen the sequel "Return to Cabin By the Lake". All in all, it was a good film that I give an 8 out of 10. :)
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaFilmed in 32 days.
- ErroresWhen Stanley has Mallory chained by the ankle to the floor in the soundproof room, he tells he has to wash her clothes and asks her to take them off and put them in a plastic bag. She is wearing blue jeans. In the next scene, the jeans are in the bag. How did she get them off? They would still be connected to the chain.
- ConexionesFollowed by La cabaña (2001)
- Bandas sonorasCure
Written by Frankie Blue
Performed by Angela McCluskey & Wild Colonials (as The Wild Colonials)
Courtesy of Studios USA (BMI)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- Países de origen
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- Stugan vid sjön
- Locaciones de filmación
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 31 minutos
- Color
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta